1 10 67 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a49b6346ce38bd61614636d47f893488.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=aPfkCryB9eHkjQikYxtEtDI6-a15cBAg-eYcDgtDKyBMshS-7bDqJVaD%7Ep1%7EZ2mmqtEpIXbO8E6bkPV9Pj56qmnkL-lZkcC39OTwKj-Bk7A3B4k33OEKZGFhFa4%7EH14Ph-2UeUx3h2UDcu%7ErIKY%7EX4xwng2JG2G9GDa8F7KD5jKIhM-sHw%7EAWTd7uaIUPVJagtYeUZ2RwLGeyeM%7E3nHdOXdr8g3gx6akN7QrDszmSlrwx%7EHJ3N31A-jKriLl0XYKMqN1NcBbpkO6HS%7Ea-2cXWH0DbEtLEKjm9vFnN-ARx9qfb5Tp-07Tpyt5cEG7JzvnLEJcB1I8AvSIUoQIBf%7EEhA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 596d6778bbb920735856259273e8c31d PDF Text Text i66 CHRISTIANITY AGAIN CONSIDERED. no earthly law smites him, he still is sinning against God, inflicts injury on himself. For he that breaks a law of God, whether it be a material one—in the physical globe or his own body ; or a spiritual one, in his own soul, or in society, inflicts damage on his own being; while he who works righteousness by living in obedience to the law of God, is the better man for it, in himself, alike in time and eternity. If there be any reader who rejects these statements, I can only answer in the words of another, “We believe that con­ science exists, just as fully as that we believe all men have bones, and as it seems to us for the same reasons. Why is that to be struck out of the list of evidence, any more than any physical testi­ mony whatsoever ? Surely a more powerful item of evidence, not only as to the personality of the First Cause, but as to the character of that personality, could hardly be conceived.”(/) (a) History of Latin Christianity, vol. ii., p. 253. Second edition. (b) Church of England Prayer Book, Article 9: Confession of Faith, chap. vi. 6. (c) Works, vol. iii., p. igg. (d) R. H. Hutton. (e) Duration of Future Punishment, by the Rev. George Rogers, p. 4, (/) The Spectator. &gain (EonstWlc HRISTIANITY” is the title of a new book, by M. D. Conway, M.A., and it is issued by Trubner & Co., of London. It is a small but striking book. Indeed whatever comes from the pen of Mr. Conway is always worth perusal. He has a knack of hitting his opponents straight from the shoulder, of calling a spade a spade, of denouncing superstition in unmeasured terms. As a preacher Mr. Conway prefers an “ unfettered pulpit,” from which he can fearlessly expose the errors and hypocrisy of the popular creed. We wish there were more unfettered pulpits in the world, occupied by men of culture and zeal, and “ no longer bribed by the social or pecuniary endowments of an established creed.” The book before us should be in the hands of every one who wishes to be acquainted with the numerous phases through which Christianity has passed, and we can confidently say that its perusal will afford both pleasure and profit. Mr. Conway considers Christianity under six aspects : its morning state, its dawn, its day, its decline, its afterglow, and its mosrow, and each of these divisions receives masterly treatment. There are several allusions to English Unitarianism, and the Unitarian Association comes in for a share of the Author's criticism. We think, however, that Mr. Conway’s strictures on what he terms the “ professed liberality ” of the Association are somewhat strong. No Association can exist without obe­ dience to certain laws, and the “ fundamental law” which appears to be so obnoxious to Mr. Conway is not, in our opinion, such an obnoxious one as he would make it appear. Personally, we should like to see an independent Association formed, which should e �ANDREW AYLMER: A SKETCH. 167 include all Theists, whether Jews, Unitarians, Brahmins, or Rationalists, in fact all who worship a supreme Governor of the Universe, and wish to assist the extension of a Universal Brotherhood of Man. But reforms whether social or religious are not carried in a day, so we must be content to plod patiently alsng that road which leads to the goal we are all aiming at, and we doubt not it will be reached e’er many years more have been added to the world’s age. There are many-paragraphs having especial reference to the Unitarian faith which we should like to quote, but our space forbids. We cannot however conclude this brief notice without giving one or two extracts. On page 89, Mr. Conway writes : “ Where is the author of our time who defends the wild notion of an eternal punishment—a punishment without end, and consequently without purpose—inflicted on millions for a sin they did not commit, and who have not even determined their own existence!” On page 124 he says:—“ The English Unitarians have an honorable history, and no page of it is brighter than the last; but they can retain what they have wn only by following up their advance.” Mr. Conway brings his book to a conclusion as follows :—“ The highest religion of to-day is to look and labour for a nobler day. Nor can I think that new day so distant. For this matter the world of men means mainly all those who think. The thinkers of the world are but thinly divided by veils of language and tricks of expression ; speedily wii^, they pierce these and discover that round the world hearts beat with one moral blood, and eyes see by one and the same sunlight. And as thought moves so will the most motionless masses gravitate; and every sect in the world be subtly consumed through and through by that popular disgust of bigotry and hyprocrisy, which will emanate from the fairly awakened con­ science and intellect of humanity.” winter: & CHAPTER IV.--- A WORD CONCERNING WILL, AND AYLMER’S INFLUENCE. ACHEL AYLMER, soon after Andrew left home to attend Mr. Cuthberton’s class at the Institute, dressed herself for going out to pay a visit to her brother, Benjamin Harton, who lived in the village of Ronesburn. As he worked the same “ place ” with Andrew in the Scottingley mine, she was anxious lest the persecu­ tion towards her son had been extended to her brother as well. And then she wanted a talk with him about the whole matter. Long had she and Joshua chatted over it, but the thing had not come out any clearer to their minds. As she stood by her hearth­ bound husband, to bid him good-bye for her two-hour visit, she saw the newspaper was by his side, unused, and she had to touch his shoulder ere he lifted his eyes from the fire. Responsive to her touch, he said,— “ Dinna be lang, wife, for I’m nae owre canny the night. Dis B �thoo think the laddie troubles aboot his loss o’ wark ? ” “ Hinny, An’rew winna let his troubles clood his brow. Let’s hope he dis’na feel them mair than he shows.” “ Aye, as Ben said once, ‘ he tabs things philosophically.’ ” “ Aboot that, I dinna kna,” replied Rachel, thoughtfully, “but sure, as the boy says in one o’ his ain varses, * 1 The dew o’ heaven is in his heart,’ an’ he’ll mak’ the best o’t, safe enough.” The old man was comforted, the cloud passed from his face, the newspaper was resumed, and Rachel wended her way in the direction of Ronesburn. Approaching Scottingley, which stands between the cottage and her destination, she saw a larger crowd of men than usual at the corner of the road leading towards the colliery. This would not have taken her attention, but, as she came opposite to them, one, whom she did not recognise in the twilight, left the crowd, and, as he neared her, said, “ Mrs. Aylmer, I want a word wi’ ye.” “ Is’t Will Bardoyle ? Hoo is’t there’s sae mony oot ? Hae they shut up the public-hoose ? It’s nae a dog-race being made up or thoo wouldna’ be in’t.” “Nay, Mrs. Aylmer, we’ve been having a long talk about Andrew, and I want to see him for the men ; but I suppose he’ll not be at home for some time, as it is class night.” “ He’ll no be hame till late, as he’s cornin’ roond for me frae brother’s after class, but when thoo’s dune here thoo canst find the way to Ben’s.” In spite of her concern on Andrew’s account, she could not help smiling as she said this, for there were a pair of bright eyes at Ben’s which drew him there, and not against his will. “ I don’t know if I dare call in to-night,” said Will, in reply, “ for I have been offered the situation of overman, and I want to see Andrew first. Ben has’na been out with us, or he would have known and agreed with what I propose to do, so I’ll just meet Andrew, and maybe call in with him.” With a quiet “ good-night ” she passed on toward Ronesburn, and Will joined the men, who were still talking in clusters. The men had talked with each other that evening of many things__ of the franchise, of improvements connected with their work and their houses, and especially of the treatment Aylmer had been subjected to; and of these things Will Bardoyle’s mind was full, as some time after he took the road to Cuthberton, with a view to meet Andrew. Not meeting him, however, and learning that he had taken the river-path leading to the Hall, he continued his walk along the highway, passed Mr.' Pembroke’s villa, and chatted with the old lodge-keeper until Andrew came out. Will was some years older than Andrew, but Will could not have reverenced him more nad he been as aged as he counted him worthy. Indeed, Andrew had been tne making of Will, for when he was Aylmer’s present age he was a rough character truly, taking � 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 &amp; 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 Christianity again considered Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [s.l.] Collation: 166-167 p. ; 22 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. A review, by an unknown reviewer, of Moncure Conway's work 'Christianity' from 'Free World' February,1877. 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 [1877] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5612 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource [Unknown] Subject The topic of the resource Book reviews 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 (Christianity again considered), 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 Book Reviews Christianity Conway Tracts Moncure Conway https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ff94ae82cfa93bc62cb6231f5266c5b7.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=vXsfNoJOh-jtCxn7pZMGUQU3stHUScgVVFzeFNFHH0NzVhY10xU6yV0WOWX6wAA9KerRFXbjV54EoqO3mN80xsMhwxmv61joHHWlQ3vt1rdNVyoO1vmnYaeOkT3D61bqdu5mjoKkfE2jZSvPmHVGhShtJWeyJUCHjryEA1FKOUlKaoLmzowA01I0o22SwNOfqxzg89XWxhDqVQg90EuUgwGnMLJPiqfcgNkm2UVd8BOj-WDF%7Esy3FK2O6UNmRjSDsNwWWMAhzptDqMNJ32EuB6nVvumuA6FK1mSPXdN7Lxsq9qPX3ohXLCz5JtlcOYkjABxDHfoRA1R3kf7qy3xG2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 28987daa3c73222b47ee2ec0cd3870ce PDF Text Text hj STA­ NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE SABBATH, BY HORATIO PRATER, Esq. “ Religious insincerity—commonly called cant—is one of our special vices.”—Cox’s Sabbath Laws, $c., p. 214. Les Maws, qui regnent aussi imperieusement que les lois.” Montesquieu. Although faith and hope abide in the human mind, yet greater than these is charity—and greater far than this favourite sentiment of the Apostle, is justice.”—E. P. Hurlbut, Coun­ sellor at Law, New York, Of Constitutional Limitations, p. 26. “ Thou shalt not entertain, much less enforce any religious dogmas, which divide mankind into distinct classes, and create animosities between them.”—Lewis Gompertz, Esq., Tract, War Considered. LONDON: J. CI.AYTON AND SON, 223, PICCADILLY ; HOLYOAKE AND CO., 147. fleet street; truelove, 240, strand, TEMPLE BAR ; FARRER, 21, JOHN STREET, FITZROY SQUARE. 1856. �iv ADVERTISEMENT. by many first rate authors. I have consequently endeavoured to show what this change should be, and thus attempted also the work of reconstruc­ tion ; hereby endeavouring to make my book conservative. T beg the evangelical reader, there­ fore, to turn towards the close of Letter IV., to see what these propositions are, when fatigued or annoyed, he asks, “ What have you put in its place ?" I have referred once or twice to my Historical Sketches of some of the Roman Emperors, but this Essay is at present in M.S.; nor is it neces­ sary to read the passages referred to in this M.S. Essay, in order to understand any part of the present work. They are merely facts or de­ tails on which my opinions rest. In conclusion, I feel that in this publication, I address only the few; but shall, like the eloquent Beccaria, consider myself fortunate, if I obtain even their secret thanks. “ Me fortunato, si potro ottenere, com’esso(Montesquieu),i segretiringraziamenti degli oscuri et pacifici seguaci della ragione I” (Dei Delitti, Sect If 22, Beaumont Street, Marylebone, Nov., th, 1855. �TO THE MEMORY OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN, THE LAST OF THE ROMAN EMPERORS, WHO RESTORED THE POETICAL AND SO HIGHLY TOLERANT PAGAN RELIGION : THIS WORK HUMBLY RECOGNIZING THE SUPERIORITY OF THIS WORSHIP, —ALL NATURE PERSONIFIED— BOTH FOR ITS TRUTH AS WELL AS FOR ITS BEAUTY OVER EVERY OTHER RELIGION THAT HAS EVER YET IS EXISTED, INSCRIBED. �il �ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. LEITER I. As English divines and laymen have now for some years written in favour of the Sabbath being not of divine in­ stitution, and as Puritanical Christianity is the estab­ lished religion of Great Britain, the American people are addressed on the subject. Quotations from Mr. Hurlbut’s work, showing, as he says, the “ infant state of religious freedom in the cradle of libertv.” . Should a Republic enforce natural religion as the paid re­ ligion of the State, or not? answered in the affirmative. Hunbut on the Sabbath in the United States, with the author's remarks.—Pages 1 to 16. LETTER n. Christianity not a useful creed.—Reasons.—1st.—The great uncertainty as to its real meaning. 2ndly.—Christianity enslaves the immortal mind ; since its mode of “ purifying the thoughts,” is on every point to set up faith before reason. 3rdly.—The scriptures may induce savages to murder inno­ cent people, while such positive commands as—u Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” remain in them. Mis­ sionary labours of Christians, therefore, deprecated, particularly among ignorant nations, and Theism com­ bined with physical science, preferred as a means of civilization. 4thly.—~The belief in Christianity, existing as it does in the United States, under the most favourable circum­ stances, is not conducive to human happiness. �vili contents. Sthlv.—Reasons for considering the Rev. Theodore Parker's liberal view of Unitarianism, not so beneficial to the world, as mere natural Theism. fithly.-—The belief of Christianity is at the bottom of the very strict observance of the' Sabbath in the United States and Britain. This puritanical view is fraught with the practical injustice of allowing debtors to escap'e on the Sabbath—ot preventing the poor man doing that work on a Sunday, which the fatigue or want of time pre­ vents him doing on a week day, and also of avoiding to take measures to suppress syphilis, which being heredi­ tary, causes the innocent to suffer for the guilty. Theism adopted by Penn. The.injustice to Catholics residing in Protestant States, to leave no theatre open on Sunday evenings.—Pages 17 to 34. LETTER HI. The good that Christianity, with the greatest show of reason, may be said to have done in the world. 1st.—Its influence on despotic power, comparison of the reign of Henry VIII., with that of some of the worst Roman Emperors, and the good influence of Christianity in this respect, though acknowledged, considered to be greatly over-rated. Its exhorting to “ obey the powers that be,” and forbidding tyrannicide, has caused it to be supported byTyrants, and has given such tyrants a sort of justification, when they themselves were disposed to evil. 2ndly.—The assertion that it has tended to abolish animal and even human sacrifice ; and to introduce a more hu­ mane treatment to captives taken in war. Quotation from the Middle Ages, showing that Paley has over-rated the influence of Christianity on this latter point. Also in reference to polygamy, and its having “ pro­ duced a greater regard to moral obligations.” Paley’s sophistry when lie attempts to show that Chris­ tianity has not added to the intolerance of human nature. Religious fanaticism more unjustifiable than political fanati­ cism, in reference to the first French revolution. Paley’s observations on a day of rest. 'The certainty with which a future state is advocated bv Christianity would be an excellent effect were it not vitiated by promising too great reward to “ faith.” �CONTENTS. IX Its denunciation of war also good, but altogether vitiated by its reprobating even defensive war. Commentary on Lord Brougham’s opinions on religious establishments, and attempted refutation of his view that these “ secure instruction,” at least while Christianty is the established religion of a country. Beccaria a freer writer on religion than Brougham.—Pages 35 to 64. LEITER IV. Examination of the question whether the commencement of the first French revolution was to be ascribed to the diminution in the belief of Christianity by the influence of the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau. Decided by the author in the negative, with a quotation from Lord Byron to the same effect : the most potent causes of the outbreak being famine, national bankruptcy, political tyranny of the bastile, &c., and the return of a successful revolutionary army from the United States under Lafayette. Question, whether the legal suppression of Christianity after the revolution had fairly begun, was the cause of the wanton atrocities in question, also answered in the nega­ tive. Long quotations from Lord Brougham’s Political Philosophy in reference to the French Revolution. The suppression of Christianity does not appear to be con­ sidered by him as connected with these atrocities: they are ascribed to the too democratic form of constitution, that of ’93 being much more so than that of ’95. Extracts from Brougham’s life of Carnot, in support of the position that this defect rendered increased severity and despotism necessary. Details from Sir A. Alison’s work, in which, generally speaking, the same view is taken. His chapter on the war in the Vendee in parts not favourable to this position, examined, and refutation attempted. His previous censure of the slaughter of 40,000 unresisting inhabitants of Jerusalem by order of Godfrey de Bouillon (in his own view a pious Christian), totally incompatible with some passages in the chapter alluded to, and such mur­ der more unjustifiable than the slaughter in the Vendee, since, in this case, the opposition was “most determined." Evidence that a great number of Republicans were put to death in cold blood, when at times the Royalists were suc­ cessful in the struggle ; that at the very commencement. �CON I E NTS. the former tried ineffectually means of conciliation, and at all events did not resort to the horrors of the “ Bap­ tisms, Marriages, &c.,” till, goaded almost to madness by the approach of foreign armies, extreme severity seemed absolutely necessary for the safety of the Re­ public. The above atrocities, however, were the sole work of Car­ rier, whose “ authority,” Alison admits, “ was un­ bounded ” in the Vendee; and he was subsequently justly guillotined for these crimes, though, I admit, not till Robespierre’s fall. No evidence, however, to show that Robespierre would have recommended the putting of women and children to death by wholesale, or any cruelty (torture, &c., so prevalent in the Christian mid­ dle ages) in the mode of death to men, seeing the guil­ lotine was expressly adopted, as apparently the quickest and easiest mode of execution for the real or supposed criminal. Increased humanity commenced in 1795, not because Christianity was then allowed by law, but because the constitution also was made less democratic, and because of the reaction which always takes place in such circum­ stances. Humanity, however, only gained full force when the supreme power of the state became still more secure, by being placed in the hands of military leaders, viz., Barras and Napoleon. Outward forms of any new Theistic church should be simi­ lar rather to those of the Catholic than the Protestant, as suggested by Sir T. More, who, in his Utopia, obvi­ ously prefers Theism and Plato to Christianity. Extracts from the work proving this curious point in re­ ference to the distinguished Chancellor under Henry VIII. A brief outline of some general changes in the laws, which appear necessary or expedient if a government substitute Theism for Christianity. Thus a reply found to the ignorant question—“ TFZmf are ice to put in its place ?” and, in the author’s opinion, a far more just and useful code proposed. Necessity for the use of moral restraint, or other “ checks” on population, according to the views of Malthus, Mill, and others, before the condition of the poor can be greatly ameliorated ; and of some alteration of opinion generally on the sexual question, before the amount of female prostitution can be diminished. Christianity has done no good on this subject, or that of infanticide. Pages 65 to 119. �CONTENTS. xi NOTES. -A--—Vindication of Roman toleration even as regards the Druids. That Hume gives no solid reason why natural Theism could not be a religion of the state. Religious toleration probably less at Rome under the Republic'than under the Empire. B-—That the imprisonment of Richard Carlile and others contributed to the freedom of the press rather on poli­ tical than on religious matters ; but that Hartley’s Will case, &c., &c., shows, that government retains still even a legal power to punish the authors of writings against Christianity. ” ° C. —Details as to the punishment of death for witchcraft. D. —Details as to the so-called Reformation. Vast supe­ riority of Gibbon in this respect to Luther and Calvin, yet still does not go far enough. Charles V. and the Reformation ; bad effect of Christianity on his mind. Luther’s absurd doctrine of justification by faith, without works. D’Aubigne’s and Scott’s false views. The true, vet remarkable confession of the latter, that infidel phi­ losophy and not Christianity diminished the number of the victims of the Inquisition. The Reformation succeeded because Henry VIII., Albert of Prussia, and others in power chanced to advocate it; and though it effected some useful increase of civil liberty, it was no reforma­ tion in religion. Sir T. C. Morgan in 1822 justly wrote the same. E. —-Remarks on the passages in Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny, in reference to Christianity. F- State of debtor and creditor, and of lawyers, under the ancient Roman government. �il �LETTERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. LETTER I. ft It is not possible to destroy political servitude while allowing religious servitude to remain ; the political springs by necessity from religious slavery. In that place where the priest may say to an entire people, ‘ Surrender to me your reason without conditions,’ the Prince, by an infallible logic, may repeat also, ‘ Surrender to me your liberty with­ out control.’ ”—Quinet. Citizens,—After having read the laborious and learned work of Robert Cox On Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, and observed therein that Dr. Arnold, in 1834, and Archbishop Whately, so late as 1849, have both given their opinion * * Cox, p. 22L It is now a long while (viz., from Sep­ tember, 1853,) since Cox’s admirable book has been pub­ lished , and I am sorry to say that, although written in such a spirit of moderation, that the author nowhere directly puts scripture authority aside, yet scarcely one of our quar­ terly or monthly journals has ever mentioned the book ! ! In consequence of this disposition to treat scripture with respect, Cox has been often forced into those same ambi­ guous views, which we see in the scripture itself: and this B �2 LETTERS TO that Sunclav is a holiday, not by divine, but only by ecclesiastical institution—an opinion amply confirmed by others as well as by Cox himself— it is, I think, useless to anticipate for the present any change in the puritanical mode of keeping that day in England ; or otherwise the writings of men of such influence as Arnold and Wbately would long ago have tended to make it with Eng­ lish Protestants what it actually is with German Protestants (their theatres being open on the Sab­ bath), a day of innocent recreation and amuse­ ment, as well as of rest. * The day, however, reis the great fault of his book. He, like most of us, has been obliged to sacrifice to “ conventional hypocrisy.” (p. 390.) Surely, then, if such amiable objections to our creed are no better received by the press, it is time to speak out the full truth. * It is also to be remembered that George Combe’s Constitution of Man and also the Vestiges of Creation have now been published many years, and both sold to the ex­ tent of many thousand copies, and though Deistical, have m»t diminished clerical influence among us, or in the slightest degree altered our gloomy Sunday. Chapman, AV atson, and Holyoake have also, for many years, sold thousands of copies of free-thinking books and tracts (still more confessedly Deistical and revolting to opinion than the above,) without effecting an acknowledged and open avowal of Deistical views in even what is worthy to be called a minority of our population. Thousands, no doubt, in this country are merely Deists in reality ; but as the public confession of such views injures their reception in society, they feel obliged to keep their views private. While I admit, therefore, that the freedom of the press in these matters, is now, and has been since the death of Carlile (a martyr to the cause,) the “glory of England,” I still see no hopes of o»?/ great practical change in religion among ourselves. We are. of course, in a “ false position” on account of our Established Church : so, indeed, I think are you Americans, even without any national church esta­ blishment, solely on account of the public opinion in your country being too favourable to, at all events, some form of �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. o O mains still ■with us a “ heavy day ” as even Wilberforce, {Evidences of Christianity,) called it, the Calvinistic moral gloom adding tenfold to the physical gloom of our London fogs. Under such circumstances, 1 propose to address the “pars altera” of the Anglo-Saxon race on this subject; I mean the American people, who, having wisely separated Church and State, are in a better position than ourselves to effect ecclesi­ astical reforms. And should they wisely attempt such, I doubt not that the spirit of rivalry between the two nations, will soon induce ourselves to strive to follow their example—at least, indeed, I should hope such would be the effect. One of yourselves, my friends, in his Treatise on the Philosophy of Evil, (Philadelphia, 1845,) has a section on The Mischief of our Gloomy Sunday ; and yet, though written so lately, has produced no change in your Sabbath. Indeed, Lyman Coleman publishes years afterwards, (in 1852,) in the same city of Philadelphia, his Ancient Christianity, and says, “ The whole English race, wherever found, alone have a SabChristianity. But the difference between us is, that it seems far easier for you to effect reforms in this matter than it is for us. In vain again did the Edinburgh Preview, for 1850, say that free discussion on religion “ is discountenanced on all sides, and branded with reproachful names.” It is the same still; though it is some years since a journal of swcA great influence wrote as above! In 1852 the Sabbath Alliance boasted of our superiority over other countries, on account of the ‘ freedom with order,” attributing this chiefly to our Puritanical observance of the Sabbath. But The Edinburgh states what is still a fact. I deny our “ freedom” in reality. It also appears, that a reprehensible pride, (viz., to be different from the continental people, whether they be right or wrong,) is concerned in this strict Sabbath observance. �4 LETTERS TO bath, a Christian Sabbath, holy unto the Lord. With all else, throughout Christendom, the Sab­ bath is a holy day, a festival.” (Quoted in Cox, p. 536.) Coleman rightly gives the Puritans “ the im­ mortal honour,” as he calls it, of introducing this austerity into the “States,” -which, no doubt, is their due ; for Cox shows that even Knox and Calvin could only have indirectly influenced the custom. Of course Luther was too wise (though not a liberal-minded man in reality) ever to have given sanction to such a movement, and seems in­ stinctively to have adopted Burke’s wise maxim, viz., “That lawful enjoyment is the surest way to prevent unlawful gratification.” (Cox, p. 448.) Accordingly, as already observed, the Lutheran Protestants have at this day their places of amuse­ ment open on Sunday evenings: by which means no doubt, in accordance with Burke’s maxim, they prevent much of the drunkenness that vitiates a little the sanctity of our English and American Sabbath. Poor hard-worked wretches ! what re­ mains for them on a Sunday evening in a dense London fog, but to dissipate the vast moral and physical gloom by a little gin or more beer; and no wonder in such circumstances, after once feel­ ing the exhiliration, if they almost instinctively take too much and retire to the new world of sleep wholly or partially intoxicated ; and, of course, in either case with more or less injury to their health. Hence it is, all in accordance with this view, that Cox has wisely put the following in succession in his Table of Contents (p. xviii.) “Knowledge of Human Nature needs to be diffused. Causes of the comparative sobriety of lhe French. Im­ portance of recreation as a means of demolishing intemperance. Gloomy religious views foster this �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 5 vice. Religious Insanity. Drunkenness can be cured only in accordance with the maxim : Sublatd causa, tollitur effectus” In the work itself the reader will find these points fully elucidated, and will, I think, come to the conclusion that “ Temperance Societies ” are perfectly or nearly useless, while our “heavy Sunday” is suffered to remain. Drunkenness and illicit intercourse of the sexes, and increased tendency to suicide and madness, are the bad effects of Calvinistic austerity, and perhaps the only shadow of any good in its favour is, its supposed tendency to increase respect for rational religion. But while I acknowledge any institution that has this effect is useful, I maintain that the auste­ rity in question overshoots the mark, and more often produces mere national hypocrisy, or abso­ lute disgust, than additional respect for religious worship. It may, to a certain extent, increase the outward respect of religion in all classes, but this is almost always purchased at the too dear price of increased aversion to practice the moral duties of life. It actually becomes a sort of substitute for the same, as the Hon. W. Pitt says in his Letter on Superstition “by setting up something as * religion which shall atone and commute for the want of virtue.” It renders hypocrisy in fact fashionable—no more. It affects the life, not the heart; and certainly has a tendency to produce that most odious spectacle—a nation of sanctified cheats. And. for my own part, I cannot help re­ garding the man who cheats you under the mask of religion as a far greater villain than he who * Holyoake, 147, Fleet Street. An unanswerable pro­ duction, and worthy the man who favoured the liberalminded Frederick the Great. �6 LETTERS TO discards religion before he plunders his prey ; since in the former case he is truly “ taking God’s name in vain ” in the strictest sense, and then adds one sin to another. As in England we have a national religion, there is with us, my friends, perhaps more excuse than with you for upholding our Puritanical Sab­ bath. Our very sovereign cannot turn Catholic without acting illegally and risking her throne; and our saints would be sure to construe any re­ laxation of Sabbatarian discipline on her part, into a secret leaning towards Catholicism. With probably, therefore, the most liberal tendency in this respect, Her Majesty feels herself compelled to wear the gilded fetter in order to prevent any­ thing like civil commotion. * And as in Monar­ chies, the Sovereign is naturally enough, “ the fountain of honour,” few of consideration in the country feel inclined to do that which the Sove­ reign forbids herself to do. Our aristocracy, too, here, cling to religion as to the firmest support of the State; and while reluctantly yielding to the Corn Law Bill, they still refuse Jewish Emanci­ pation ; as if even the slightest alteration in the Constitution, as regards religion, were a change more to be deprecated than one which—as the Corn Law Bill—more decidedly affected their material interests. This prejudice extends—in a feebler degree certainly—to the Commons, and * We must also not forget that it was, in great part, for attempting to do the very same thing, viz., promote rational recreation for the Sunday, that Charles I. was beheaded. Therefore, in Britain, any Sovereign who even indirectly appeared to aid in such a change would, by the masses, who seldom reason justly on nice moral points, be consi­ dered as wishing to restore Despotism. Yet, in reality, such Sovereign would be acting just the contrary now. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. throughout the country generally ; and as a proof of it, I may state that playing on the piano, or at chess or draughts, on a Sunday is almost as much in general abhorrence, in strict Protestant families, as going to the theatre or a ball on the same day. Now this shows the great influence of mere opinion on the subject, (see Sir Robert Peel’s speech, 1835 —quoted in Cox, p. 348,) as there is no actual law to prevent such amusements in private. The suppression of Sunday trains for passengers be­ tween Edinburgh and Glasgow (which caused Cox's book to be written) was also effected by the influence of opinion only, (the law itself rather in­ clining the opposite way,) which opinion has been formed chiefly by the constant repetition in our churches of the Jewish inscription: “Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.” Yet Sunday is not the Sabbath day ! / * Although in this latter respect, you Protestants of the States are probably in the same predicament as ourselves, this is not the case as regards your temporary Sovereign or President. He, at least, is free from all religious shackle; and can conse­ quently exert little or no influence in that respect on American society generally. He may be a Catholic, he may be a Jew, Unitarian, or even disguised Theist ;f and you wisely enough cou* Cox shows this clearly enough; yet half our popula­ tion, not daring to think for themselves on religious matters conceive they really keep the Sabbath day. But the day has been changed from Saturday to Sunday, without God's command or permission. Now this in mortals, is as bad as blasphemy. The Jews are much wiser on this point; they distinguish labour from amusement, and allow music, but do not permit even Jewish servants to work. f Such were the illustrious Washington and Jefferson ; and I use the word ‘-disguised” advisedly, as we shall see �8 LETTERS TO side? him none the worse for that, or incapable, from such circumstance, of holding the first office in the State. In this, I must acknowledge, you are far before us ; as also in many of the men you send out as Ministers, being professed Unitarians, and sometimes even professed Theists or Pantheists. Show, then, I beseech you, that you are nationally above any illiberal prejudices of being thought too Catholic in your tastes, on a point in which reli­ gion is, in reality, not at all concerned ; I mean the opening places of amusement and recreation for the people on the Sabbath. The real reason why these are closed among you, is doubtless the same which has caused them to be closed among us ; I mean a desire to “ keep holy the Sabbath day but I have already briefly stated that this reason is untenable, and must refer you to Cox’s large work itself for more ample details and quotations on both sides of the question. But as man is the slave of habit and prejudice much cftener than of reason, it seems not impos­ sible that with many of you, even Cox’s arguments may be considered inadequate ; and if you ask me why, allow me say, that the real cause at the bot­ tom of this will be, that Christianity has gained an undue and actually unjust ascendency over pure natural Religion, or Deism, in your Republic. This has been the invariable tendency of Christianity whenever it has been in competition with other religions; alike at its origin with the graceful mythology of the ancients —under the Roman em* hereafter, that religion is not perfectly free even in the United States. * All other religions, were content with the toleration— far superior to our own Protestant so-called toleration—of the state religion of Rome ; and naturally enough; for �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 9 perors, as under your Republic. It is in vain, therefore, that your constitution says, all religions are equal in the eye of the law, for all revealed religions are necessarily intolerant, and will never be contented with what they ought to be, viz , just equality. I shall proceed to elucidate this proposition by extracts from Human Rights and their Political Guarantees by your countryman. * Mr. Counsellor Hurlbut; and I shall then fol­ low up this Letter by an examination of the utility of Christianity to Government, for the belief in this opinion I doubt not is also at the bottom of your great external respect for that religion, and consequently concerned in keeping up your gloomy Sunday. “ The constitution of North Carolina,” savs Mr. Hurlbut, “was amended in 1836, the word Christian being substituted for the word Pro­ testant, in the following sentence : — “ No person who shall deny the truth of the Protestant Reli­ gion, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust, or profit, in the civil department of the state.' It is also stated in the same, that— ‘ All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience.’ — Thus,” says Mr. H., “ they may worship and the state will not interrupt them ; but it will inquire as to the divinity they adore— and if it be not the constitutional Jehovah, the they had their niches in the Pantheon, and seemed placed on actual equality with the heathen gods themselves. But Christianity was not content until it could dethrone, so to speak, those who were so liberal. Surely here was yusi reason for persecuting it, especially since it was itself a dan­ gerous fiction. * With notes by George Combe.—Edinburgh, 1847 Maclachlan. B 2 �10 LETTERS TO unlawful worshippers will be excluded from civil offices. They may, however, hold military offices— the state being content to have heathens bleed in its defence,” (Of Constitutional Limitations, p. 21.) In Massachusetts again, the government has the power to require, “ Protestant teachers of piety to be supported by the parishes, when provi­ sion shall not be made for them voluntarily.” Every Christian sect is to be equally protected by the laws. “ This portrays," fcontinues Mr. H., justly,) i( the infant state of religious freedom in the cradle of liberty)’—to wit—“ A species of religious es­ tablishment and its compulsory support." Mr. H. rightly says “ a species,” for equally, as in North Carolina, some form of Christianity is obligatory, or the penalty of what is really persecution by law, as well as by opinion, must be borne. It is consolatory to observe by an amendment adopted in 1820, that the chief officers of state are now not required to declare that they be­ lieve in Christianity : but the above regulations * remain unchanged. In New York too, “ the legislature may interfere with the rights of opinion—and the courts in the administration of the common law, may punish a man for speaking against the prevailing religion (/. e. Christianity) of the country ! !” {Ibid. 27.) “ But if,” continues Mr. H., “ law take into * The revised constitution for New York for 1846, pro­ vides, “ that no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief.” (Combe, note, p. 81.) Thus perfect religious liberty is slowly but happily progressing, though Combe does not know if the above has passed the legislature. See also further on for confir­ mation of this reflection in reference to the State of New York �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 11 favour the religion of the majority, it tyrannizes over the minority ; ifit establishes the religion of the Christian, it offends the Infidel, the Jew, and the Heathen.’’ As the majority make the laws, it was to be expected that one like that of New York, would sooner or later be made ; but while it exists, let our worthy American friends confess, that reli­ gious liberty or equality is a mere hypocritical farce among them. The punishment by opinion was constitutional and not actually unjust in such cases ; but when the majority go further and make actual law on the subject, they then clearly become tyrannical, and if they do not violate the constitu­ tion, they certainly violate the laws of eternal and immutable justice. Mr. Hurlbut mentions the statute of the State of New York on common school education, enacted only in 1844, in which we find, that if “books containing sectarian doctrine of any particular Christian or other religious sect are used in such schools, these shall not be entitled to monies from the school fund of the State ; yet it continues, “ nothing herein contained shall authorize th^ exclusion of the Holy Scriptures icitliout note or comment ! !”* (p. 28.) Mr. H., says, “ 1 do not perceive how the legislature obtained any idea as to what Scriptures are holy and what are not— * All this shows (even in its disguise), the inherent in­ tolerance of Christianity, which induced Justinian to put dowii even the venerable schools of Athens: ‘'That,” says Gibbon, “ which even Gothic arms did not do, was done bv a religion, whose ministry superseded the exercise of reason, resolved every question by an article of faith, and con­ demned the sceptic to eternal fames!" (Chap. 40, Justinian.) Paganism was in some degree compensated for its utter downfall through the influence of Christianity, by Gibbon s statement, “ That its introduction, or, at least, abuse, had some influence on the fall of the Roman Empire.” * * * �12 LETTERS TO •what are with, and what are without note and comment.” “It would seem that we need further constitu­ tional provisions, such as will render it impossible for the religionist of any sect whatever to obtain the least legal recognition, the adoption of his sacred books, or any other favour from the state. Until the State takes the position of perfect indif­ ference and impartiality, the rights of conscience will not be secure, and that religious freedom so much boasted of in America will rest upon an in­ secure foundation.” “ While several of the States punish blasphemy, declaring Sunday to be holy time, require officers to believe in the Christian religion, the clergy who teach all these things are disfranchised.” (In New York, for instance,, they can hold no civil office or place within the state.”) “ Democracy,” he adds, “ cuts an awkward figure in coquetting with religion. It had better assume at once an air of perfect indifference.” “ But, it is inquired,” says he, “ can a State exist which recognises no religion ? I answer that it can as well as if it do not recognise music.” (p. 28.) I may observe in reference to this point, that if we leave the mind perfectly free, as believing or not in a future state of rewards and punishments, we ought to increase the severity of the laws, and also, as Beccariat suggested, establish institutions for rewarding virtue. In a republic some form of “ Under it,” says he, “the Roman world was oppressed by a aeit’ species of tyranny.” Yet, with philosophic impartiality he admits further on, that it tended to diminish the ferocious barbarity of the barbarians who conquered Home. (Chap. 38—end.) * Dei Dclitti xli.—Come si prevengono i delitti. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 13 religion (pure Theism better than any) seems al­ most necessary, and has existed in all ancient republics. Athens had too much superstition and per­ secuted those of true religion, viz., the philosophers, including Socrates. Venice too was a very reli­ gious republic ; so at present is Switzerland. They all seem to err, not in having respect for religion itself—blit in having had, and still having respect for an intolerant and false religion. The Religion of Nature is clearly the only true religion ; and as it existed before Christianity, so it will exist after it. I observe Mr. Combe, in his note on religious education, ftp. Cit., p. 83), asks:—“ Would not Mr. Hurlbut’s views tend to convert schools into seminaries of Calvinism, Catholicism, and So­ cialism, &c., according to the opinions of the ma­ jority, and so to rear sects filled with inveterate hostility to each other? The government may legitimately and beneficially aid, and sometimes enforce, the active obedience of its subjects to the natural laws. * * * ‘ Man has no right to be dirty or grossly ignorant (because by being so, he justly injures or offends those near him) and, if so, has no right to relief from the parish. He ought to be forced to change.’ * * * If we suppose a government to possess a code of really pure morality and reli­ gion, clearly expressed and practically elucidated, would not a people be in better condition at the end of two centuries of teaching of this code by force of law, than that in which they would be found after the same period of sectarian teaching, such as they would receive if left to the uncon­ trolled guidance of their clergy. After instancing Prussia, (which though the best practical example, is not to his point as being exclusively Christian), he adds :—“ If government be supposed in the �u LETTERS TO right, is not the practice of right always be­ neficial ?” I am inclined to believe these views of Combe to be just: they were those of two sincere Repub­ licans living in different ages, Plato and Rousseau, on this subject: they thought that Republicanism might with justice try and enslave the mind’to virtue, by compelling sound religious belief, if it left the laws otherwise free. We have only to look at the United States now (the best educated country in the world)—we have onlv, I say, to reflect on her Quakers, Shakers, Rappites, Mor­ mans, and Spirit Rappers, and we may rationally enough come to the conclusion, that the multitude ought not to be left perfectly free as regards their religious belief; since the state of that country shows clearly enough, that a man’s religion de­ pends far less on his reason, than on his hopes and fears and prejudices, and the opinion of the country : so that, in truth, he is enslaved on the subject, when appearing to be left free. The false opinions on this subject to which he is thus forced, increase the natural intolerance of human nature, as no man can possibly be a sincere believer in Christianity, and not feel more or less horror or detestation of all “Jews, Turks, and Infidels.’’ If any Republic would make natural religion the re­ ligion of the State, and enforce payment to this, it would be nothing else than diminishing the temptation to adopt any other of the revealed re­ ligions, (always necessarily intolerant), and con­ sequently would be indirectly diminishing the strong temptation to injustice which naturally exists in human nature. “ As regards the observance of a day of rest,” says Mr. H., “ the State has an undoubted authority to abstain from all action on such a day ; but it �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 15 cannot rightfully compel any manto keep Sunday as a religious institution ; nor can it require him to cease from labour or recreation on that day, since it cannot be shown that the ordinary exercise of the human faculties on that day is in aDy way an infringement on the rights of mankind.” (p. 28.) Combe, (in his Note F., p. 83,) says—“ In the recent discussions in Scotland, the Sabbatarian party has strongly overlooked the right of those who take a different view of the matter from theirs, to act upon that view if they please.’’ But supposing they do “ act upon it,” they are still punished, as I conceive unjustly, though by opinion onlv, as such opinion is founded on a falsehood,—by which the multitude is in many cases led involuntarily,—I mean that the scriptures are the word of God, and that they inculcate the pu­ ritanical observance of Sunday, as a positive duty. I believe with Mr. H., that the State cannot rightfully compel any man to keep Sunday in this way. But unjust as punishment by opinion only is in such cases, government has still increased the injustice in England, and the States by making actual law on the subject, and compelling all public places of amusement to be closed on a Sunday evening. Hurlbut very justly says, “ there is in this country, viz , the States, a species of religious establishment, notwithstanding the constitu­ tional provisions, for the free exercise of religious belief’' (p. 26.) Now I would beg to enquire whether such a state of things may not be called actually illegal ? Legal or illegal—this hermaphrodite condition in reference to religion—fostering as it does through the whole population a state of hypocrisy—which �1G LETTERS TO is necessarily carried in a greater or less degree into all the affairs of life, and is continually prompting to actual lying, and consequently to dishonesty, is very disgusting to a candid and honourable mind; and must be inwardly so to many of yourselves, American citizens. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 17 LETTER II. Citizens,—I shall begin this letter by some con­ siderations as to the utility of Christianity to go­ vernment, being convinced it is the belief in its supposed utility, far more than in the actual truth of the religion, that causes it to remain still so much respected even by some enlightened statesmen. When I find such men as Frederick the Great of Prussia, your late President, the illustrious Jefferson, and I may, perhaps, add the late Lord Chesterfield, holding such opinions as regards its utility, I approach this topic with respect, but still with the firm conviction'that these distinguished men were mistaken. 1st.—In the first place, an irremediable fault in it is, the great uncertainty as to uliat it really teaches; for by its endless contradictions, the mind feels greater difficulty in seizing its real tenets than those of mere natural religion for these are written by nature herself in the consciences of all mankind. Hence it is, “that religious wars among Chris­ tians, and deaths from the inquisition, have cost the lives of 67,000,000 human beings whereas “ the variety of religions and gods in the heathen world neither produced wars, nor dissentions among the different nations.”* I admit, that by a wise separation of church and state, you have prevented in a great measure * Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History quoted in Trevelyan’s pamphlet, (p. 6.,) on the Insanity of Mankind. (Bailliere.) �18 LETTERS TO religious wars; but you have not been able to effect impossibilities, and to eradicate the inherent intolerant spirit from the Christian creed, as Mr. Hurlbut’s remarks just quoted show. You only suffer from this, less than other nations. The flame of opinion, increased by the hopes and fears of the Christian s death, obliges the “ pious’’ among vou to persecute socially In consequence of preaching the eternity of punishments, Christianity teaches intolerance more clearly perhaps, than any other tenet; and yet leaving its meaning, as to the trinity or unitv, election, justification by faith, real presence, &c., &c., debateable points, itself tends to foster end­ less disputes between Catholics, Protestants, and Unitarians. We have just seen what slaughter' it has caused in the world, and much undoubtedly remains for unborn ayes, who will have to go through the same phases before they arrive at the same civilisation, and consequently indifference on the subject. In this respect, so "far from sur­ passing the Romans, we are only now gradually coming near them in real civilisation. Let it, however, be remembered, that there is even now only one nation of any strength in the world— (viz., your own), where all actual persecution by law is difficult, and you will be convinced how much misery is yet in store for mankind from such uncertainty as to the meaning of this supposed revelation. A Republic, with Church and State separate, is the only means of completely taking away the power of persecution from Christianity by law,—I wish I could say also by opinion. To the end of the Chapter there will likewise be Catholic Mis­ sionaries, as well as Protestant, anxious from the mere spirit of selfishness to secure, as they conceive their own salvation, by interfering with other �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 19 people’s business, or, in fact, trying to make con­ verts among savage tribes. In consequence among these real converts and believers, there will always be war and discord; for the odium theoloyicum (among Christian Sects) cannot die, though it may sleep for a time. 2ndly.—Christianity tends to enslave the immortal mind, bv assuming, as it does, a power over the thoughts, (since even “ looking on a woman to lust after her,” is absurdly enough put down in this creed, as the same as actually committing adultery, whereas it is clear that though a man “ lust after a woman,” yet still, by considerations of duty, he might be prevented from desiring carnal knowledge of her.) Thus, I say, under the profound cant of purifying the mind, and censuring what none can prevent, (for who can prevent mere desire for the opposite sex ?) Christianity fosters the worst form of slavery—that of the mind. We see this fea­ ture in taking other aspects of it, for it everywhere puts faith before reason; and consistently fol­ lowed, would lead all again to become ignorant monks. That it also sanctions bodily slavery is clear enough ; and it is only by an advance in civilisa­ tion that the feeling against slavery has increased of late years, for it existed for centuries after the introduction of Christianity, and no one dreamt that it was censured by this faith. Indeed, how can it be, for the faith itself makes some of the greatest virtues to consist in a base humility I Slavery is the essence of all real Christianity. But on earth we have only a mock and spurious— because really impracticable scheme. If born in Heaven, it should have kept there, for it never has been, and never can be acted on by tlie inhabitants �20 LETTERS TO of earth. And the attempt to keep up even the appearance of being Christian, has been the secret cause of all the cant which so eminently distin­ guishes the Anglo-Saxon race ; since it tends to make all of us found our opinions of real virtue on the false standard contained in this system. Consequently, no man among us is what he really seems, or wishes to seem, for we are naturally under the circumstances, anxious to have the merit of “piety and chastity,” (I wish I could add “ poverty’' and thus complete the Christian vow,) that scarcely any of us merit. All this it is that has produced such a difference in our literature from that of the Greeks and Bomans. These men spoke out on all subjects, especially those relating to the intercourse of the sexes, and show mankind as it really is; while to read our literature one would go away with the false idea that we were the most moral and modest of people. But, as Voltaire says, this sort of modesty often extends no farther than our lips. It is really a pleasure to read the works of this writer, Bavle, Rousseau, Gibbon, or Hume, in comparison with the works of our very Christian historians or philosophers—for it is like reading the ancients instead of the moderns. Christianity, you will say, has therefore elevated our literature ; I rather think it has debased it by a perfectly un­ natural spirit of cant. Hume himself justly savs, hinting perhaps also to this point. “ In general there is more candour in ancient historians. Our speculative factions, especially those of religion, throw such an illusion over our minds, that men seem to regard impartiality to their adversaries and t.o heretics, as a vice or weakness.” A man so lost to all sense of natural religion as to regard “ impar- �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 21 tialitv as a weakness,” is a perfect disgrace to any free government. * I have censured the Anglo-Saxon race more particularly on this point, because somehow or another, abroad, Protestant, or Boman Catholic writers (especially the French) do not carry pru­ dery so far. We may witness this in our English translations. Some time ago I bought two—one of Faust, and one of Herodotus,—and it was not until I had read the preface that I perceived that many passages in each had been omitted, as im­ proper for English translation. Now as this was not stated on the title page, it became something * Essays, Vol. I., note EE., page 552. The probable reason of this difference is, that we wish to be thought more eminently Christian than the other church sects do ; so we are striving after Christian appearances. Hence our proverbial cant. Cox has some good observations which will apply, though indirectly, to this point, and show how it is that there is more of this religious pretension (cant) among Protestants than among Catholics, for such I think is the case. “ There is no essential difference betwen a claim of infallibility honestly expressed in words, and a tacit assumption of infallibility, by our conduct towards those who differing from us, commit precisely the offence and no more, which we commit in differing from them. That we may really be the Protestants we call ourselves, it is not enough to abuse the Pope, and assert against him the right of private judgement in religion, we must acknowledge and respect in all others (whether Jews, Roman Catholics, Deists, or even Atheists) the rights which in our own case we hold so precious.” (Op- Cit., p. 376.) The fact is, our En­ glish Protestantism is only a sort of half toleration, so that a man who only goes as far as Unitarianism, is held—by Protes­ tants too—not to be a Christian, and of course to be a Deist is to expose oneself to o/>en persecution. Now the Pope, admitting no dissent prevents all this cant which among Protestants flourishes because Protestantism is now our state religion, and because full toleration is not in reality allowed by public opinion or even by law. �22 LETTERS TO more than a mere pious fraud/’ and with all the sanctity of religion, amounted to actual dishonesty. That the same spirit of prudery animates Christi­ anity on the other side of the Atlantic is clear from various facts, and though it mavuotbe true that the legs of pianos are not allowed to be seen, still I find it stated only in to-day’s paper, that adver­ tisements occur in which shirt and chemise are called men’s and women’s “ under vests.” There is little harm in all this certainly, and only as far as it seems to lead to actual falsehood and dishonestv, as mentioned at the end of Letter I., is it reprehensible. But I cannot help thinking that the tendency of a really impracticable code which necessarily leads to dishonesty in words, is to pro­ duce the same in acts. For it is in vain I look all through the New Testament for that constant ex­ hortation to fair-dealing in business and the common affairs of life, which is so admirably insisted on in Plato’s last and greatest work on government, viz., his Laics. “ The foundation of virtue,” justice,as Mr. Hurlbut well insinuates, is completely forgot­ ten in the constant exhortation to an unreasonable, and if I may so speak, often unjust “ charity.”* * The philosopher will also remark, that after asserting that “ looking on a woman to lust after her,” is committing adultery with her, we find that Christ dismissed a woman actually taken in adultery without punishment or even sta­ ting that she deserved any ! A specimen this of “ uncertainty of meaning.” There is also no scale of punishment, but sins of the most unequal magnitude are all grouped toge­ ther as if of equal magnitude. Witness, for instance, the expression, “ Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge,” and another where “ fornication and unnatural lust” are put on the very same category. Cox says, “ for­ nication, in the abstract, was not forbidden to the Jews,” and quotes Bishop Horsley, who says, “ In the heathen world it was never thought a crime, except it was accom­ panied by injury to a virgin's honour, or the violation of �THE AMERICAN PEUPLE. 23 3rdly.—By the progress of the arts and sciences among us, we have gradually come to make the science, as taught in scripture, totally untenable. Galileo long ago suffered for that absurd passage which makes the sun turn round the earth ; and at the present day, Dr. Buckland among ourselves was persecuted by opinion, because he attempted to show that geology is totally at variance with the recent formation of the earth, as asserted in Scrip­ ture. Other absurdities in respect to science still, how­ ever, remain almost unnoticed; such, for instance, as, “ Thou slialt not suffer a witch to live.” But as modern science has shown that “ animal ma?netism” is for the most part an absurdity, so it will reasonably declare the same of witchcraft. Yet the numbers who have been put to death all over Europe for this purely imaginary crime, are almost inconceivable Now, I would beg to ask, what is to prevent the same murder again, when our missionaries have introduced the Scriptures among savages ? Many of these “ religious” men still believe in this in­ fernal art, notwithstanding its absurdity ; and even the marriage bed.” Horsley praises the Christian religion for making it a breach of natural morality. (Cox, p. 515.) But Christianity has no practical effect in diminishing it, (witness our London streets at night,) and even now the vast proportion of men of sense secretly (at all events) con­ sider this “ heathen” view the only rational one on the subject. I do not by these remarks attempt to justify even mere fornication, but what I say is, that with the present sys­ tem of society it is a necessity as the world itself shows. Under such circumstances, when our Litany couples it with all other “ deadly sin," we at once see the lamentable reign of Anglo-Saxon cant. If the woman is well provided for, it is often, even now, no sin at all, especially when married parties cannot agree well enough to live together, and being Catholics, cannot marry again. �21 LETTERS TO suppose none of them did, savages are sure to do so long after the introduction of the Scriptures. And there in the holy book is the command of death to all witches. The consequence is clear, viz., that as the intensity of faith is always greater at first, and particularly among barbarous, ignorant nations, the mischief of introducing Scriptures containing such commands among such a people * is obvious. * One of the most frequent vices among savages, and even among civilised nations, is dishonesty or fraud. But that religion which says, “ Let not your right hand know what your left doeth,” and also exhorts us to be “ mild as doves, and cunning as serpents,” is surely not the school for teaching fair dealing. Again, Paley says it does not forbid war. But if it did certainly do so, it would, in this respect, be a benefactor to mankind. But here, as elsewhere, its ambiguity is a con­ stant curse to its beneficial effects. Instead of having “ brought life and immortality to light,” it has enveloped them in double darkness when its whole narration is con­ sidered. There is no doubt that the best religion that can be preached to savages is Theism, and at the same time such a degree of physical science as shall prevent that fear of su­ pernatural agency which has been a principal cause of human sacrifices, and other abominable religious rites. The nature of thunder and lightning should be most especially explained to them in reference to diminishing all fear of this being sent to punish sin by an offended God. This seems a far better way of creating an opinion in a savage country against human sacrifices than by preaching Christianity. Such opinion will eventually cause a law to be made against such abominations ; and it is in reality law that puts down such enormities with the great majority, for religion acts on the consciences of the few, its rewards and punishments being so remote. I may take this opportunity to state that I have recom­ mended physical science to be taught to savages at the same time with Theism, chiefly in consequence of the many proofs of superstition found in the otherwise pure system of religion enounced by Plato in his Republic and Laws. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 25 4tbly.—As to the question, whether or not the belief in Christianity is conducive to human hap­ piness (always supposing the power of any great degree of persecution is as effectually suppressed as it is by the constitution of the United States.) there may be difference of opinion. The ground for supporting such opinion will principally be that the Christian faith teaches the certainty of a future life, in which we shall be sure to meet our departed relatives and friends again. But against this good point, we may place the following, which will make us decide that the belief in Christianity (even under such a favourable government, for its most beneficial operation as the “ States,”) is not desirable for human happiness. This opinion is grounded on the fact, that it is impossible, on account of the uncertainty of its doctrines as above stated, to separate only the good from the bad, that it seems to teach—the sins or faults, as some people saj», of its professors, from the “ pure doctrine” itself. Thus, for instance, we find that even in the States what may be called the most rational and purest forms of the creed (viz., Unitarianism and In this latter work, for instance, (p. 351, Traduction de Grou, 1851,) Plato recommends that whoever is well skilled in Divination, &c., &c., and would use such arts to hurt any one should be put to death ! Had Plato studied physical science more, he would have seen the fallacy of “ the occult sciences,” and consequently never would have made such a barbarous law. The fault was however in the age in which he lived, for Plato knew as much as most men on such points. Neither should the Theism preached to savage tribes inculcate more than remotely G-od’s provi­ dence, and that virtue and vice are to be punished hereafter, and not now, and also in another world ; for it was from teaching God’s constant interference in human affairs, that the barbarous “ trial by combat” of the middle ages arose. c �26 letters to Universalism) are still very unfashionable, to say the least; so that, strangely enough, opinion punishes the sects much in proportion as they attempt to set reason above “ faith,” and that too in the most educated country in the world ! You need only read Theodore Parker’s sermon, Some Account of my Ministry, to be convinced of the * great social persecution he has had to undergo, for attempting to proceed a few steps further than common Unitarianism, though be still upholds his creed as Christian. His sect is still much smaller than that of Unitarians in general, because it (is still more reasonable ; but (I use the expression with great respect) he dare not openly advocate pure Deism, or he would probably have no congre­ gation at all. The Trinitarians then, and that abominable form of them the Calvinistic, constitute the decided majority of Christians in the States. Thus the doctrine that “ sins committed against an infinite Being deserve infinite punishment,” is uppermost there—a doctrine which, as Mrs. Barbauld justly says, “ no persons can have often in their thoughts and be cheerful.”! The celebrated Pinel said, “ Nothing is more common in hospitals than madness, produced by * Theism, &c., &c. pp. 256-278. (Chapman, London. 1853.) f Cox, p. 230-2. He rightly adds : “ Such views intro­ duce a standard of moral feeling, totally different from those ideas of praise or blame, upon which we do, and must act, in our commerce with our fellow-creatures.” (p. 232.) It is by such ideas, that men have come to the belief that sins against God deserve greater human punishment than those committed against their fellow-creatures—a most monstrous doctrine. It were far better to be of no religion at all, than believe in such a creed. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 27 too exalted devotion, or by religious terrors.”* The truth of these remarks is fully borne out by the madness produced by Calvinism some years back, which appeared under the guise of the “ un­ known tongues and latterly in the “ States” the journals assert that a species of frenzy, often ac­ companied by suicide, has arisen from too vivid a belief in revealed, religion, and supposed “ spirit rappings,” as if the old fallacious belief, taught by Christ himself, and which contributed much to the spread of Christianity, that the destruction of the world was at hand ! was reviving on the other side the Atlantic. I say, as it is impossible to separate the idea of “ eternity of punishments, the existence of a devil, and that Jesus should before long come back in the clouds of Heaven,” from the belief of Christianity itself, that the idea that this religion gives, and will always continue to give, to a great proportion of those who believe in it of a future state, is not, on the whole, conducive to human happiness. Theodore Parker, from whom the above quota­ tion is taken, says, “ I do not accept such belief on the authority of Jesus ; yet I am ready to be­ lieve lie taught it'’\ If, then, Parker was obliged to believe (no doubt contrary to his own wish) that Christ taught the above doctrines, of course those who almost wholly put aside reason, when they take up scripture, cannot for a moment doubt that such is really scriptural doctrine; and “a very comfortable creed,” (as Lord Byron says,) this indeed for our missionaries to teach savages. The belief of a future state, as taught by the ancients,! * Cox, p. 418. t Op. Cit., p. 264. j I observe that Sir C. Lyell (2nd Visit to the United �LETTERS TO has something far less repulsive about it than that of our Orthodox Christian, as the reading of the 6th book of Virgil’s JEneid will show. Yet the species of “purgatory” therein described was a real and equally effectual punishment for sin ; and gives a far more favourable idea of the justice, as well as the mercy, of God. 5thlv.—But, it may be asked, is not Theodore Parker’s very liberal form of Unitarianism—re­ jecting as lie does the belief in miracles, eternity of punishments, and even the Divinity of Christ to a further extent (if I may so express myself) than Unitarians generally —better than rejecting * it in toto, and confessing at once to a belief in Deism only ? I think it is not; and for the following reasons. Because it is tending to keep up that hypocritical spirit in the States to which I have before alluded, as disposing to lead to actual States) says, speaking of “the absence of genuine religious liberty-’ there, in which Cox justly agrees with him (^Sab­ bath Laws, ;S’c., p. 394,) “ that this can only be reformed by educating the millions and dispelling their ignorance, prejudices, and bigotry.” This will be insufficient, as Sir C. should well know ; for America is now the best educated country in the world. Xo amelioration ever can take place on this subject, until the influence of Christianity is re­ strained, anil Deism put in the place it is entitled to, and in which it would be put, if the laws were properly carried out, or at least not made null by opinion. Cox has come very far nearer the mark, when he says, (p. 396,) “ the fetters of the clergy must be struck off." Now, of course they are bound to say they believe Christianity, whether thev do or not; and being some of the best educated people in the States, it is much by their influence that a belief in Christianity is kept up in the country. * “ Christ is not without errors, not without the stain of his times, and, I presume, of course, not without sins." (P; irker on Deism, &c., &c. p. 264.) This last expression is indeed a “clencher” for our pious Trinitarians. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 29 dishonesty in the affairs of life ; for it is pretty * clear that, though Air. Parker thinks it a fit, or perhaps necessary, sacrifice to public opinion to put a scripture text to the head of each of his Sermons, he puts little or no belief in the book from which such texts are taken, any further than as he conceives he finds in it better morality than in the writings of the heathen philosophers. “ I reverence the Christian Church,” says he, “ for the great good it has done for mankind. So the Mahomedan, for a far less good. I reverence the scriptures for every word of truth they teach.” {Op. Cit.,p. 264.) Now mark the words. “ every word of truth they teach,” and we shall be convinced he thinks they teach a great deal that is not true. Indeed he admits this by implication, and, to a certain exteut, by open confession, as we have already seen. * A good illustration of this is seen at p. 64 of Air. Parker’s work. He says : “ A man of property in Boston dishonestly failed,” and yet legally secured considerable property to himself, after having paid only sixpence or a shilling on the dollar ; one creditor only not giving him a discharge. Our bankrupt afterwards turned very religious, and when, in consequence, was applied to again by the creditor for payment, replied, “ Business is business, and is for the week,” and “Religion for Sunday;” and “paid him not a cent.” Truly, in the States, as with us, more religion is wanted behind the counter, and it should not be shut up six days in the week with our churches. Jesus told a rich man to sell all he had, to give to the poor. Now the consideration of this fact, as it is called in Christian history, will show equally as the above anecdote, what profound hypocrisy is at the bottom of all the socalled belief in Christianity. What rich man among our most pious professing Christians does this? Yet he will still presume to call himself a Christian ! �30 LETTERS TO Now, under such circumstances, mav we not reasonably ask, if Christ be wrong once or twice, why may he not also be wrong in that most im­ portant doctrine of all that he teaches; I mean a state of future rewards and punishments ? Mr, Parker’s view, therefore, makes the authority of Plato quite as great, as a teacher of a future state of rewards and punishments, as that of Christ ; and as, on the whole, I find a much better view of justice in the “ Laws ” of Plato than in the Old or New Testament, I prefer setting these aside altogether, and at once stating that I think man­ kind in general would be happier in following the same course; since, either on Mr. Parker’s view of * Christianity or mine, a future state of being is reduced only to & probability. So far we are equal; but I conceive I have an infinite advantage over him, because in adopting the Natural Religion of Plato, I get free in toto of that latent spirit of persecution, which we have already seen, attaches always more or less to a belief in any form of Christianity.f In this re­ spect, while I give Mr. Parker’s system credit for * Another point on which I cannot exactly agree with Mr. Parker is in his estimate of human nature. I am afraid he thinks too highly of this. (See introduction, p. xxv., and p. 77.) t Philosophically considered, this makes Christianity the inveterate and incurably mad foe of justice; and thus its advocacy even of charity becomes really pernicious, instead of being (as it is considered by superficial thinkers) its great merit. You need only look at the tendency many children, and also grown up persons, have to begin injustice, and when we consider that Christianity would have us be charitable to these, its tendency actually to increase the amount of injustice in the world is clear. Perhaps the account of the Devil’s entering “the herd of swine,” by which means a man lost his property, may be justly cited as evidence that Christianity tends actually to �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 31 less evil than any other view, I cannot exonerate it altogether, since his followers will always, no doubt, be comparatively few, and missionaries— whether Protestant or Catholic—who go among ignorant and barbarous savages, will ever, no doubt, continue to do as they have already done, viz., to preach the scriptures as the inspired word of God. In reading Mr. Parker’s Sermon on Practical Theism, (Op Cit., pp. 125-149,J I find not one word about the superiority that his view of Chris­ tianity possesses over this of mere Natural Pvdigion. I confess I am induced to regard such silence as a proof, or least a presumption, that Mr. Parker is, in reality, himself only a Theist; and that, like his distinguished predecessors—Wash­ ington and Jefferson—he thinks the scriptures should not be put aside altogether, as the belief in them by the multitude may be a public good. With great respect for Mr. Parker, it is because I cannot share in this opinion that I have written as I have done. * /arour injustice and dishonesty. Particularly as no where does it exhort to justice, but only to charity. Again, unfortunately as Christians should return good for evil, they too often determine to be beforehand, and give evil unprovoked ! Our holy religion scarcely notices this gross injustice as sin. Before being injured, annoyance or injury is nothing ; ’tis after ! that we must turn meekly our cheek. * I ooserve at p. 281 of his work, that Mr. Parker con­ siders the idea of a finite God as an injurious tenet; and his reason for this is, that it has commonly caused priests to make the Devil a more powerful being. But if we be­ lieve in the Devil only as a fable, then it seems rather advi­ sable to believe in a finite God; for, unless we do this, (and with Plato regard matter as a sort of Devil offering obstruction to a perfect creation,) we can scarcely make out by reason a truly benevolent deity—in fact, a Moral Power. �32 LETTERS TO 6thly. — In reviewing the pros and cons in favour of Christianity, as useful to the world, the annoyance or inconvenience caused by the strict observance of the Sabbath is, perhaps, a matter of secondary consideration to many. But it must be remembered, that the absence of Sunday amuse­ ments, and also of slight Sunday labour (see note below since added in reference to the labourer fined), FALLS hardest on the poor man, and that this hardship, so to call it, may be considered, as at all events, an indirect consequence of a belief in the scriptures, since on account of the ambi* * But a most important objection to our puritanical ob­ servance of this day is, as the Times lately said, fwithout censure of course), that “ the debtor walks free on a Sunday, and on that day, no corn is carted, though it may possibly be very wet on the Monday.” In accordance with this, I observe that an old labouring man is fined 12s. Gd. formowing his own field on that day. (Observer, Sept., 1855.) So under the cant of religion, even our government per­ mits an actual injustice to creditors ; clearly imbued with the bad spirit of the religion adverted to lately in a note, that it prefers “charity” — (i. e., a perversion of real charity) to justice. If there was any really good religion as to our Sabbath law, why are spirits and beer allowed to be sold on a Sunday evening ? They no doubt, bring a revenue to government; but of course, in many cases, cause drunkenness. And while all this is permitted, “ by the 21 of George III., it is enacted, that no house be open for entertainment or amusement, or publicly debating on any subject.” (Cox, p. 334.) So that even quiet rational debate “ De Officiis ”—on the moral duties of life,—or on the nature of justice—is illegal in what we call our free and religious country! More strictly “ religious” than moral, no doubt. Ye glorious shades of the ancients, who spent your whole lives in the search after the honest and the just, and found even these too short for your enquiries, what must ye think of this separation of religion and morality! Modern civilisation, indeed ! it consists only in our steam engines and railroads. I may conclude this note by adverting to another positive injury, that this puri- �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 33 guity in the meaning of these, Puritanical or Calvinistic Christians will probably always exist, and will attempt to show by scripture, that the puri­ tanical observance of the Sabbath is the Christian's duty. When in 1681, Penn was made sovereign of the settlement in the United States, by Charles II, he required that the inhabitants should only acknow­ ledge their belief in the existence of God, and fulfil all the duties of civil society, aud that they were left at liberty to join in public worship or not. (Voltaire’s Phil. Diet., Art., Church.) It is singular, that in a colony belonging to a monarchv with an established church, perhaps more toleration in religion was then allowed by opinion, than at present under a Republic. Voltaire properly prefers such toleration to that allowed by Locke in his constitution for Carolina, tanical Christianity has inflicted on mankind, and conse­ quently, I may also put this evil along with those which Christianity itself has inflicted, since while it exists, there will no doubt always exist some sects who will embrace such puritanical view of it. I allude to our refusing in Britain, equally as they do in the “States,” to have medical examinations of the public women. Religion, as it is called, is at the bottom of this false delicacy with us no doubt; for since even for­ nication is such “ deadly sin,” and as the existence of sipliilitic disease may tend in a degree to stop fornication, our government being founded on such views of religion, will not sanction the examination in question, as they do on the continent, where there is less prq/hssmn of religion. I al­ lude to this point chiefly, because the disease in question being more or less hereditary as all medical men know, the innocent are made by such false religion to suffer lor the guilty, (see Lancet, 1847.) Again—without pretending to justify Lord Nelson in toto. it is clear the country was unjust to his innocent daughter, chiefly in consequence of our Christianity. c 2 �34 LETTERS TO In this, “ no public religions, but such as were approved of by seven fathers of families, were to be permitted.” (Op. cit. idem.) Religious toleration, (if changed ) lias probably rather diminished, than increased in the United States since the time of Penn—since the theatres remain closed on Sundays in all the Protestant States. As this depends on a majority of votes, it seems strictly constitutional in this sense; but in point of religious justice, it may be fairly con­ sidered, that the Catholic part of the population— though of course in the minority—should have the power of keeping one theatre open for themselves, otherwise all religions are not equal in the United States. If it be said on this principle, Mahomedanism and its polygamy might be admitted as equal to Christianity; I reply no; because poly­ gamy is contrary to the civil laic of the country, and besides, this would be altering the idea of duty between the sexes. But merely giving a re­ ligious community the power to pass the Sabbath according to tlieir interpretation of scripture, when such interpretation does not alter the idea of duty or justice among the sexes, is altogether different, since theatrical representation does not infringe upon any of the practical duties of life between man and man, or man and woman. Besides, be it remembered, that the Protestants of Germany, (the country where Luther arose), have their theatres and public ball-rooms open on the Sabbath evenings, when divine service is over. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 35 LETTER III. Citizens,—I shall now proceed to consider the good that Christianity, with the greatest show of reason, may be considered to have done in the world, and weigh this against the evil already spoken of. 1st.—As despotism or a government nearly allied to it, must always be that of the vast ma­ jority of mankind, does not Christianity exercise a salutary influence in checking the licentiousness of absolute power ? 2ndlv.—Has not Christianity tended to abolish animal and even human sacrifices ? and has it not. as Paley (Evidences, Chap, vii.) says—tended to diminish the horrors of war by increasing hu­ manity to captives ? And has it in reality produced some other good effects he mentions ? 3rdly—Is not the inculcation of the certainty of a future state of rewards and punishments, one good it has done ? In reference to the first point, it may be ob­ served, that when we consider the atrocities of Nero, Caligula, and id genus omne, of Roman Emperors, and compare such conduct with the course of life of the Emperors of Russia and Austria at the present day, the advantage on some points is so much in favour of these latter, that at first sight, we are apt to say this difference can onlv be owing to the Christianity of our days. �LETTERS TO Some years back, I took this view myself ; but that it is not the correct one is shown when we reflect that the atrocities of our own “most Chris­ tian” Henry VIII. rival those of the Roman Emperors alluded to. At the present day, then, we have no more Henry VIII. s in England, nor even in Russia or Austria, on account, not of the Christianity of Europe, but because of the spirit of the aye dependant on the progress the arts and sciences ¡tare made—those real and true civilisers of mankind. That mere Christianity cannot civilise, is shown by the barbarism of the Abyssinians of the present day, who have long been Christians ; it is shown also by the barbarism of the “ Middle Ages,” still more eminentlv Christian. Nobodv doubts the Christianity of V «. Calvin ; yet we find a follower of the lowly Jesus ordering Servetus to be burnt, because he differed from him merely in the interpretation of the scriptures. In like manner, as in the Spanish In­ quisition, we have evidence of atrocious murders committed by Catholics on Protestants : so even under the Protestant Elizabeth, we have similar, though less numerous instances, as the Rev. Sidney Smith (a Protestant) justly says, of Pro­ * testants ordering' the death, or expatriation and confiscation of the goods of Catholics. These, no doubt, are deaths and persecutions on account of differences in religious opinions; but as the * Letter on the Catholic question—quoted in Cox's work, from p. 462 to 467. The whole number of Catholics who have suffered death in England, for the exercise of their rdigion ! since the reformation, he makes to be 319, 204 of these being under the reign of Elizabeth, so that Lord Brougham in his Political Philosophy, p. 263, vol. Ill justly says, this is proof how little real progress in'“ con­ stitutional liberty” was made even in her rei<<n. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 37 whole of the criminal jurisprudence of these ages still Christian, was equally despotic and severe, * it is a proof that it is not Christianity but the spirit of the age, that makes the despotic power of the Emperors of Russia and Austria at the present dav, less formidable than was that of the Roman Emperors. Another cause for this, still quite independant of Christianity is, that in modern times, despotic power is restrained by the division of Europe into different States, some like Erance, Switzerland, and our own countrv, governed with a greater or less degree of liberty. The consequence is, that public opinion emanating from these, influences or restrains ttnv disposition to very gross acts of tyranny and injustice in the more purely despotic Empires. But, as Gibbon says—since Rome, under the Emperors comprised the whole of the known civilised world, the despotism of a Nero could receive no salutary check from the opinion of foreign and independent States. Lord Brougham (Political Philosophy. Vol. III., p. 1G4. London, 1816.) says, in reference to this point, (and mark he does not place Christianity among the causes), “ It is quite impossible that in anv government, however despotically framed, the sciences, the arts, the learning, the moral and political knowledge of the people should increase, and with these their comforts, possessions, and enjoyments, without the wish being communicated to them of bettering their conditions politically. * * To imagine that if Turkey were completely civilised, and men possessed the^wealth and the knowledge! that bless Western Europe even under * Torture and death were common for comparatively slight offences. f We find here he says “ knowledge,” and justly ; for �3y LETTERS TO its most absolute monarchies, a Bashaw could be sent into any province to enrich himself by plunder and confiscation, securing impunity by suffering the common master to pillage him in turn, is wholly absurd. * * It is not going too far to affirm that the Sultan, it is certain that the Bashaw of Egypt, rules by himself and his officers very different from the Tamerlanes of a former age. Compare the mild reign of the present Prussian sovereign with that of his predecessors a century ago, aud you will be satisfied that however little the form of that great military monarchy has changed, no prince royal could now be called forth to see his favourite strangled beneath his window for the gratification of a father’s splenetic humour. No Baron Trenck could be immured in a dungeon I have always maintained, although their polygamy is an evil, that the main cause of the decline of the Turkish Empire, is in their not having favoured the progress of the sciences; for now the art of war depends more on chemistry and mathematics than it did formerly. Religion has had nothing to do with it farther than that Christianity, ia. re­ commending as it does, ignorance and self-abasement, has never been followed by Protestant Christians, or even by Catholic Christians in France. Had Christianity been fol­ lowed to the letter it would have kept mankind in a worse state than the Mahomedan religion has kept it. The Em­ peror of Russia has encouraged the progress of the sciences, and well I remember meeting at Constantinople a professor sent out by him to explore and write about the unknown parts of Asia Minor. So that no doubt this gentleman re­ turned home with more information about the country than the Turks themselves who lived there. “ Ignorance is the mother of devotion,” and though I don’t think the Koran is more inimical to knowledge than our Scriptures are, still, in consequence of liieir ignorance, the Turks having had stronger faith in it, have followed their religion more to the letter, and, consequently, to their own disadvantage. The absolute Russian Emperor's religion, like our own, is fol­ lowed only so far as interest or expediency dictates, though, of course, professed to be followed to the letter. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 39 for twenty years because he found favour in the eyes of a princess. Russia is as despotically go­ verned as anv European prince could now venture to rule his people ; yet there is no possibility of a Czar beheading his mutinous guards with his own hand, or of a prime minister being sent in the night to Siberia with his family, because a new cabinet had been called into office. “ The first step in the general and inevitable change has been made in all these countries. The government generally remains the same, but the exercise of absolute power is tempered and re­ strained by the improved spirit of the age, by the force of opinion abroad as well as at home, and above all, by the great improvement in the know­ ledge, manners, and character of the people over whom those governments are established.” I may observe that the father of Frederick the Great, who ordered the unjust execution alluded to, was so pious a Christian, that he obliged a Unitarian to be imprisoned for his heresy ; yet Nero him­ * self could hardly have behaved more brutally or unjustly than the Prussian king in ordering the execution in question. Further on in the same volume, Lord Brougham, after noticing the abominable murders (so to call them) committed by order of Henry VIII., viz., of Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas More, Hr. Barnes, Cromwell, and others, male and female—makes the following statements, which will fully bear us out in our argument, viz., that the atrocities com­ mitted by some Christian kings, often in reality for causes quite independent of differences in reli­ gious faith, have been quite as unjustifiable and * See Zf/e and Times of Frederick the Great, in 4 vols edited by Thomas Campbell. (Shoberl, London.) �40 LETTERS TO * criminal, as many of the acts of the worst of the Pagan emperors of Rome. Hence, whatever ame­ lioration there is now, must not be ascribed, as is insidiously and falsely done by most writers, to Christianity, that religion having existed in even stronger force then, than it does at present. “ The king,” says Brougham, (p. 255), “ by proclamation, might make any opinion heretical, and niiylit denounce death as the penalty of hold­ ing it.” And to increase this infamy, Cromwell and Barnes were “ allowed no hearing the imimputed “ treason and heresy ” of the former only beginning to appear when Henry VIII. got tired * Under the tyranny of the Norman governors, “ the Saxons in 1124, particularly, were despoiled of their pos­ sessions, then butchered. Whoever had any property lost it by heavy taxes and unjust decrees.” (Hallam’s Middle Ages, Chap, viii., p. 31.). So “Peter the Cruel of Spain, (1350.) is said to have murdered his wife, most of his brothers and sisters, with Eleonor Gusman their mother, many Casti­ lian nobles, and multitudes of the commonalty.” (Hallam's Middle Ages, chap, iv., p. 277). So “ Charlemagne, (a. d. 800), ordered 4000 Saxons to be beheaded in one dav ; and (to recur to the effects of Christianity), pro­ nounced pain of death against those who refused baptism, or who ate flesh during lent.” (Do. p. 9.) A proof that force of the strongest kind was used at that time to convert to Christianity. We find too that the sovereign, “ rather encouraged, and the clergy for the most part approved,” of that gross injustice, trial by combat. (Do. p. 134, note.) “ During the time that a crusader bore the cross, he was free from suit for liis debts, and the interest of them was entirely abolished. He could not be impleaded, except on criminal charges.” Such was the spirit of legislation due to Christianity; not much restraining murder in these ages, and greatly (p. 24.) encmz/’ugbig such injustice as would not for a moment have been tolerated by the good Pagan emperors, neither would dispensations from oaths; and we find Edward I. seeking such from Clement V., who grants the king power not to observe his oath in reference to arbitrary taxation. (Chap. vii., p. 111.) So also Henry III., chap. viii. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 41 of Anne of Cleves, whom Cromwell had recom­ mended him to marry. This word “ heresy,” so misused indeed, gave the hypocritical tyrant a show of reason on his side with the ignorant mul­ titude, which might contribute to strengthen his power with them—the most numerous class, and which moral power, the Roman emperors neither got, nor tried to get on their side * Accordingly we find this monster, quietly having his own way to the last, (above thirty years,) and dying a na­ tural death ! while some of the worst of the Roman emperors—as Caligula, Nero,Tiberius,f Domitian, * The Romans saw, afterthe murder of Caligula, how diffi­ cult it was to produce that unanimity essential to a republic, and accordingly Claudius was almost forced against his will, to succeed as emperor. (Suetonius. Claudius.) The army, generally speaking, prefered the “ Empirethey elected those they pleased, and if the new emperor became very bad, he was assassinated. Doubtless the army in this, had too much power ; but still it was a system of wild justice ; and being in some little degree elective kept up the idea of liberty, (and men are governed by words), which idea was supported by their assumed right, if he proved bad, of putting him aside by death. t This emperor reigned, indeed, twenty-three years, living seventy-eight years ; and was smothered by Macro. But even Taci ms says, that “ he was amiable when a private man, and esteemed under the reign of Augustus.” (Annals vi. end.) It is also to be observed, that for many years, (at least nine), after he became emperor, he governed with great moderation, and assumed humility, refusing twice the title of emperor. One of the worst laws in his reign, (but acted on slightly towards the close of the reign of Augustus,) as far as the great majority of the people were concerned, was the system of “ informing,” whereby a person might be arrested for mere words of disrespect towards the emperor. But even in this case, Gibbon tells us (chap, xliv.) that, “ when they committed suicide to escape capital punish­ ment, their wills were valid, and their act was applauded.” These reflections will account in a measure for so long a reign ; and without attempting to justify many of the acts �42 LETTERS TO and Commodus, at least suffered a just death by the hands of their oppressed subjects. I maintain, therefore, that since these monsters were made to suffer for their crimes on earth, the Roman popuof the latter part of this emperor’s reign, it is obvious that his suspicion and hatred of mankind, began on the solid grounds of the poisoning of his worthy and innocent son, and was subsequently strengthened by the conspiracy of Sejanus (the man whom he had loaded with honours) against him. As he was sixty-six or sixty seven when he went to live at Capri, it may also be asked, whether the accounts of his licentiousness there, were not a little (to say the least) exaggerated ? It is worthy of observation, that Pliny the younger, and the moral Tacitus himself lived during the whole reign of Domitian, (fifteen years), we may almost say at court; for Murphy observes, (p. viii.) both of them “ rose to emi­ nence” under him. It may, therefore be asked, whether the crimes, even of this man, have not rather been over­ charged, or would it have been possible for a person like Tacitus especially, to suffer “ his fortune to be advanced” (Murphy) by him ? (See my remarks on the reign of Domitian.—Roman Emperors). On this subject we must never forget, that even under the worst emperors, there was no reli­ gious despotism. Tacitus complains, in reference to “ infor­ mers,” (book i., sec. 72), that “ till the latter part of the reign of Augustus, men were arraigned for their actions, but their thoughts were free." But these “ informers” were not anything like so intolerable as “ inquisitors," and much more justifiable, since they arose from the natural tendency of all power to wish to keep so. The ancients then were free even from the milder inquisition by opinion of Protestantism. Besides, we have already seen, that the natural liberty of man in regard to suicide was respected; and it is singular, that there was a mixture of quasi generosity, even with the very crimes of Tiberius and Nero, in this respect, for says Tacitus, (An. vi.—29.) “ those who waited incurred a for­ feiture, and were deprived of sepulture, while to such as died by their own hand, funeral ceremonies were allowed, (in my late quotation from Gibbon, this favour is not named by him, yet it should have been), and wills were valid." Such,” adds Tacitus, (in the spirit of an ancient Roman, applauding such liberty), “ was the reward of despatch.” �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 43 lation was not as a whole so oppressed by them as our population was under the Christian Henry the VIII. This view again, is generally completely overlooked by our ex-parte Christian historians. In allusion to the Star Chamber under this mo­ narch, Brougham justly observes ;—“ Not only did the Plantagenets and Tudors commit to prison, or ransom for heavy fines, those against whom they conceived an ill will, thus signally violating the most remarkable provisions of the Great Charter; but they exercised a like control over Members of Parliament who had offended them, and jurors who had given verdicts displeasing to them. A capital jurisdiction was never exercised by them, at least, directly ; but it really amounted to the same thing, whether they sentenced ob­ noxious men to death, or compelled timid jurors to find them guilty through dread of personal con­ sequences.” {Op. Cit., p. 258). No doubt, it amounted to the same thing. Even after the monster had reigned thirty years! and separated from Rome, as he called it, five years, “ his submissive parliament,” enabled him to pass the “ bloody act,” in which it was stated, that “ if any person once denied the real presence, though he afterwards confessed his error and re­ canted, he was liable to be burnt.”* {Op. Cit. p. 262.) I may observe, that bad as such “ informing1’ was, it still tended, as respects suicide, to keep up the Roman courage. “ That act was never ” (says Murphy) “ punished by law, or opinion, among the Romans.” Antoninus, how­ ever, in the case of a convicted criminal, punished it by confiscation ; and if a man had been guilty of murder, &c., this was a wise audjust check on it. *. Voltaire’s opinion of the Parliament of Henry VUL, and the king himself, is similar to that of Brougham. “ He had his brother beheaded,” says he, “ for incest, when �44 LETTERS TO The “ submissive parliament,” in such a case, was, as already hinted at, an advantage to a bloody despot, which the Roman emperors had not, since it gave a certain degree of moral support to the greatest villany. Men are far better off un­ der an absolute despotism, than under a hypocri­ tical mixed monarchy, in which the parliament has in reality no power; for in the former ease, even the most ignorant know at once the origin of their ills, and can sooner or later find time or op­ portunity to strike accordingly, as we find they did under some of the worst of the Roman empe­ rors. Nay, as the impunity with which this English monster reigned, was probably much more owing to the influence of the Christian priesthood in the country, than to actual fear of his subjects to revolt, we have here an instance probably of the baneful effects of this religion on a despotism, rather than the contrary. It was the duty of the clergy, no doubt, to read as the direct command of God—“Thou shalt do no murder,” and also (Romans xiii., c. 2.) '‘be subject to the higher powers ; for the powers that be are ordained of God, * * and they that resist shall receive to them­ selves damnation.” So that under such circum­ stances, an ignorant population might actually have the desire to injure the crowned monster, taken away or diminished, even if it had the courage. “ The experience or the humanity of the last century.” savs Professor F. W. Newman, “ has * there was not Me ZeasZ proof of guilt.” (Essai sur les Mceurs. Henry VIII.) * Contrasts of Ancient and Modern History, p. 79.— Taylor, Gower Street; and Holyoake, Fleet Street, 1847. For my part, I will “ contrast” Henry VIII. with any of the worst of the Pagan Roman emperors, and of the two. I �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 45 led moralists and all educated persons, heartily to renounce the ancient and once current doctrine of Tyrannicide, and upon this has followed the adoption of milder measures towards unconstitu­ tional statesmen. Men possessed of arbitrary power are no longer driven to despair: and even the unprincipled become less dangerous.” Although Professor Newman does not mention Christianity, yet it seems probable that this has, in the case in question, really had an influence ; for surely Tyrannicide is anti-scriptural, and it has not been so common for only “ one century,” but for many, as it was under Paganism. But when reflecting on the conduct of Henry VIII., I cannot agree with the learned Professor, that the change in opinion on this matter is an advantage to the * community. Probably be is right in the Pioman think should have preferred their rule. Under such go­ vernment, I should at least have avoided that most disgust­ ing and annoying spectacle of every day occurrence, viz., the sight of people really or only hypocritically religious, and whose religion taught them that it was right to “ obey a ruler,” however great a villain he might be ! The Pagans, at least, were free from such insensate cant. “ The dis­ tinction of spiritual and temporal powers,” says Gibbon, (Chap. xx.). “ which had never been imposed on the free spirit of Greece and Rome, was introduced by the legal establishment of Christianity.” According to the same his­ torian, (Chap, xvi.) even the Jews, (even after their fre­ quent rebellions), were probably still better off than they are now under our government, since under Antoninus Pius, they “ could enjoy municipal honours, &c., &c.,” whereas a Jew cannot sit in our parliament. * As since 1847, the Professor seems to have become less inclined to adopt even the Unitarian view of Chris­ tianity, it is not impossible, that if the work quoted reap­ pears in a second edition, he will modify this and many other opinions in it, which appears to me inseparable from even the Unitarian belief of Christianity. �46 LETTERS TO and Greek tyrants having been driven “ to (the ferocity of) despair” by it; but still, as I apprehend, the crimes of Henry VIII., (though necessarily on a smaller scale as being in a smaller country), are fully equal to those of the worst of the Pagan Roman emperors, I think as the English people could not have suffered much more by such “ despair ” they would have been better off in not having regarded Tyrannicide in such a case, as a heinous sin. On this point then, again, I insist that Chris­ tianity lias, in reality, been actually disadvantageous to the world ; though I would by no means be understood as considering lyranuicide justifiable, except in such extreme cases as those of a Henry VIII., a Nero, or Caligula * Nor even, * Another point that suggests itself is, the very short time, (as likewise Elagabalus after him), that this emperor was allowed to pursue his enormities, viz., only four years, being killed at the age of twenty-nine; and even the first years of this short reign were passed in doing good, viz., suppressing “ informers,” and by repealing some of the unjust convictions produced by the suspicion that poi­ soned the mind of Tiberius in his latter years. Again— though Nero, at the age of thirty-three, was forced to suicide, and reigned (like Domitian) 14 or 15 years, yet all agree that the first years of both these emperors also, were passed in doing good to the empire. It was the same with Commodus, who only reigned fourteen years before he was k’dled, and probably would not have been tolerated so long, had he not been the son of Marcus Aurelius, for his unprovoked cruelty was abominable. I assert then, that the reign ofall the really had Roman emperors was, comparatively speaking, short; and even the one (Tiberius), who reigned like our Ilenry VIII., above thirty years, did not, like him, die quietly in bed. To be sure, now and then, some of the good emperors (as Pertinax and Aurelian) were assassi­ nated ; but not more frequently than happens in Christian times and the long reigns of Augustus, the Antonines, Trajan, Adrian, Septimius Severus, and Diocletian, show, that the �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 47 indeed, with such characters as these, if the go­ vernment be sufficiently strong to punish them by exile, as the French government proved itself to be in the case of Charles X. and Louis Philippe, and subsequently (in reference to the people) under Napoleon III., in the case of the exiles to Cayenne. Professor Newman’s opinion, then, and my own; on this head, may not be different, supposing by “ milder measures,” he means exile; but not so, if he would advocate the Christian system taken literally, viz., unconditional submission as a duty. It is fair, however, to state in reference to this point, that as some degree of good seems inevitably mixed with the bad in all sublunary things—in all schemes of government, and in all religions—so it must be admitted, that the same Christian influ­ ence which has diminished Tyrannicide, has also been far more beneficial in rendering it more diffi­ cult for a despotic ruler to take away the life of an innocent man, than it was formerly under the Pagan system. He must at present pursue the more round-about plan, and often be obliged to diminish the number of his victims. I do not, however, apprehend, that this good can be put in competition with the evil produced by the very same influence, viz., the prohibition of Tyrannicide, under any circumstance whatever, and also of Infanticide, where infants are born even in a state of deformity. On the whole, I must decidedly place the greater respect to preserving human life among the evil effects of Christianity. Turning now to the question, whether Chris­ tianity has not effected good by abolishing animal assassination of the good was perhaps even still less com­ mon than under Christianity. Had Charles I. and Louis XVI., been less humane, they would probably not have been killed. �48 LETTERS TO and even human sacrifice, I am inclined to reply in the affirmative, considering the world generally, and not the Roman empire in particular. Faley, * on this point, merely says :—“ Ithas suppressed the combats of gladiators, and the impurities of reli­ gious rites.” He does not advert in any other words to the abominable human sacrifices that pre­ vailed, more or less, all over the world before its introduction. At Carthage, among the Druids, the Hindoos, &c., the introduction of such a religious system as prohibited these sacrifices was obviously a benefit, and though Mahomedanism did the same, it was after Christianity, and perhaps borrowed from it. But unfortunately Spain in introducing Christianity into the new world, proceeded by a svstem of butchery which was as bad, or worse, than the human sacrifices the new religion put down. In admitting the utility of Christianity as a general principle on this point, I have excluded, as just stated, all reference to the Roman Empire ; and as the object of this Essay was more especi­ ally to compare Pagan with Christian civilization, this is equivalent to admitting that the introduc­ tion of Christianity in the Roman Empire did, in reality, little good on this point, and lor the simple reason, that the Romans scarcely ever re­ sorted to such barbarities, and even when they did, prisoners of war (who would otherwise have been put to death) were used. As, however, wThen a * (Supposed Effects of Christianity.—Chap, vii.) As gladiators, generally speaking, were criminals condemned to death, some of them probably preferred , to perish during the excitement of fighting rather than await a passive execution. This system likewise afforded amusement to the people, and perhaps tended to keep up the courage, more essential at that period before the use of fire arms. I am not inclined, therefore, to consider that Christianity was of service to the world in putting down this custom. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 49 somewhat superstitious Emperor, as Aurelian for instance, came to the throne, human sacrifices might be ordered on a severe occasion, Christianity has the merit of having attacked the very idea, as unjust or injurious. However, Aurelian only ordered “some prisoners of war” to be sacrificed. (See my Remarks on Roman History.} Although I am inclined to agree with Paley, that Christianity has had a beneficial influence in tending to humanize war; yet even this has been over-rated ; for a change in the spirit of the age has been very influential, and also for some time, the fact mentioned by Hallam, viz., the existence of “ companies of adventure, who, in expectation of enriching themselves by the ransom of prisoners, were anxious to save their lives.” He adds: “ Much of the humanity of modern warfare was originally due to this motive.”* Thus he informs us that, in the battle of Zagonara (1423), and Mohnilla (1467,) not half a dozen! lives were lost. This statement of facts will enable us to judge of the value of Paley’s off-hand assertion on this point, viz., “ that it has mitigated the treatment of captives ;”f and “ ex uno, disce ommesf in re­ ference also to—“ It has abolished polygamy.” Now polygamy did not exist under the Roman * Middle Ages. Chapter III. p. 246. t Paley, towards the end of Chapter VH., “Finally, &c., &c.,” introduces “perhaps,” in reference to its having “ mitigated the conduct of war.” His assertion, shortly afterwards, that “ it hath ceased to excite wars,” is not true, as the late religious wars between Catholics and Pro­ testants in Switzerland prove. lie had better not have alluded to this subject, as the less frequency of such wars now depends on 'faith having evaporated,” as Valerj says. D �50 LETTERS TO government, either before the introduction of Christianity, more than after; and Luther himself seemed inclined to sanction it as not inconsistent with the Christian faith. Here, then, as well as in the above case, other causes have assisted more or less in the present system of monogamy. But some of Paley’s assertions are altogether false; such as his quotation from Clarke, stating that “ Christianity has produced a greater regard to moral obligations.” He had previously himself said, “ It begets a general probity in the transac­ tion of business altogether forgetting “Roman faith,” before its introduction. I have already said enough to show that it has produced, by its hypocrisy, exactly the contrary effect. He puts down, “ The influence of Christianity is not to be sought in the conduct of governments towards their subjects * * * but in the silent course of private and domestic life.” Certainly, it from the beginning always seemed to “ support the powers that be,” even under Nero; but it was secretly trying to upset them. But the truth is, it has vastly influenced “ the conduct of govern­ ments for, when Constantine was converted, we find great changes in all the Roman laws, and often less value put on probity and good faith. Again: “ Christianity is charged with many consequences for which it is not responsible. I believe that religious motives have had no more to do in the formation of nine-tenths of the intole­ rant and persecuting laws, which in different coun­ tries have been established on the subject of reli­ gion, than they have had to do in England with the making of the game-laws.” He then proceeds to say, that “ Christianity did not plant ” the principle which is at the bottom of all persecu­ �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 51 tion, viz., that “ they who are in possession of power do what they can to keep it.”* No—but Christianity has increased and strength' ened, though-it has not planted, the intolerant principle. I no more deny than Paley that some little of this principle does good (just as does that of anger or pride) ; but what I contend for is that, in regard to these two principles of human nature, the business of the philosopher is to ap­ prove of a system that tends to diminish rather than increase them. He, therefore, cannot approve of Christianity on this point. But, though agreeing with Paley, that some degree of intolerance “is not universally wrong,” still I must continue to censure the degree of per­ plexity which he still further on infuses into this subject, in order to try and make out that there is no intolerant spirit in the Christian creed. He continues: “Believing certain articles of faith to be highly conducive, or perhaps essential, to salva­ tion, they thought themselves bound to bring all they could, by every means, into them. * * * Had there been in the New Testament precepts authorizing coercion in the propagation of the religion, and the use of violence towards unbe­ lievers, this distinction could not have been taken, nor this defence made.” Now the Catholics, or any others that believe * This mode of expression is very objectionable in refe­ rence to the intolerant principle, for it would tend to make out, that all persons, or at least parties, are equally intole­ rant, which is certainly not the case. Even when in power, some certainly are far more disposed than others to princi­ ples of justice and toleration, But such way of putting the case shows an ex-parte lawyer, rather than an impartial philosopher. It seems written with the intention to intro­ duce perplexity into the argument, and to draw from such perplexity, advantage to his side of the question. �52 LETTERS TO the scriptures, must believe that “ certain articles of faith are essential to salvationand this underhand attempt of Paley to say they do not find such doctrine there, is unworthy of him. Moreover, Christians are “ bound to bring all they could” into them, for they are commanded to preach the gospel to the Heathen, and directly or indirectly made to believe that they themselves will benefit hereafter, by every such conversion they make. I do not say scripture exhorts them to do this “ by every means,” by “ the use of violence yet it most decidedly advocates mental, though not bodily, coercion on this point. But this Paley says nothing about. It suits his side of the argu­ ment to forget that ideas govern the material world, and that when the strongest of all motives, viz., eternal happiness hereafter, is inseparably attached to such ideas, these must sooner or later, some­ where or somehow, enforce “ the use of violence ” Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition was not only logical, but sincerely and piously Christian, in attempting to enforce belief by “ the use of vio­ lence,” even though this should not be found in direct terms in the scriptures; for as God, in these, commands all to believe or to “ perish hereafter,” it is the duty of man as His creature to believe; and consequently, if he does not, it seems that a Christian government, to be conse­ quent, should punish him, at all events, by im­ prisonment—perhaps even by torture—till he be­ lieved. As to actually taking away his life, even this would seem to be as justifiable as it ever can be in a truly Christian government, even for the crimes of robbery or murder. * * As one of the chief peculiarities of Christianity is its greater regard for human life generally than Paganism, I �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 53 Again—Paley remarking and justly, that poli­ tical fanaticism, even under Paganism, produced an immense amount of intolerance that led to much injustice and bloodshed, says, this was not due to religious fanaticism, and adds, “ if the malevolent passions are there, the world will never want occasions.” This, too, is a fallacious argument. The ques­ tion is still, whether Christianity has not added, “ by the distinction of spiritual and temporal powers,” (Gibbon,) a new element of fanaticism, and that, too, without diminishing the old one. As it has, it has vastly added to the amount of that pernicious element—intolerant fanaticism— “planted in the mind to be diminished rather than increased, as the Romans wisely observed when they allowed no such spiritual element in their institutions. Paley’s argument, then, here again falls to the ground, though he finishes with the following passage of great beauty, the reason­ ing in which is answered by the above reflections: “Hath Poland fallen by a Christian crusade ? Hath the overthrow in France, of civil order and security, been effected by the votaries of our reli­ gion or the foes ? Amongst the awful lessons winch the crimes and miseries of that country afford to mankind, this is one ; that in order to be a persecutor, it is not necessary to be a bigot; that in rage and cruelty, in mischief and destruc­ tion, fanaticism itself can be outdone by infidelity.” conceive that no truly Christian government is authorized to use capital punishments, for any offence or crime what­ ever. So called Christian governments have acted no doubt in this case from what t7ze?/ consider motives of actual neces­ sity for the good of society. But, perhaps, the more perfect Christian should not even recognize this as an adequate reason, for “ his kingdom is not of tliis world.” �54 LETTERS TO As the reader will find this assertion, that the French Revolution, and the crimes that attended it, depended on a want of faith in Christianity, refuted I think fully in my next Letter, I shall only now state, that religious “ fanaticism was not outdone in this case by infidelitybecause, though the atrocities committed seemed as great as in some of the religious wars, yet there is this essential distinction between them, viz., that they seemed necessary, in the opinion of those in power, for the very existence of the republic; and, con­ sequently, to the improvement which was at least attempted in the condition of the great mass of the people by this change of government; whereas all the atrocities committed in the religious wars of Christians, have, of course, never had the praiseworthy motive of an attempt to benefit the temporal interests of the masses for their cause : no, it has, even in the best way of viewing it, been a desire to benefit their supposed eternal and spiritual interests. Now, as the possibility of this is mere matter of conjecture—however much to be wished—it is clear that there is less reason than eloquence in the passage of Paley last quoted. “ Christianity,” says Paley, “ has greatly me­ liorated the condition of the mass of every com­ munity, by procuring for them a day of weekly rest.” I have already said enough to show that the way in which the British and American govern­ ments enforce the observance of this day, render it little advantage to the labouring classes, com­ pared with what it is in Roman Catholic, and even the Lutheran countries on the continent. Paley, himself, ought to have said this even as a Protes­ tant; on the contrary, his way of writing might almost induce an ignorant person to conceive that �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 55 our government gave the populace wages on this day, in order to live without work. Compared with Paganism, it did no good in this respect, for Pagans had their fixed festas. Although Paley notices the certainty of a future state, among the benefits promised by Christianity, yet he does not state it so pointedly as might have been expected from him. For my own part, I should have placed this among its very greatest benefits, if, instead of re­ wards for mere faith, it had promised with certainty rewards for virtuous deeds. And it is singular that this otherwise useful doctrine should be preached with such certainty in the New Testa­ ment, when almost every other point, which might be useful, is left in so much ambiguity, that it loses its value as a divine command. This doctrine is vitiated, then, in another way, viz., by the pre­ sumed merit of mere faith. When I reflect on this, I must prefer the future state proclaimed by Paganism, notwithstanding its defect of not having apparently been so certainly set forth as a means of rewarding virtue or punish­ ing crime. Christianity, in this case, errs, by making that virtue, which is not so; and the same in regard to vice. I have already been obliged to remark on the great disadvantage the ambiyuity in the meaning of the scriptures has occasioned to the world. This has, in a great measure, been the cause of the enormous amount of slaughter between Chris­ tian sects. And, in closing these remarks on Paley, I feel myself called on again to state ano­ ther evil occasioned by this ambiguity; I allude to the opposite opinions whether Christianity forbids war altogether, only in some degree, or not at all. �56 LETTERS TO Paley, finding that Jesus Christ dismisses the Roman Centurion without censuring his profession as a soldier, embraces the opinion commonly held by Christians on this point, viz., that Christianity does not forbid war. For my own part, I think he might, with the Quakers, more reasonably have embraced the opposite view. At all events, had he placed the denunciation of all but defensive war among the doctrines of Christianity, he would have added a point in its favour, greater perhaps than any of those he has mentioned in such an off-hand way, as though clearly preached by it, when in reality they admit of as much, or even more, doubt than this in regard to war. Perhaps Paley, however, justly omitted it; for he could not but observe, that had he taken the literal interpretation of scripture (as a mere theo­ logical writer is bound to do) he would find on this point, equally as I have said in regard to a future state, a radical defect, viz., that it would not even allow mere defensive war. Surely no one can doubt that this is a fair inference, when a man struck on one cheek is commanded to turn the other also. I shall terminate this third Letter by some re­ marks on a writer who has written after Paley, and “illustrated” him. Lord Brougham’s Chapter on Religious Estab­ * lishments comprises only about nine pages. In it we find the heads “ Established Religion In­ compatible with Democracy,” and that “ Estab­ lished Religion secures Instruction.” In reference to this last point, I may observe, that no doubt it does, but not always that kind of instruction which * Political Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 125. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 57 is most desirable for the good of the community, as I shall presently show more in detail. I shall now proceed to make some extracts which will give an idea of his opinions on this most important subject, annexing thereto my own humble comments. 1. —“ Experience proves that religion is a sub­ ject on "which the bulk of men feel, and do not reason.”* (128.) We have found, and shall find further on, proofs enough of the truth of this maxim ; and I am sorry to add in Lord Brougham’s own case. It is perhaps in consequence of a belief in this melancholy truth, that Lord B. has always laid aside his reason, for the time, when he has ventured to speak on the subject of religion. 2. —None of Brougham’s three objections to a church establishment (and which, be it observed, he himself refutes)! will apply to Deism, consi­ dered as the religion of the state. Itistobeobserved that he does not place among the objections the Dissenter having to contribute to a church estab­ lishment in which he has no faith, because this may be supposed applicable to a purely voluntary system ; “ for the dissenters,” says he, “ pav if they choose, and the persons who do pay, (sup­ posing there is no establishment) pay by so much the more than those who do not'' (p. 129.) 3. —“In several of the American Commonwealths every one was obliged to pay his tax to the state, which gave it over to the minister of whose sect the * And the worst feature in our “ Protestantism” is, that it has pretended to use full reason on the subject, yet has only gone half way, and hence increased the amount of cant and self-importance with us, and in reality contributed little to the freedom of the mind. t I say “ refutes,” because, as he puts the case, he does refute them, but not so in reality. It is all sophistry. D 2 �58 LETTERS TO contributor was a member.” This Brougham con­ * siders the only state religion possible in a Demo­ cracy. But as it compels every man to choose a sect, it might, says he, be objected to by advocates of a pure Democracy. Brougham finds the same injustice in the perfectly voluntary principle (No. 2) that has been attributed to church establishments, viz., that “ whoever wishes to save his money, will be able to benefit by the churches which his more liberal neighbour supports.” (p. 130.) But as I do not approve of a perfectly volun­ tary system, neither this objection nor the one mentioned in the last page (2) will apply to that still voluntary system (so to call it) in which a man is only obliged to pay to the form of religion in which he believes, or if he confess himself an Atheist, let him pay to the professors of morality in the university, whose teachings benefit him as well as the community at large. Brougham, finding tha.t the voluntary svstem (No. 3) cannot be attacked on the same grounds, has, in his feeble defence of church establishments, quite left this out of his argument! One would think on reading this section, that there could be no other form of Christianity than Trinitarian Protestantism, and, of course, no other religion than Christianity itself. Deism, or at least Unitarianism, (which yet is probably the religion of Lord Brougham, as it always lias been of the leading thinkers in all ages,) is not even alluded to. Now, I maintain that his argument would have been much stronger had he said a rational religion should be the religion of the state, for then, as every person must, or ought to * Political Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 127. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 59 believe in it, he will be only paying to a religion in which he has, or ought to have, faith. Every man—even an Atheist—must, in a certain sense, be a Deist, for he must acknowledge the existence of a Power he cannot wholly comprehend, or else he is mad. But when Christianity, and above all, Trinitarianism, is made the state religion, and we are required to believe in this, and also that the morality Christianity teaches is always more just and pure than that of natural religion, and to pay for such church establishment because it con­ fers an advantage on us, the case is perfectly altered. The doctrine of the most heinous sins being expiated by repentance, and that uncon­ ditional submission is virtue, are tenets which tend to increase the mass of crime in the world, as Lord Brougham would no doubt admit, did his position as a peer allow him to do so. His words, then, “ religious instruction, and the moral instruction that always accompanies it,” (p. 129,) area mere specimen of the cant in matters of religion that per­ vades his class, and which even he—bold thinker as he is in political matters—is not bold enough to oppose. It is the same with Cobden and others — all fear to attack the Christian religion more than other grievances, for this is the foundation one. We must, however, mark with care his conclud­ ing passage on this subject. “ In the deductions which we have stated * * we have made no allow­ ance for the ultimate effects of education. In no respect are these more fit to be considered than in their connection with religion. * * But this forms a separate subject, and as yet we have been through­ out considering the state of society as we at pre­ sent find it.” (p. 134.) This extract will prepare us for the following, which is perhaps the most truly eloquent passage �GO LETTERS TO in the volume. It is at the close of this that his real views seem almost unconsciously forced out by the momentary fervour of his soul. * Looking forward, like Condorcet, to the future, when “popular education” shall have done its utmost, he says, it is pleasing to anticipate that period, in which “ graceless zealots should con­ tend no more for useless forms of faith, nor political fanatics for forms of government; when devotion to the Creator should cease to be testified by discharity towards His creatures, and wretched abstract dogmas to obstruct the progress of all the * A truly Ciceronian passage, which should be read from the beginning. I am glad also to be able to agree with Lord Brougham in the following, where he calls bribery “ the pest of corruption, which now threatens our national morals, as well as the purity of our parliamentary system, and the existence of our free constitution; nay, which makes many good men, in balancing the advantages of a free and an absolute government, hesitate which to prefer, while they find that a popular constitution can only be pur­ chased by the ruin of all morals." (Vol. III., p. 318.) These remarks were written in 1846 ; and our recent elec­ tions show that we are just as bad in respect to bribery now, viz., in 1854. Writers may talk as they please of the dishonesty pervading the United States ; it cannot well be worse than among ourselves, including all ranks, classes, and sexes ; there being of course many honourable excep­ tions in both countries. And yet with all this, the American population and ourselves are ostensibly the most demure and pious Christians in the world! This consideration should have induced Lord Brougham to make some free remarks on the connexion of the Christian religion with morality, instead of writing down, as we have seen he has done, The established religion secures instruction!” I apprehend he could have found (strange to say) very little in it which tended to forbid cheating (or bribery) or false­ hood of any kind. Charity and chastity and faith, are no doubt eulogised; but justice—the “queen of virtues ”— is forgotten! Surely, after this, no candid man will say reform is not wanted in religion. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Cl light that most improves, refines, and exalts our species.” (p. 170.) Now, I will put it to any impartial person, whether the passages which I have purposely marked in italics, do not lead to the belief that, in his sincere and reasonable moments, when un­ oppressed by the conventionalisms around him, the noble Lord acknowledges only the sublime religion of the Deist; and that he embraces the absurdity of the Trinity himself, and recommends it as a religion for the multitude, only so long as popular ignorance continues. Although, therefore, he has not said so, it appears he may be regarded as considering Chris­ tianity a salutary “check” on our mixed govern­ ment, under which great ignorance prevails among the masses, and great knowledge among isolated individuals. In this view he may be conscientious, but I think wrong ; but it is certain, that the state of public opinion on matters of religion in Britain, has made him far too concise, ambiguous, and I might add insincere, on this subject generally. But as education has been so widely diffused among the Americans, the remark just made will not apply to them; and their leading men ought at once boldly to confess their true religious senti­ ments to the masses of the people. In confirmation of what was said above, I ob­ serve the following passage, which tends also to show what Lord Brougham’s real opinions are on the subject. “ The existence of a state church may therefore become much less indispensable when the people are so much improved (by education) as to remove those mischiefs and dangers, which we had occa­ sion to contemplate.” (p. 171.) He alludes to pages 125, &c. �62 LETTERS TO But if a nation is to improve gradually in such matters, it is surely high time that our form of Christianity for the State should be Unitarian, and that Lord Brougham himself advocate this change (or reform} ; supposing him to hold the opinion that Deism is at present too metaphysical a religion for a people even perfectly educated. Our populace were spurred, in a great measure, to the revolution under Charles the First, and also to that of 1G88, by a fear of the return of Popery (Brougham, p. 277-291); it remains to * be seen how they would receive a religion of reason in reality, for the present Protestantism is only so in appearance, and that only to the most superficial thinkers. I cannot close this Letter better than by a re­ flection, drawn fairly I think from the preceding summary of Lord Brougham’s printed opinions on Religious Establishments. It is this, viz., that with all our boasted freedom of the press in this a Protestant country, as compared with Catholic countries, we are still wrong in holding the opinion without admitting the exception of members of the House of Lords and of the Commons, and also the vast majority of the British nation. I say it with no disrespect to Lord Brougham, but it is clear from the guarded and almost ambi­ guous way in which this writer ventures his very freest views on religion, that opinion has not * “Religious fury." So much for the blessing of Chris­ tianity to Britain. It had a great share in our two revolu­ tions, and in its practical operation as regards the people and their amusements, the conquered form of Christianity (viz., Catholicism) was the most rational and liberal. Witness also the wars between Catholics and Protestants in Switzerland, caused, however, partly by faults in the constitution. (Brougham, p. 402.) �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 63 allowed him in this Protestant country to write as freely as Beccaria did in a Catholic country. To give only two or three examples. “ Il suicidio e un delitto die sembra non potere ammettere una pena propriamente detta” i.e., that suicide does not justly appear to admit of punishment. To showing this he devotes Sect, xxxv., Dei Delitti. Again—“ Allora religione, dec , de." i.e., “ the Christian religion, by holding up to the criminal such an easy repentance, tends to diminish the power of human laws to punish crime.” (Sect, xvi.) This is clearly his meaning. Again, in his preface—“ Non tutto cio, de.,” i.e., natural religion does not require all that revealed religion does. Again—he objects to the discretionary power of the sovereign to pardon crimes. {Idem., Sect, xx.) But, above all, to show the admirable frankness and honesty of the Catholic above the Protestant writer, I would refer to Sect, xxxvii. “ Ma gli nomini, de., de.," i.e., “but reasonable men will see that the place, the age, and the subject, do not permit me to speak plainly.” He is speaking “ against all attempts to use force on the mind in matters of religion, of wrhich the sole effects, says he, are first dissimulation, then base avilement.” These words were written so long ago, in “ a des­ potic and Catholic country,” and apparently too without injury to Beccaria, (who, be it also re­ membered, belonged like Brougham to the upper class,) even by opinion, as he died at Milan, and a statue has been placed to his honour on the staircase of the public Library there. They apply equally even now to the Christian oath re­ quired bv our House of Commons, as the Jews �64 LETTERS TO know too well. On the contrary, Lord Brougham, who could not have written as freely as the above, never hints a word about opinion not allowing him to speak out! This again comes from our selfsufficiency and Protestant cant—this real mockery of real liberty! �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 65 LETTER IV. Citizens,—If, in the heat of composition, I have let a few expressions drop that may appear wanting in courtesy, I beg you now not to take the same in bad part, since I am well aware that you drew your religion from the “ Old Mother Country,” and that your separation from it was very shortly afterwards followed by the French Revolution, in which some of the leaders openly denounced religion of every description. Now, it is natural for us all to respect the reli­ gion of our parents, be it right or wrong ; and as it was the fashion of many writers, both here and in America, to attribute the unjustifiable scenes in France to the writings of the Deists and Atheists, who preceded the outbreak, (but as I shall show presently without foundation,) it was no wonder that during the Presidency of Washington and Adams, your more just and virtuous citizens, in­ sisted on the recognition—at least by opinion—of some form or other of Christianity, as absolutely necessary to the foundation of your Republic. But I beg you to remember that, supposing this reasoning were just in 1794, it will not at all events be so to the same extent now. At that time there was a well grounded fear that the Re­ public itself, even with this supposed assistance from Christianity, was impossible ; now it is esta­ blished beyond any fear of its falling, at all events �66 LEITERS TO from external foes. Consequently, now seems the time for the nation which has done so much to­ wards establishing a system of political justice, to attempt a real advancement in the same direction in matters of religious liberty. * On this subject Cox justly says, that in some respects “ our Sabbath sanctity ” took its rise about sixty years ago, when the atrocities and follies of the French Revolution, and especially the abolition for a time of the hebdomadal festival of Christians, gave an impulse in this country to unwonted strictness in the observance of religious ordinances. (Cox, p. 335.) Again—George Combe to the same effect, (p. 338,) “ People at that time thought that by such Puritanical conduct they tended to give greater security to property by preventing revolution;” and, adds Combe, “ one or probably two genera­ tions must pass, before reason will again exert any salutary influence over religious opinion in Scotland.” Bishop Watson also was prevented by this re­ vulsion in public feeling from introducing “ a Bill for Expunging the Athanasian Creed from our Liturgy,” {Op. Cit., p. 338 ;) and so it re­ mains there unheeded still—an example of the slowness with which reason always marches in the * The misunderstanding between Thomas Paine and Washington was also to be deplored for the interests of rational Theism ; since the Americans naturally enough take the side of the latter, (as the great man who emanci­ pated them,) and as he at least publicly (though not pri­ vately) supported Christianity, this increases the disposition of Americans to do the same, and make them think this hypocrisy is really for the public good. Although pious Christians will, of course, dislike the style of Paine’s Age of Reason, there is no doubt of its literary merit or its .reason. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 67 world. Cox furnishes three or four pages, show­ ing the prevalence of the same feeling, until at last we find the Scotch Assembly actually wished to prevent the population “ from wandering in the fields or frequenting scenes of recreation ” on the Sabbath, (p. 341,) and that too so late as 1834! What would the rational Catholicism of France, and let me now add Piedmont, (at least in many practical points,) think of such twattie ? I consider, Protestants as we call ourselves, we are in very to any respects behind Catholics like these. It is clear, then, that Britain, even at ^pre­ sent time, has scarcely got free from the effects on her religion of that nightmare—the first French Revolution; and no doubt the same may be said of the United States. But, at all events, it is time they both should; and the late immense asso­ ciation (1855) in Hyde Park on a Sunday, to pro­ test against all such barbarous cant, was a good omen, and an honour to the British public. I shall now proceed to show briefly the errone­ ousness and short-sightedness of the view which attributes the revolution in question to the writings of Montesquieu, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, and others. And, in the first place, I would ask,—if these writings induced men to act as well as to think,— how is it that the writings of Bolinbroke, Hume, Gibbon, Earl of Chatham, George Combe, the * * His Letter on Superstition, (already alluded to, p. 5,) and he too with his vast influence, as Prime Minister ! As I see no notice of this Letter in Lord Brougham’s States­ men, and as one of his last speeches contains thoughts at least rather favourable to Christianity than otherwise, it seems right to consider this Letter as private ; or written for posthumous publication. Would that all the Peers and Commons, who thought like him, did the same! and then what volumes on volumes we should have! �68 LETTERS TO author of the Vestiges, (and others, as Paine’s in a more offensive style to orthodox Christians,) though in circulation to the extent of thousands of thousands of copies for very many years past, have not been sufficient to produce any change whatever in the laws affecting Christianity in this country, or hardly even in those usages which depend on opinion only ? A revolution in reli­ gion indeed !—why they have not sufficed, even in those who are converts to the rational and just views of these writers ! to make the majority of such people, or even the minority, change the hypocritical system of considering music, draughts, or chess on the Sunday improper. * The common cry with such men (in private) is, our religion is no doubt not of divine origin, but what harm does it do ? Let us, therefore, follow it, and respect all the prejudices of the vulgar as regards the Sabbath. I will venture to say that this is still the reasoning, of at least ninety out of every hundred of confirmed unbelievers in Britain, such great penalties are attached socially to disbelief. As already observed, the same views Posthumous confessions are better than none at all; and become a man’s duty, when opinion forces us to live in such miserable hypocrisy. Volume of truth after volume would surely at last conquer even opinion ! “ Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed sage cadendo." My chief motive for publishing this Work is to add a drop or mite, fully satisfied that thousands more will be wanting. * In the prospectus of the St. James’s Club, opened about three years ago in St. James’s Square, was printed:— No games (including the above) allowed on Sunday. On meeting one of the members some time after, I was sur­ prised to find the house shut up, but not so surprised at the cause of it, which was, that the saintly manager who penned, or was concerned in penning, the above, was off with all the funds lie could collect. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 69 prevail in the States—upheld too by opinion only ! Now all this shows that the Anglo-Saxons are, as Parker says—in opposition to the Germans— a practical people. They have hitherto had an idea that Christianity does good, as the unbelievers Frederick the Great, Washington, and perhaps Jefferson had ; and, consequently, that it is for the public benefit, that such religion should be dominant. Even Voltaire, in comparing the Stoicism of the Ancients with primitive Christianity, speaks favourably of the latter ; and Rousseau does the same in his Emile. Voltaire’s satire was aimed chiefly at the Catholics ; and Rousseau’s eloquence directed rather against the truth than the utility of the creed. Accordingly, his apostle Robespierre was very tolerant to Christians, and all who pro­ fessed religion of some sort, even when himself advocating the Deistic form -of worship. The massacres which took place while he was in power and cast such a blot on his name, seem the off­ spring of fear and suspicion, in consequence of the want of confidence in the strength of his own government. Certainly religion was scarcely at all concerned in them. * * Lewis’s Zz/e of Robespierre, (with my commentary M.S.) Robespierre’s hatred was directed only against the Atheistic party—the party who had, in 1793, so shamelessly set up the u Goddess of Reason ” in the shape of a beau­ tiful woman crowned with evergreens, and in apparent mockery of all religious service, as well also as of Reason itself, and consequently of themselves, made it a part of this religious service! for the President publicly to embrace her. This blasphemy fortunately only lasted a few months ; and I must consider that D'flolbac, Diderot, and Meslier, whose writings probably led to it, would, as conscientious Atheists, have been as much disgusted at such an indirect �70 LETTERS TO Thus much by way of showing that in France as in Britain, Christianity was not, even by its most determined opponents, regarded with aversion as doing actual harm; for these men naturally enough, blinded by the force of opinion of the age, could not see it as Tacitus could in its true colours, when he called it a “ pernicious super­ stition.” {Exitiabilis Superstitio.} {Ann., Book xv.) Suetonius too speaks of it in a similar spirit of reprobation, and calls it malefica, and seems by such term to think it merited either punish­ ment or contempt. {Life of Nero, Sect. 16.) These writers had clearly scarcely heard of Christ, and as Tacitus puts down the supposed miracles * of Vespasian, he was the man to have inserted those of Jesus, had they been known to the edu­ cated. Our French neighbours, though less practical than ourselves, would never have been inclined to fight to put down a mere opinion, especially when their great literary champions, Voltaire and Rous­ seau, told them such opinion did no harm. All in accordance with this, we find it was rather the large sums they had to pay such Christian priests than the Theology of these men, that most in­ mockery of their system, as the Deists themselves were at such scoffing at all religion; since they wrote in earnest, and were men of conviction, who at least saw nothing ridiculous in Deism. Thiers, justly therefore, considers it was a great change for the better when the inscription on the churches “ To Reason ” was effaced, and that to “ The Supreme Being ” substituted. But Robespierre himself fell very soon after this change, (in July, 1794,) hated and plotted against, by this Atheistic party, to the last—a proof of the great intolerance in human nature, and that Chris­ tianity does not cause it, though it vastly increases it. * He clearly believed in Divination, {Ann. vi., 22,) hence probably in Prophecy. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 71 creased the discontent, as Mignet properly says in his History of this French Revolution. In con­ sequence, ameliorations were made in this respect even before Louis XVI. was beheaded; and we also find before that event, that “ a majority of the clergy, chiefly parish priests, joined the nation or the tiers etatf * It is true we find lower down in the same page, that “ a minority of the clerical chamber chiefly bishops, and high benefced clergy,” refused to do so, and opposed the King, whom Paine calls “ a man of a good heart,” when he attempted to promote “ fusion ” between the higher, middle, and lower classes. This took place in 1 789-90, and shows that the majority of the clergy were favourable to a free constitution ;f and that the part which opposed it, did so for the same reason that some of the nobles opposed it, and quite irrespective of the question of religion' As the bulk of the clergy, then, joined the tiers etat or the popular side, at the very beginning of the revolution, this must naturally have disposed the revolutionary leaders, if not to friendship, at all events to a sort of indifference or non-hostility to them. And, consequently, a desire to upset the Christian religion and to establish another in its place, cannot be numbered among the actual causes of the revolution. I have admitted that the more material question (to the populace always so) of the pay of the clergy, might have been so concerned. The other causes concerned were, like this, of a completely * Vales’s Life of Paine. {Steps to the French Revolution.) p. 87. 7 t The clergy who had proved themselves the earliest and steadiest friends of freedom,” (viz., by junction with the Tiers-Etat.) Sir A. Alison’s History of Europe, chap. �72 LETTERS TO practical character, and still less connected with the philosophy of Rousseau or Voltaire. They were, 1 and 2, the great scarcity of bread, and the embarrassed state of the government finances ; * so that while the lower classes could not get food, the higher classes could not get money—the money owed to them by government. Add to these the Sovereign’s power of sending parties to the bastile without trial, the fact that all classes considered themselves over-taxed, and that Lafayette with victorious troops had just arrived from a successful revolutionary war in America, and we shall have adequate causes for revolution, in any country, and still more so in the military and highly susceptible French nation. We flatter ourselves with the idea, that no revo­ lution takes place in Britain, in consequence, as * “ Within six months after the revolution broke out, the revenue had fallen from £24,000,000 to £17,000,000 a year, and that at the very time when the embarassment of the finances had been the principal cause of the convo­ cation of the States-General. No resource could be found to meet the pressing difficulties of the Exchequer, owt the confiscation of the property of the church, and subsequently that of the emigrant nobles.” (Sir A. Alison s History, chap xv., p. 225.) This confirms what I have before said, viz., that the state of the finances (conjoined with famine and general political tyranny) was the cause of the out­ break, and at this time the property of the clergy was only taken, “ because no other resource could be found to meet the difficulty. M. Mounier, Lords Jeffrey and Brougham, though diliering on some minor points, may be said to agree as to the principal causes being those given in the text, and also to a^ree in considering the writings of Voltaire, Rousseau, and others, as little; if at all, concerned in the outbreak. Neither does Lord Brougham, in his notice of Robespierre, ascribe the subsequent murderous scenes of the revolution to the want of faith in Christianity of those m power. (Brougham’s French Revolution and its Leaders, pp. 4, 7.) �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 73 our journalists say, of the “ great national respect for law,” and some add for religion. Now, all this is fallacy, as the unsuccessful Kennington Common Demonstration in 1848 sufficiently evinced. It is at once refuted by the immense extent of poverty in this country ; for it would be absurd to suppose that our labourers and mechanics would not better by revolution their too often truly miserable condition—if they thought they would be able. Here lies the secret of tran­ quillity with us. It too is material. It is want of power. Our British mobs have never been able to succeed against our disciplined British military. Favourable circumstances make revolutions much oftener than abstract writers. If Lafayette and his soldiers had not returned victorious to France, it is not improbable, even with famine and debt staring them in the face, the French might have been quiet. But here were means to an end. And certainly Voltaire and Rousseau might have written with the same result to France, that our own philosophical writers, formerly named, have done to Britain, had not famine and debt arrived at the same time, and caused much more general discontent, than a false system of Theology. Southey was one who considered the toleration of such writings as those of the French philoso­ phers led to the French revolution. But this is not true, said Lord Byron. “ Every French writer of any freedom was persecuted. Voltaire and Rousseau were exiles; Marmontel and Diderot were sent to the bastile. In the next place, the French Revolution was not occasioned by any writings whatever, but must have occurred had no such writers ever existed. The cause of it is ob­ vious—the government exacted too much, and the E �71 LETTERS TO people could neither bear nor give more. Without this the Encyclopedists might have written their fingers off, without the slightest alteration. * * Acts, on the part of government, and not writings against them, have caused the past convulsions ”* I have little doubt that neither the religious writings of Voltaire nor of Rousseau, were con­ cerned in this outbreak, as is commonly asserted. Neither certainly were the political writings of Voltaire; for, like myself, he seems to have advo­ cated a strong government, and perfect equality of all religions only, and not of men. But as regards the political writings of Rousseau, I am not quite so certain. I think his doctrine of the “ equality of men ” may have tended to produce the outbreak, as I have admitted further on, Robes­ pierre’s very high admiration of these political writings tended to increase the amount of whole­ sale murders and atrocities. But as this doctrine of equality had been advocated by Lycurgus, by Plato, by Sir T. More, (Utopia.) and to still fur­ ther extent, and still more ably perhaps, by these men than by Rousseau, we must not put too much stress even on these political writings : and though we admit some influence to them, still this does not affect my argument, which is, that Rousseau and Voltaire’s religious (or irreligious) writings were not the cause of it, in other words that it was not caused by a general disbelief in Chris­ tianity. Having made it appear clear that the theological writings of the French philosophers did not cause the revolution, we may now enter more in detail into that second most important point of inquiry, viz., whether the suppression of Christianity after * Notes to the Vision of Judgment. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 75 the revolution had fairly began, was the cause of the wholesale murders and atrocities committed. And, in the first place, that this was not the cause of Louis the XVI. being so unjustly put to death, (any more so than in the case of our own Charles I.,) is clear from the fact, that it was not till after this period that Christianity was sup­ pressed in France. We come, then, at once to the constitution of 1793. But, as Lord Brougham says, this was far more Democratic than the one of 1795, which succeeded it; and both were far more so than the present constitution of the United States. {Poli­ tical Philosophy, vol. iii., p. 105.) Now, if Legislators can be so absurd as to at­ tempt to launch a people into the wildest Demo­ cracy immediately after such people have only been used to a monarchy, does it not follow at once (setting all change of religion aside for the mo­ ment) that such a people, especially those of so excitable a nature as the French, must at once launch into the wildest and most criminal ex­ cesses ? Jefferson, and all the best writers, have held the opinion that people should be gradually accustomed to liberty. Yet in open defiance of this wise truth, the brench in their revolution of 1793, equally as in the last of 1848 ! attempted to rush at once from Monarchy to Red Republi­ canism, or Socialism ! The consequence has been they have as signally failed the last as the first time ; the only difference is, that they have im­ proved in humanity by the sad experience of ’93. * * I feel that Christian opponents may, with an appear­ ance of justice, ascribe this amelioration to the open pro­ fession of Catholicism which was made by Lamartine and some of the other leaders of the Revolution of 1848. But still we must not forget the improved spirit of the age �76 LETTERS TO The bloody murders, then, in this year were the consequence of a ¿first clumsy experiment in new government, and the necessary consequence not of the absence of the Christian religion, but of the presence of actual anarchy. In order to consider this point fully, I shall refer again to the Political Philosophy, (p. 116,) where we find it asserted that “ the worst effect of popular government is, that the supreme power is placed in irresponsible hands. The people exer­ cise their office, accountable to no earthly tribunal. Each individual, too, forms so inconsiderable a part in the body which decides in any instance, that he feels little or no responsibility to rest upon him even as regards his own conscience. As for public opinion, from the nature of the thing, it exists not, the people themselves being those whose sentiments are meant when public cpinion is spoken of. * * The people can only dread having their conduct exposed, or made hateful or despicable in their own eyes, in a moment of calm reflection. This resembles rather the feeble check which conscience imposes upon a tyrant or a*** *** already alluded to, and also tlie history of the Republic of 1795, in which a great improvement took place as re­ gards humanity, and which Republic lasted without any established religion at all for some years, till it was put down by actual force on the part of Buonaparte. And, after all, the amelioration in 1848 was not all that could be wished, for there were many brutal individual murders committed, and the mass of the Socialists who fought against the illustrious General Cavaignac, (a moderate, rational, and honest Republican,) were perhaps in reality little better than well disciplined robbers, (if they will excuse me the expression.) Instead of many murders at the Guillotine, in detail so to speak, in this revolution, there were many on a wholesale scale, which removes our horror at them in some respect, as we seem to contemplate two armies fighting against each other. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 77 patrician oligarchy, than the restraining voice of public opinion * It would be exactly the same in its operation, with that shadowy restraint of con­ science, were it not that men are prone to suspect and distrust each other, and that people will naturally enough look forward to the risk that some of their own body may reprobate the pro­ ceeding in contemplation. But it is not only that the holders of supreme power in a Democracy are placed beyond the reach of censure ; they are like­ wise secure from all personal risk. * * Their excesses may prove in the result detrimental to themselves, but they can never be visited with vengeance by the victims of their wrong. The tyrant most fenced about with guards, is always in proportion to his supremacy subject to fear— * In p. 118 he applies all this to the “ popular leader.” “ He is secure of the approval of his own side, and he looks not beyond it. For him, therefore, there exists no such tribunal as the public, and no public opinion can have any influence in controlling liis proceedings." I consider all this as somewhat inconsistent with what he says at p. 121, viz., that a Democracy is often unfavourable to “ free discussion in points of their highest interest.” In truth, all writers on America, as Brougham admits else­ where, say and say justly, that the tyranny of opinion is the greatest defect of the Republican form of government. Jefferson himself calls it the “Lord of the Universe.” The President of the States, far from being too lit tle, is far too much, under the influence of this power ; by it, he is often degraded to yield to the most unjust and lowest pre­ judices of the mob. The great Jefferson, though a Deist, could not make public profession beyond Unitarianism ; and no President could go further in free thought on this subject, even at the present day. However, this defect is not confined to a Republic ; it will exist also in any govern­ ment that considers itself free. For instance, in England, the power of opinion is still greater (as the late “ beard and moustache movement” shows) than in the States on such minor points as these, equally as on religious questions. �78 LETTERS TO his appointed punishment. Many an act is thus prevented, and many a pain is thus endured. * * “ The sufferer who is oppressed by a tyrant or an oligarchy has the sympathy of the people. This is withheld from him who is the people’s victim ; and this has always been felt as an aggra­ vation of the wrongs which popular caprices in­ flict. * * The cruelty of the Parisian multi­ tude, during the reign of Terror, was raised to a pitch altogether unendurable by their savage exultation in the destruction of those patriots and sages who had devoted the best energies of their lives to the service of the people. * * * * “ No man dares breathe a whisper against the prevailing sentiments, (when one party in a Demo­ cracy has been fully established. ) * * * The agitators in the French Revolution were only safe if they adopted the most violent causes that were propounded. Robespierre succeeded by going beyond all others, (Lord Brougham means in public executions,) in his public life.” (The in­ ference from this passage, then, is that Robespierre was goaded to such excesses by fear of the people.) * In allusion to this mob despotism, he asks in the next page, (121,) “Who in England will show the difficulty of carrying on the government without some nomination boroughs? No one has dared,—and why? Because the people, whose highest interests require full and deliberate discussion (on this point,) will not permit it to be so much as mentioned.” This remark seems far more applicable to the question of reform in religion, both in England and America : yet with his usual caution on this topic, (as we shall see further on,) it is altogether overlooked by Lord Brougham. Even he, who alludes to “ nomination boroughs,” says, like the multitude in general, “ let us leave the question of religion alone.” I repeat, when we hear such expressions as these, we are right with Nir. Arthur Trevelyan to talk of the “ insanity of mankind.” �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 79 Again, at p. 182—“ Nothing can be more certain than that the worst excesses of the French Revo­ lution were occasioned by the interference of the people with the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly first, and afterwards of the National Convention. Hardly a day passed without some popular commotion ; and it was the ordinary spectacle to see mobs enter the Hall, and demand the adoption of certain favourite measures. It was, I remember, usual to say in those days that the whole of the mischief arose from suffering the galleries to interfere with their plaudits or their hisses. * * The people, both in Paris and the great provincial towns, had only partially given over their power to the Assembly or the Conven­ tion. * * They accordingly were distributed in societies or clubs: they had nightly meetings to discuss the proceedings taken by their deputies during the morning: they arrogated to themselves the right of approving or rejecting all that was done by the constituted authorities: and they knew their own power from the physical force in their hands, well enough to rest satisfied with nothing short of a direct control over those autho­ rities.” * * He proceeds to say, these clubs also communicated through the municipality with the rabble of the streets, and the control of the government was thus in their hands. “ The reign of terror strengthened whatever constitution succeeded that of ’93 : and the horror of mob­ violence continued, not only throughout the directorial government to prevent all direct inter­ ference of the people, but was the main proof of the consular and then of the imperial regimen, * * Brougham had previously, at p. 60, stated the same. �80 LETTERS TO in loth of which the people were deprived of all influence, direct, or indirect.”* (p. 184.) As neither in the above extracts, nor in any other part of his work, do I perceive that Lord Brougham even hints at the suppression of Chris­ tianity. as one of the causes of the excesses in the French Revolution, I presume I may place him by the side of Lord Byron and others who do not consider that such excesses arose from any such cause. Indeed, although in my opinion Lord Brougham speaks in far too guarded and ambiguous a manner for an impartial man on the subject of religion generally, still it is remarkable that he does not even mention religion even as a “ check ” upon the Democratic form of govern­ ment, although he has a long section showing, in such case, that “ checks” are absolutely necessary; and have properly been resorted to at present by the United States, with the same view that they were formerly by the turbulent Democracy of Athens, (pp. 99 to 1G7.) And, indeed, religion is no doubt "with the masses a much more feeble “ check” than actual law. It will result I think from a careful perusal of the part of Brougham’s work just mentioned, that he would attribute the excesses in question to the absence of legal or political checks only. At p. 101 he tells us, that triennial elections “ seem most desirable as a protection to representatives for their in depen dan cef and to the people for * I have sometimes abridged these quotations, where I could do so without altering the meaning. Lord Brougham and all who aim at occasional eloquence, necessarily say more than the exact sense requires. f These words of Brougham, which I have put in italics, sufficiently show that Rousseau was nearly right (at all �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SI their powerand that annual elections, bv making delegates “ mere agents,” do not oppose a sufficiently strong “ check” to Democracy. In noticing the Athenian constitution, lie says, events) when he said the representative system, except under annual election, was, as regards actual liberty of the electors, a sort of sham or humbug. The precise words of Rousseau, indeed, are only during election. (Contrat Social, quoted by Brougham, p. 60.) Brougham, in reply to this, says, the people only temporarily lose some power, and not liberty. Brougham, in this remark, is endeavouring to alter the meaning that Rousseau attached to the word liberty. I believe Rousseau to be right in his assertion, at the same time that with Brougham, I believe that the people are much better off, and, considering the chances of anarchy, practically speaking more free, when such checks as he mentions are put upon their power or liberty, using these words in the same sense; for it seems to me to be merely an attempt to humbug the people, by refining too much on words. Tell them at once, you may lose or you may not lose, (as the case turns out,) some liberty by the representative system, but you will be better for it. As Lord Brougham is very properly for giving the Suffrage to all who can read and write, and are not under criminal dis­ ability, (Op. Cit., pp. 81-2.) I think his work would have had higher merit if he had been equally liberal in speaking truth more plainly on this subject, and also on matters of religion. But, unfortunately, under our pseudoProtestant system, (itself the origin of all our cant,) the habit we are all more or less obliged to contract of speak­ ing only half the truth in matters of religion, insinuates itself, as in our present author’s case, into other subjects, and contributes to keep up the actor all through life. I am not to be understood by the above remarks as agreeing with all Rousseau’s political opinions. In his Contrat Social he seems rather inconsistent with his Con­ fessions, when, in his chapter Z>e la Censure, he seems to approve of having a very strong public opinion in a coun­ try. And though he seems right in considering that Theism or “ religion civile," as he calls it, is necessary to all good government, yet I would not banish those (as he would, p. 285) who did not believe even in this : still less have “ those put to death {idem.) who, having sworn they be �82 LETTERS TO “ no law inconsistent with an old one could he proposed without directly repealing the old one;— an admirable rule for any Legislature.” ip. 103.) And, I may remark, one which we ourselves should do well to observe—we, who multiply laws ad in­ finitum to the advantage of lawyers, and injury of the public. Although Lord Brougham censures the “ check,” which allowed the Athenian to pro­ secute the author of a law “ found detrimental on trial,” (p. 104,) still it may be a debatable point whether some very slight punishment (such as fine) should not be inflicted on the authors of some of our absurd laws, where the mere vanity of wishing to be known as a new member often prompts the illiterate man to propose a most unjust, as well as absurd, change. Turning to the “ checks” in the United States, we find that the one House is only elected for two years, the other is elected for six, (and that both are paid ;) and that the President is allowed very great patronage and power. (104.) Further on (p. 337) the following law is stated, which, if not a check on the people, is, as Brougham says, a wise check on the Legislature. The Supreme Courts have the power to decide whether any pro­ position that has passed both Houses, is constitu­ tional or not; and if considered not so, is pre­ prevented by these judges from becoming a law. Brougham (at p. 105) enumerates in detail the “checks” on the French Constitution of 1703, without saying a word about the suppression of Christianity. Again—“ That of ’95 was less purely Democratic,” (p. 105,) with the same lieved it, acted as if they did not.” This was the unnatural Theistic intolerance, that caused the Atheistic party to fear and hate Robespierre so much ; and is too Christian and tyrannical. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 83 silence as to religion. In this we find that both Chambers were only elected for three years, and the Directors (or Presidents) for five years, (p. 105.) Hence, as in the United States, the Senate is elected for six years, this constitution of ”95 was still far more Democratic than that of America, which had the advantage too of an additional “ check ” against anarchy, viz , the having sepa­ rated from a less despotic Monarchy than had existed in France. The Americans had thus been gradually accustomed to a certain degree of liberty. But the good influence even of this constitution of ’95 (too Democratic as it still wasj over that of ’93, is shown by the wholesale murders and other excesses for the most part ceasing after it came into force. * If it be said that shortly after this, (viz., in 17 95,) Christianity was allowed to make its appearance again, and this was the cause of the great diminution in the amount of judicial * Its faults are pointed out more in detail in Lord Brougham’s work. (pp. 350-353.) I do not, however, observe that he passes a very decided opinion on the unity or divisibility (so to speak) of the Executive. He, how­ ever, seems to prefer unity in this case ; and justly, for we find in 1797 that three of the Directors (the Executive consisted of five) combined against the other two, Carnot and Barthélémy, and by the aid of military force succeeded “ in expelling and transporting" (p. 353) many members of the Council ; so that, having destroyed this party, they continued to govern the country for two years more by the constitution of ’95. The advantage of unity in the Exe­ cutive is shown by the present constitution of the United States; and if calculated to pievent discord among Ame­ ricans, was doubly necessary among such an excitable people as the French. The election of many Royalists was the chief cause of this outbreak : a cause which will always continue to render the establishment of a Republic in France next to impossible. Even America would pro­ bably not have continued so stable, if she had at first been more than a Colony—a distant part of a Monarchy. �84 LETTERS TO murders, I reply by admitting the fact that the people, in consequence of their petition to the new Convention, were permitted to frequent the Catho­ lic churehes, provided they consented to “ main­ tain them at their own expense.”* I must admit, therefore, that at this period there existed on the part of the government a spirit of indifference in matters of religion, (since we find they only yielded to the wishes of the Catholics on this point,) in which Christianity was tolerated as well as Robes­ pierre’s Deism, or Theophilanthropism. But I cannot attribute the increased humanity, as regards the bloody scenes in question, to the influence of Christianity, because this religion was not allowed to have any power over the others, or to become the national religion, until its final re-establish­ ment to that position by Napoleon, after he became Emperor. It is quite clear, then, that the bene­ ficial change in question, after ’95, arose from the suppression of the spirit of anarchy among the masses, by a less Democratic form of government —in fact, by the direct influence of law, and not by the ever indirect and uncertain influence of religion. At the same time, I will admit that, possibly this less inimical view, with which Chris­ tianity was regarded by the government, tended to make the Christian part of the population less disposed to change, or to run any chance of anarchy. Robespierre wished to make Deism the State Religion ; his successors to raise Christianity at all events to a level with it. But as I do not attribute the murderous scenes during Robes­ pierre’s tenure of office to his religion, but his too great fear of the people, in consequence of the government being too Democratic; so neither do * Alison’s French Revolution, p. 551. Again in chap. xix. �TIIE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 85 I attribute the diminution in these massacres in ’95 and the few following years to any great in­ * fluence from Christianity, which was only just be­ ginning to show its head again. There are coinci­ dences in the moral equally as in the physical world, which the mass of superficial thinkers are apt to mistake for connexions; and such has been, and still is the case, I am sorry to say, on this subject, both in Britain and the United States. It is this fallacy, put forth with all the eloquence of truth, by such men as Burke, that has contri­ buted to keep both these nations, as Hurlbut says of the latter, (and might have said still more truly of the former,) in such “ an infant state of reli­ gious freedom.” To show the utter absurdity of the above opinion, it is only necessary to reflect how superior the government of the Roman Empire was under the Pagans, Augustus, Trajan, Adrian, the Anto­ nines, dec., dec., to what it was under the Christian Constantine and some of his Christian successors. Or that of modern Prussia under the "'infidel” Frederick the Great, to that of his Christian father. Now, as Christianity did not exist in these cases just instanced, of course the good government I allude to was not dependant on any supposed “ humanising effect” of such religion. Lord Brougham in bis Lives of Statesmen passes the warmest eulogy on the character of * No doubt the principle of re-action operated also. Even the most Democratic must have perceived that whole­ sale murder had been carried much further than the stabi­ lity of the Republic required, and that many illustrious, and at the same time harmless, men had been most unjustly sacrificed, by (to put the best construction on the case) a false idea of utility. Accordingly, we find that in the out­ break in 1797 Carnot and others were only banished or transported, and not guillotined. (See late Note.) �80 LETTERS TO Carnot, who was at the head of the French army during the time of Robespierre ; and, as it seems certain that he opposed no active opposition to the “judicial murders ” of this individual. I must here adduce this fact in favour of my argument, viz., that if not absolutely necessary, they seemed expedient, in that very critical conjuncture of affairs, and had nothing whatever to do with the suppression of Christianity. Carnot’s defence, says Brougham, that “ he remained in office with such detestable men as his colleagues ; that he even signed the orders of execution in his turn,” &c., &c., is, “ that he began to administer the war department, and had gained brilliant success, before his colleagues commenced their reign of teiror. That had he followed his own inclinations and opposed this, the country was conquered, possibly portioned—far more blood spilt—far more lasting disgrace incurred by the nation—far more permanent disasters entailed upon all classes of the people—than all that the terrorist execu­ tions and confiscations could produce. Was it not enough for him to know, that his retirement would certainly not have stayed the proscription, while it most probably would have opened the gates of Paris to the allies ?” (p. 36Ô.) Such are some of the leading arguments made use of by Lord Brougham to justify the compara­ tively speaking passive part that Carnot took in the so-called judicial proceedings of the reign of terror. And when we remember, that “two Spanish armies attacked the line of the Pyrenees, that another was advancing from Piedmont ; that La Vendée was in the hands of the rebels, with 40,000 armed peasantry ; that Marseilles and Lyons had separated themselves from the re­ publican government, and that an English fleet �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 87 rode in the harbour of Toulon ; and nevertheless that, in less than a year and a half of Carnot’s mi­ litary administration, twenty-seven victories had been gained; 80,000 of the enemy slain, and 91,000 made prisoners, &c., &c.” (Brougham, p. 369) we must feel inclined to argue that Carnot required every possible assistance from at least wholesale banishment—if not from wholesale slaughter by the guillotine—in order to diminish the number of internal royalist French foes, when so many external foreign ones threatened on all sides. This assertion is clearly true, since further on, (p. 371,) Lord Brougham says, “It is believed that at every period of the Revolution, the great majority of the French people, except in the ca­ pital were averse to republican principles ; and the elections of 1797, (the first under the new consti­ tution,) returned a majority of royalists and mo­ derate reformers.” When Pichegru, a royalist was elected President of the Five Hundred, and Carnot knew that insurrection was plotting against him­ self and the republican party generally, “ he was still above,” says Brougham, “ all acts that wore even the semblance of treachery, and became the sacrifice to his unchangeable integrity,” (being banished as we have already observed.) When another revolution destroyed the directo­ rial power, and placed Napoleon as First Consul, Carnot was recalled by him from exile and became war minister ; but “ he resigned the office,” says Brougham, “ when he perceived that Napoleon harboured projects hostile to liberty, having voted against the Consulship for life and the Imperial title.” (p. 372.) All this shows the disinterestedness of the man, and is favourable to the view that the �88 LETTERS TO present writer, following Brougham in this re­ spect, takes of his indirect support of the reign of terror ; he must have regarded it at the time as a sort of necessary evil. Sir Archibald Alison, in one of the most elo­ quent passages of his History of Europe, (vol. ii., p. 144.), supports Lord Brougham in the above view of Carnot’s character, and concludes this enlogy on his “ real greatnessby noticing the fact that should never be lost sight of in attempt­ ing to form an impartial judgment of Robespierre, and all concerned in the government in 1793-4, viz., that France on this occasion, resisted success­ fully a more formidable attack—especially when the immense opposition of the Vendée is re­ membered, than Napoleon, with his “ veterans,” was able to do in 1815. “ And this,” says Alison, was due to the ability of the Committee of Public Safety, “ and the despotic power wielded by the Convention.” (Op. Cit.,p. 145.J “ Fear be­ came the great engine for filling the ranks ; the bayonets of the allies appeared less formidable, than the guillotine of the Convention.” (p. 144 ) Alison takes a fairer view of Robespierre’s cha­ racter, than a writer so opposed to him in religion and politics could perhaps, generally speaking, have been expected to take. “ He and his party deemed the blood that was spilt essential to the success of freedom. * * In arriving at this conclusion, they were doubtless mainly influenced by the perils of their own situation ; they mas­ sacred others, because they were conscious that death, if vanquished, justly awaited themselves; but still the weakness of humanity in their, as in many similar cases, deluded them by the magic of words, or the supposed influence of power motives, �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 89 and led them to commit the greatest crimes, while constantly professing the noblest intentions. * There is nothing surprising in this; we have only to recollect, that all France joined in a crusade against the Albigeois, and that its bravest men deemed themselves secure from eternal, by con­ signing thousands of wretches to temporal, flames : we have only to go back to Godfrey de Bouillon, and the Christian warriors putting 40,000 unresist­ ing citizens to death on the storming of Jerusalem, to be convinced that such delusions are not pecu­ liar to any particular age or country, but that they are the universal offspring of fanaticism, whether in political or religious contests. The writers, who represent the Jacobins as mere blood thirsty wretches, are well meaning and amiable, but weak and ignorant men.” (Op. Cit., p. 209. J In a note he says, that Napoleon and Cambacérès took a similar view of Robespierre’s character, “ that he had not attended the Committees for six weeks before his fall,” and “ was at last desirous to stop the executions.” (Las Cases.) * I believe they actually had also good “ intentions but Robespierre’s principles obliging him to live in the humblest manner, (as Lamartine shows,) he, of course, could create no fear by moraZ means, i.e., by external pomp. And having not enough physical power at his com­ mand, (as he was not a military man,) his position was a false one, and instead of wholesale slaughter by cannon, (as used in a subsequent revolution by Napoleon,) he was driven to the same by the guillotine. The United States have wisely given great power and patronage to their president, and hence, although he has little moral power from the effect of pomp in subduing the mind, he has what is at the bottom of all good government, much physical power. The very democratic French government allowing little or none of this to Robespierre, his intentions, even when noble, often became useless, and he was driven on by a sort of desperation^ which, at times, lost sight of justice entirely. �90 LETTERS TO I shall now enter into more details with respect to the war in the Vendee, and first attempt to show that Alison’s conclusion against Republicans gene­ rally, and more especially against Deism, from the atrocities committed in this war, is not only erro­ neous, hut incompatible with the quotation just given, in which we find 40,000 unresisting citi­ zens were put to death by men, with all their faults, who were Christians in earnest —inclined to * practice, what they at least conceived to be directly or indirectly commanded by scripture, and not of the present hypocritical and sanctified class, (I speak generally!, who make their religion to consist in mere assertions and appearances, while their every day conduct is such, that it is obvious they do not even attempt to practice some of its very easiest duties. He says, “ this contest first put the cause of re­ volution openly and irrevocably at war with that of religion ; the friends of real freedom ! (sic.,) (he should have said slavery) for permanently en­ listing on their side, a power which will never be subdued.” (p. 140). I may observe here, that by “ religion,” he means of course Christianity ; for Robespierre’s Deism seems regarded by him little better than Atheism. As to Christianity “ never being subdued,” that remains to be seen when it has lasted as long as the Egyptian and Pagan religions lasted. “ Religions take their turns ; ’twas Jove, ’tis Jesus,” says Lord Byron. Religion itself “ will never be subdued;” but Christianity is not this eternal natural religion. “ From the atrocious severities of the Republi­ * “ The faith which then filled the souls of men, says Valery, (Travels, p. 406,) is evaporated.” �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 91 can’s swav in this province, has arisen the profound hatred of all the believers in the Christian faith at their rule.” (idem ) He should, perhaps, have said Deistical Repub­ lican sway to make the sense of this passage clearer; for the Christian world seems to have no objection to Republicanism as it exists in Switzer­ land, and the United States, because the vast ma­ jority in both these Republics profess Christianity, and opinion is against Deism. Alison, then, clearly means, that all believers in the Christian faith, ascribe those monstrous enormities, “ the Republican baptisms and mar­ riages’,’ to the proscription of Christianity from the French Republican government at this time. As I believe this is the general sentiment, I do not object to his stating it as such, but to his appearing to embrace such belief himself, after having made the statement we see he has done, in reference to 40,000 unresisting citizens put to death by pious Christians as they called, and no doubt thought themselves. He might, moreover, have added to these, the slaughter by Christian armies, after the taking of Mexico and Peru, &c., &c., &c. But it is now time to make some statements, which will show that the slaughter, (I do not mean by this to include wanton cruelty) in the Vendee was even more justifiable than that in Jerusalem, for in the last case, we find the citizens “ unresisting ; ’ whereas in the Vendée, the people were urged on by the Priests, and resisted with such success, that they were near destroying the embryo Re­ public itself, as the following extract from Alison’s chapter on this subject, evinces :— “ Thus was the invasion of six armies, amount­ ing to 100,000 ! Cszc.J regular troops, part of �92 LETTERS TO whom were the best soldiers of France defeated, and losses inflicted on the Republicans, incompara­ bly greater than they had suffered from all the allies put together since the commencement of the war”— viz., by the Vendéans. ( Op. Cit., Ch. xii., p. 117.) We find subsequently, that the Republicans were successful, but the above extract will show the immense difficulty put in their way by the Ven­ déans. (See also p. 139 to same effect.) But the causes of this war—which subsequently assumed all the character of a war of Christian fana­ ticism against natural religion, and not as formerly against Mahommedanism—were like those of the revolution itself, of a far more material character, than we might be at first inclined to believe. “ The confiscation of the church property, says Alison, rendered necessary the laws against the refractory priests, and thereby lighted the flames of civil war in La Vendée.” (Op. Cit., p. 225.) The Christian priests then, when like the curate of St. Maria de Re, to be noticed presently, with the cross in their hands, they harangued the ig­ norant but loyal peasants about to combat, were seeking revenge for loss of their property, (in * this respect, perhaps justly), as well as to revenge the attempt that Robespierre, as far as he indivi­ dually was concerned, had made, to put Deism somewhat above Christianity ; for he as already stated, was not of those who insanely attempted to drive all religion from the earth. " My children,” said de Re, “ I will march at your head with the crucifix in my hands ; let those who follow me fall on their knees, and I will give * “ The levy of 300,000 men ordered by the Convention in February, 1793,” was also greatly concerned, as Alison informs us. f Op. Cit., p. 98.) �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 93 them, absolution: if they fall, they will be received into Paradise; but the cowards who betray God and their families, will be massacred by the blues, and their souls consigned to hell? (Op. Cit., p. 127., Chap. xii.J Above 2,000 men fell on their knees, received absolution and returned to battle, the curate at their head, exclaiming—“ Vive le Roi, nous aliens en Paradis.” (Op. Cit., ib.J I have purposely marked in italics passages in this address, similar to those addressed to men in the earlier times of Mahommedanism, and equally well calculated to urge them on to far more despe­ rate combat, than any words with which an Atheist, or even conscientious Deist, could possibly speak to them. But as every impartial man, must I apprehend regard such words in the light of rank blasphemy, in which the creature assumes the power of the Creator, and of obvious fraud, for * the sake of taking an advantage of the Republican enemy, we have, perhaps, some little justification for the fierce paroxysms of rage—little short of in­ sanity—with which they must have filled the bosom of an almost beaten Republican army, and conse­ quently for the subsequent crimes of Carrier in his “ baptisms and marriages.” We find that, after the above quoted address of De Re, the Royalists won the battle, leaving 6,000 killed and wounded on the field ; and that such was the rancour inspired by fanaticism, that “they seized each other and tore their bodies with their hands after the ammunition had ceased.” (Op. Cit., p. 127.) * Yet Alison passes over this address, rather with seem­ ing approval than otherwise; so impossible is it for the most disinterested Christian writer, in the present tyranni­ cal state of opinion on the subject, to be as impartial as he otherwise, no doubt, would be 1 �94 LETTERS TO Alison, on a former occasion, forgetting, per­ haps, what he was afterwards to assert as facts, p. 96) tai ks about “ this superstition being of so gentle and holy a kind,” and endeavours through this chapter to make out that the cruelty was on the Republican side. Admitting that it was so to a greater extent, the following passages will show that the Royalist peasants, with all their “ holy superstition,” were not always so “ gentle’’ as he asserts. “ When Machecoul was captured, the prisons was forced by a furious mob, and above eighty Republicans massacredin one day.” Again, “ nearly 500 Republicans fell victims to the rage of a Royalist Committee.” (Chap, xii., p. 104.) Again, (chap, xvi., p. 274) “ Charette stormed three of the intrenched camps, and put their gar­ risons to the sword.” Yet this was the very Cha­ rette who he says, at p. 104, “ was horror-struck ” at the murder of the 500 Republicans just men­ tioned, and a man who often “ had recourse to the clergy” to instil obedience into his men, and who “ took an oath to be faithful to the cause of God (as he called it) and the throne.” (p. 107.) Perhaps, from the history of this brave man, (such he was, certainly,) may be gleaned one of the best arguments to show that even the Repub­ licans tried to begin by being mild, for “ when he was at the head of only fourteen followers (he subsequently had 20,000 under him alone) the Convention offered him a million of francs if he would retire to England.” (p. 107.) Again, (p. 108) “ It is painful, said the Republican Commis­ sioners, to be obliged to proceed to extremities, but they cannot be avoided, from the fanaticism of the peasants, who, in no one instance, have been known to betray their landlords.” After the fall of Robespierre, and the just exe­ �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 95 cution of Carrier, by "whose orders the “ mar * riages and baptisms” took place, we find a treaty (January 1795) was concluded between the Ven­ deans and Republican government, in which the former were allowed the free exercise of Chris­ tianity, two millions of francs for their war ex­ penses and various indemnities, pardons, almost total exemption from taxes, &c., &c., and they were to submit to the Republic. But even this did not satisfy them, for we find Charette, in the July following, joining other Royalists ; and they were scarcely even put down by ïloche and the great army in 1796 ! (Alison, chap, xviii.,) for we find them subsequently, in two years or so, breaking out again. (Idem.) Thus we observe that, notwithstanding Carrier’s atrocities, intended to extend the “ reign of terror” to the Vendée, and only resorted to towards the close of that reign after other more conciliatory measures had failed, Charette may still be said to have beaten Robespierre’s government ! Thus, though nothing can justify the murder of the women and children (37,000 according to Alison, p. 207) and Carrier’s other victims in the Vendée, still I have said enough to show that these mur­ ders, unlike those at Jerusalem, were caused by most determined opposition on the part of the Royalists, and consequently were, in this respect, more justifiable than these and many others that have taken place in the world. Moreover, it is clear that the Vendeans were not murdered because they were fanatical Christians, and that the Republicans would certainly not have * fChap. xix., p. 333, &c.) As “his authority was un­ bounded,” (p. 333) of course Robespierre had little to do with the murders in this remote district, any more than his Deism had. �03 LETTERS TO troubled themselves about their exercising their religion in private (nor perhaps even in public, * though their churches had been shut by go­ vernment) ; whereas, the 40,000 were murdered by the Christians in Jerusalem solely on account of their being of a different religion—viz., Maliommedans ! Th ese reflections will at once show that the brutal murders in the Vendée were not caused by the absence of all belief in Christianity in the minds of the Republicans, as a former quotation from Alison shows us the world at large, including himself, inclines to believe ; and, consequently, were, in reality, not near of so atrocious a cha­ racter as those in Jerusalem. And now let any impartial man go back to the following quotations, and mark the gross injustice with which one of the most impartial of the Chris­ tian writers is obliged, by his creed, to terminate his paragraph. “ After seven years, viz., in 1800, the worship of Christianity was restored by Napoleon ; but a great portion of the youth of France had been brought up, without receiving any religious impres* I set down this as possible, because Robespierre’s object was merely to put Deism as the state religion in place, of Christianity, at the same time, as I have observed, evincing a disposition to tolerate this latter as well as Judaism, &c. I observe, in Lord Brougham’s Robespierre, (p. 32) that his lordship says, the effort of Robespierre to introduce Theism “ was wholly unnecessary for re-establishing religion, and gained no object but that of exciting distrust, &c., among the infidel part of the community, without at all reconciling the votaries of Christianity.” No doubt such was the case as to these two latter effects, but Lord Brougham, like the other “ votaries of Christianity,” would probably as soon see Atheism as any religion except Christianity prevail. Hence this indifference, amounting to injustice, to the man on this point. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 97 sions in early life.’’ • * “ This, has for ever disqualified the French for the enjoyment of free­ dom, because it has extinguished the feelings of duty, on which alone it can be founded in the young and influential part of the people.” (Chap, i, p. 47.) Where were the “ feelings of duty,” when the pious Christians murdered the 40,000 at Jeru­ salem ? If it had not been for their religion, they would never have thought this to be a duty. Hence it is clear, that at least sometimes, Christianity mav come to make sincere men consider the very greatest of all human crimes, a positive duty ! !”* I hold, also, that “ feelings of duty” are necessary to “ freedom but maintain that Christianity gives wrong feelings of duty, and that they should be founded on Theism, or the reason given by God to correct any errors of conscience. On the contrary, “ impressions” of Calvinism, instilled “ in early life,” are the origin of our self-sufficiency, cant, and really irreligious conduct in the daily affairs of life, because they cause the intolerance of public opinion. I have already observed the Convention of 1795 repealed the law of 1793, which actually prohi­ bited Christian worship. This, it must be con­ fessed, seems a more equitable system, than the * Along with the minor vices of this creed may be noticed the following from Hume’s Dialogues concerning natural religion. (p. 105.) “ Among ourselves, some (probably he means the Calvinists) have been guilty of that atrociousness, unknown to the Egyptian and Greek supersti­ tions, of declaiming, in express terms, against morality.” All Christian sects do more or less, when they place so much merit in faith. Another vice in Christianity, unknown to the ancient superstitions, is the doctrine of repentance atoning for sin —a doctrine still more probably, “ against morality.” F �98 LETTERS TO mere private sort of toleration of Christianity by Robespierre ; yet, nevertheless, we can also infer from what took place after this change, the erro­ neousness of Alison’s assertion, that the mildness of the treatment of the Republican prisoners by the Royalists in the war of La Vendée, was due to their strong faith in Christianity , since we find that just after! the above decree too, some of this very religious party did not scruple to exercise their revenge on the Terrorists, and ‘ that eighty Jacobins only escaped execution, by secreting themselves.” (Chap, xix., p. 348.) “ At Lyons, Aix, &c., they (the Royalists) massacred the pri­ soners without either trial or discrimination. “ The re-action was terrible.” (p. 347.) Thus, by the above words, he contradicts himself. * Humanity did not thoroughly begin to reign till after Napoleon and Barras had secured the power of the Convention by their victory over the National Guards towards the end of October, in 1795; and this humanity had little to do with religion, for many members of the Convention were Jacobins, Theists, and Atheists, and Chris­ * The impartial reader will also observe that I have taken only the numbers as stated by Alison, (which may be perfectly correct,) without consulting the opposite, or my own party, on this particular point. Another consideration is, that there is somewhat more excuse for the atrocities of “ infidels ” in this war, because they saw that the Christian party took advantage of some of the most bigotted passages in their creed to cause their party to fight well. Now, perhaps, sometimes this was from faith ; but as it was also often probably from mere fraud to increase courage, the Republicans found they had nothing to oppose to this falsehood, but to endeavour to inspire terror into the minds of the Royalists by the severity of die punishments they inflicted on prisoners. 1 e Mahommedan lie so excited fanaticism, that at hrst this sect conquered everywhere. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 99 tianity was only on a sort of level with Theism, &c., till 1800. A more humane spirit had, indeed, began to show itself in April, when some Jacobin insurgents were transported to Cavenne, instead of being guillotined. The government was, how ever, hardly yet strong enough for such a measure, for a successful attempt at rescue was made by their comrades, and they were not retaken till 300 of the military had been called out. No doubt Robespierre thought that his government was not strong enough for such a measure. And such opinion might have been supported by a subse­ quent Jacobin insurrection, which took place on the 24th of May; for on this occasion we find the guillotine was again resorted to in the end of June, 1795, and that “three who tried to stab themselves were led, still bleeding, to execution'' (Chap, xix., p. 341.) Thus it was only, in fact, when the government came into the hands of military men, (Napoleon and Barras,) at the end of October, '95, that a more lenient mode of punishment could be judiciously resorted to. Thus we see that a mild^ yet perfectly Democratic govern­ ment (such as under Robespierre) is next to im­ possible, unless we give military men a preponde­ rance in the rule, and then it is only one remove from a despotism, and is in the power of such military men to convert it to such, if it pleases them. Such did Napoleon shortly after­ wards. This reflection will, like former ones, bring us to the conclusion that Robespierres cruelty was necessary for such a very Democratic Constitution to stand its ground ; and not in the slightest degree dependant on his want of belief in Christianity. * At the same time, I will admit * Again to the same purpose. From October 1795 to 1800 France existed without Christianity as the established �100 LETTERS TO that the attempt to suppress this by force, was very impolitic, to say the least ; and, if I may use the expression, an attempt to be as foolishly Democratic in matters of religion, as they had been in civil government. Had they begun with the constitution of ’95, as regarded religion, and allowed the Vendée peasants to attend Christian worship in their churches, if they consented to pay for it, we should not probably have had De Re addressing them, as we find he did, or a peasant on another occasion, noticed by Alison, fighting furiously to the last, though desperately wounded, and exclaiming to the Republicans before he fell—“ Restore to me my God.” Such, at least, would have been the more just and milder system ; and as it might have prevented so much opposition on their part at first, might, as a consequence, have also prevented the “ Bap­ tisms and Marriages,” and other atrocities of the Republicans. I am not, however, prepared to speak with certainty on this point ; since we find that under the Roman Empire, Christianity never was content until it had put all other religions beneath itself; and since wæ find that even after 1795, when it had acquired this equality with religion, its belief or profession being voluntary. Yet during these years the “ atrocities” were not repeated. But why not, if the absence of Christianity had previously caused these ? The fact is, the French people acted with more humanity and justice during this period, than often subsequently when Napoleon—forgetting somewhat his splendid address, “My empire ends where that of conscience begins”—restored Catholicism. Our fanatically or hypocritically Christian Cromwell, too, sent his prisoners of war to be slaves in the West Indies. (Guizot’s Cromwell. 1855.) Some men would have thought this a more severe punishment than Robespierre’s guillotine. It shows, at all events, that Christianity in its Puritanical form, is little more humane than Theism, or than Catholicism. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. D eism, 101 and the Venddans had, as already men­ tioned, obtained a treaty, the most honourable that could possibly have been granted by any govern­ ment which still continued Republican and not Royalist, they were dissatisfied, and took up arms again on the first favourable occasion. Whether, therefore, this more just system would have succeeded better may be somewhat doubtful; but we must not probably put the blame on Robes­ pierre and the Deists, that it was not introduced at first; for they took the government as they found it, and it was no doubt their great enemies —the Atheistic party—who bad been mainly in­ strumental in prohibiting Christian worship by actual law. Robespierre, probably, would not have dared to have favoured Christianity thus far, seeing that his restoring the worship of God only, met with great opposition from the Atheists, and was more or less instrumental in his fall. I may close these remarks on Robespierre by saying, that while I believe the religious creed he had taken from Rousseau had nothing to do with the massacres in question, I cannot perhaps say the same for Rousseau’s political creed, viz., the “ equality of men.” Fanaticism on this point spurred Robespierre on; but, strange to say, this was Sir T. More’s creed as a Christian. I have now given my matured and settled opinion, that the enormities committed in the first French Revolution did not arise from the suppres­ sion of Christianity as the religion of the State. In a former publication, before I had investigated this subject, I asked—Was not the slaughter in question due to this absence of Christianity ? deeming that it probably was. This query it was that induced me to investigate the subject fully, in order to remove one prejudice that still adheres �102 LETTERS TO to the minds even of some liberal and intelligent men on this subject, and is perhaps at the bottom of the strong respect of the vast unreflecting multitude in England and America for the Christian faith. But being fully satisfied I have said enough to show it is not essential to social order, I now close this point. Another seeming objection alone remains. I allude to the fact that none of the enormities of the French Revolution took place in the American Revolution, and as the Americans always respected Christianity, and public opinion in the country was in favour of it, was not this the cause of the difference ? Probably such is still the opinion in America—indeed, I have heard an American assert it; but that it is fallacious, is clear, not only from the example of ancient Rome, already instanced, but also from the different position France was in at the time of her revolution from America;/or here there was no Vendee with its 100,000 Royalists to oppose; nor the foreign armies of all Europe. Neither had the Americans Red Republicanism for their government; and conse­ quently they had a Democracy more easily managed. It is no doubt their merit to have fixed on this less Democratic form of government. But such choice and the above different position, aided perhaps also by a less excitable nature, were no doubt the cause of the far less amount of atrocity in their revolution. I assert their Christianity was totally or nearly unconcerned in it. I have made this solemn appeal chiefly to you, Citizens of the United States, to know whether the insanity of mankind as Mr. Trevelyan justly * * A man who asserts that mankind in general are mad, doubtless will be considered to be so himself; but I agree with Mr. Trevelyan that they are so, and for this simple �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 103 designates it, is to continue for ever, and to re­ main incurable ? In consequence of the universal diffusion of education among you, you are prepared for a really rational form of religion, I mean pure Theism; and if you cannot get a majority of your citizens to confess, what they must I think now really believe on religious matters, cannot you, at all events, get a law enacted for making this a state religion, to which every one of you should be obliged to contribute ? I think the intelligent among you would not consider this an abridge­ ment of rational liberty any more than Plato or Rousseau (those well-known apostles of political liberty) did formerly. I see that a Mr. Russell of * Cincinnati, thinks you would be better for some state religion, as the poorer classes could then attend a place of worship with more satisfaction to themselves. I conjure you, then, in case of any change in your system, to make that religion a religion of state, which alone is worthy to be so among a really sane and intellectual people. As outward forms and ceremonies in religion ever have been, and ever will be of importance as influencing the imagination, and by this the feeling of veneration inherent in the human soul, I shall here state that I think the establishment of the Theistic form of worship should by no means be accompanied with the simplicity and tyrannical spirit of order and separation of poor and rich, reason, viz., that, compared with custom and fashion, reason has little or no power over their actions. Such madness in lesser matters is not of much consequence; but when it shows itself, as it does now, among the most civilised nations existing, in regard to religion, the case is. altered. Lord Byron said, “ Turn Bedlam outand this playful instinct of the poet seems almost approved by reason. * England and America Compared. Watson. Holyoake 147, Fleet Street. �104 LETTERS TO which prevails especially in Calvinistic Protestant­ ism, but, on the contrary, with all the externals of Roman Catholicism. In this respect, I hold this religion to be perfect; and when also accom­ panied with the toleration that existed perhaps in still more perfection under the reign of Louis Philippe than it does even at present in France, I could even subscribe to its mysteries, taken in a very general sense. It was, and still is, or ought to be, far more tolerant than our Protestantism. I observe that the author of Quinquenergia, * while proposing the Theistic form of worship— which is the only true part of any “ revealed ” religion—also seems in favour of the externals of Catholicism, in which much of the classical Pagan system is very properly followed. Pro­ cessions, incense, splendid cathedrals,—open, too, every day,—in order to afford the poor and weary man an asylum and better home than his own, and where he can pray in peace, whether the priest be there or not,—such are some of the outlines for “ Deo erexit Voltaire" establishments. I feel the more confidence in proposing the Theistic form of worship, as the same may be said to have been done by Sir Thomas More in his Utopia, who seems, even at that period, to have thought it preferable to literal Christianity, and who, doubtless, had he lived to see the subsequent massacres caused by this, would have considered it doubly so afterwards. It was probably the advantage that many pas­ sages in scripture gave to those who say that into­ lerance is the basis of Christianity, that led More to prefer Theism,! for he says, p. 173, “ one * Chapman, London. 1854. f I know that the charge of intolerance in practice has been brought against More, and perhaps justly ; but when �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 105 Christian was punished by the Utopians because he cried out that ‘ they were impious and damned to everlasting burnings.’’’ He was “banished” for thus attempting to inflame the people to “ sedition and in this case I do not perceive any intolerant feeling in More, for the Christian in question uttered words without solid evidence ot their truth, and which were well calculated to cause civil discord and revolution. Had the ancient Roman government punished fanaticism in this summary way, Christianity would probably never have upset Paganism. Occasionally, no doubt, it was too severe to those professing Chris­ tianity, but taken in its whole course too tolerant. More would have the priests elected by ballot, and required to preach only the doctrines of Pro­ vidence and a future state. He tolerates all reli­ gions, and Christianity among them, because, says he, this favours “ community of goods,” which he, like Plato, thought should exist in every system of perfect justice. Thanks to the ambi­ * guity of the creed, scarcely a single Christian has ever adopted such view ! Yet I think with More, that the general tenor of scripturef is to support the passions are excited, a man is sometimes led to acts his reason condemns. This, then, is no argument against the views of his cooler moments. ° * I also hold this opinion as far as abstract justice is concerned; but maintain that such pure justice cannot be put in practice on earth on any large scale, and that, con­ sequently, perhaps the best form of government is perfect equality (not mere toleration) of all religions, and strong executive power—hereditary probably the best. It is sin­ gular that this was adopted in Sparta, as regarded their King, and that even the Senators there were elected for life. (Plutarch. Polybius.) Thus we find a thorough aristocratic! principle, even in this very small Social Re­ public ; otherwise, probably, it would not have lasted so long. t It may be said such opinion of equality is incompatible F 2 �106 LETTERS TO this said doctrine of the “ natural equality of man.” "No prayers are permitted among the Utopians, hut such as every one (all the different religious sects) may use without prejudice to his own opi­ nions.” (p. 185.) This is admirable, and is the only manner to unite all the different religions as far as they can he so; and to reconcile different sects to worship in the same church. Dr. Arnold, when he wished to see this in reference to Protes­ tants and Catholics, forgot the definite and often intolerant prayers and creeds which are frequently repeated in so formal a manner in our Protestant churches, as if expressly to exclude Unitarians and Catholics from repeating them. More, on the contrary, like Pope, prefers a sort of “ univer­ sal prayer.” More would also justly have the different sexes occupy different parts of the same cathedral, and the young women in company with the old, to with the assertion of “damnation” denounced against those who “resist the powers that be.” No doubt: and here is another specimen of ambiguity. But I consider this last as a proof rather of that subservience of Christianity to the temporal power of the Caesars at the time, which we observe in the reply, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Ciesars,” &c.. than to its true and proper charac­ ter and meaning. At its origin, property was common among Christians, and all was real equality among them; for Christ himself seemed to order this equality, when he told the rich man “to sell all he had to give to the poor. It was enab ed to get itself adopted by Emperors, because it seemed not to interfere with politics, and also because it seemed to sanction their divine right to power. But once adopted by Monarchs its doctrines of equality were for­ gotten, as being incompatible with those advocating “ divine” right; and this last doctrine is no doubt the cause why it has reigned so long on earth, as Monarchs have the physical force at their disposal. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 107 keep them serious, (p. 187.) Also incense, as a sort of sacrifice during worship ; and after prayers, amusements on the Sunday evening. (Idem.) To conclude : while he thus makes a liberal Theism the religion of the State, he may no doubt be accused of some degree of intolerance in ex­ cluding, as he does, Atheists from all public offices ; but Plato, and after him Rousseau, were probably still more severe on this point. Here, then, is the religion I propose as an answer to the infidel Lord Chesterfield’s question —“ Madam, what are we Legislators to put in the place of Christianity ?” I also allude to the existence of the Roman Empire—and in its greatest glory too—up to the time of Constantine without it; and also suggest the following outlines as auxiliary reforms, premis­ ing that the principle of all reforms, where only natural religion is professed, will be to increase the power of the government and the police, since some restraint, though very small, is taken away when we reject revealed religion. 1.—In consequence—to consider health first— all provisions and drinks should especially be sub­ ject to government supervision previous to their sale In England lately (1855) many of the ornaments in cakes and pastry, many fish sauces and pickles, and, less to be expected, many pre­ served fruits, have been found adulterated with actually poisonous ingredients, to the disgrace of our trading community ; and I observe in the * * Very large quantities of alum also in bread, and chicory in coffee. Mr. Graham, in stating he did not ob­ ject to this last adulteration, totally omitted to advert to the cases where poisons had been used. (Proceedings of the British Association.) �308 LETTERS TO French journals, that five or six butchers have been justly punished for selling animals that have died by diseases, and that, too, at a time when a malignant diarrhoea prevailed. The power now proposed ought to extend to punishing numerous advertisers of food, drinks, or medicines, where by falsehood they attempt to cheat the public. The poor, honest, and ignorant man, is at present often fairly robbed of his property, and often of his health, by these lying advertisements. Although it would be well that a similar force should attempt to prevent fraud in all other trades and professions, still as in these cases the health of the public is not endangered, less rigorous measures will perhaps suffice in such cases. It appears that our laws against fraudulent bankrupts are somewhat more severe than formerly; but some recent cases which have occurred in men of large property, make still more stringent laws on this subject desirable. 2. —Rewards for virtue should be instituted as Beccaria long ago suggested. Under this head something should be done towards the adequate remuneration of those who are honest enough to restore the property &c., &c., they havefound, to the owners. At present the paltry rewards given by some individuals are a disgrace to humanity and an encouragement to theft. 3. —Some form of sumptuary law seems desira­ ble to check the immense power of monopoly, which prevents the poorer men competing suc­ cessfully with the large capitalist. “ If laws were made determining at how great an extent of land, and at how much money, every man should stop,” at least some of the evils of the present system would be diminished, says Sir T. More. (Op. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 109 Cit., p. 71.J I agree with him, and think thus far onlv, Communism is desirable. * In reference to this point, the effect of fixing the prices of the necessaries of life, such as bread and meat, which has just been done by the French government, should be watched. One plan or the other ought, in justice to the poor, to be adopted. 4. —It were good that either the suggestions of Sir T. More or Lord Bacon, to prevent much of the mutual deception that often takes place in marriages, were followed. But as such suggestions seem only easily practicable in a savage state of society, we must be content to let custom remain as it is on such points. The Romans seem to have obviated the deception in question in a great measure, by the facility they allowed to divorce ; and our modern Reformers have done well in endeavouring to extend this privilege to the lower classes of both sexes of the community. 5. —Lord John Russell, in his speech on the Jewish Bill in 1851, observed that Lord Halifax formerly proposed, or submitted for consideration, the propriety of compelling the whole of the population to take an oath never to defraud their fellow-creatures, observing that, if such were law, it would not hinder us from bolting our doors at * With all our profession of Christianity and Christian charity, it would be desirable to know whether there is not more abject poverty in this country than in almost any other in Europe ? and, if so, as appears probable, whether much at least of it cannot be traced to monopolies ? As the poor man is also not allowed to do work/’or h imself on a Sunday, (see Note, end of Letter II.,) it may also be asked, if this law does not contribute ? The man in this case justly said he was too tired on a week-day to work in the evening. �110 LETTERS TO night, and taking the same precautions against theft and fraud as at present. * I pause to decide whether or not this suggestion might not be usefully added to the above, in case they were found inadequate to supply the place of a revealed religion. I have little doubt that unreflecting Whigs and Democrats will say all the above is rank tyranny. Perhaps so ; but never mind, so that it is not rank injustice; and I maintain such regulations would tend to cause the practice of a much greater amount of justice than we find at present existing perhaps under any government, Republican or Monarchical. As Plato said formerly, so I say now, that no existing government perfectly satisfies * I observe that Beccaria is against the setting of much value on religious oaths, even in a court of justice, urging justly, like the avowed Pantheist—Meslier—that the fears and hopes of religion are too remote (troppo remoti) to have much influence on the actions of the great mass of mankind. (Sect, xi ) Nevertheless, I do not apprehend he would have objected to the above suggestion by way of oath or affirmation for mankind of all religions. His views were directed against the oath of the Christian as such; and are sufficiently obvious, and as clear as the age allowed him to speak. Polybius justly praises the Romans for their great respect for their oaths, and also for the punishment they inflicted on those who either broke or tried to break such oaths. (Hampton’s Translation. Book vi., pp. 406-410.) The common soldiers, too, were obliged to take an oath of obedience to their commanders, (idem, p. 352,) and also (in reference to Lord Halifax’s suggestion) that “ they would not steal, or even if they found anything that they would bring it to the Tribunes.” (p. 369.) The worst of many of the cases in which oaths are now required is, that like that “ on the faith of a Christian” the form is not only useless, but injurious to honesty. How different that of the Romans ! Our system, too, diminishes even the value set on an oath. �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Ill my mind, (though France in some points and the United States in others comes nearest;) and like him I shall console myself, though the present suggestions never be put in practice, (as they probably never will be,) that I have at least worked disinterestedlv for the public good, and that some share of praise ought to follow, whether it does or not. Although in the present bigotted age, this is out of the question, still as like Gibbon, I wish to part on good terms not only with the Catholic, but also with the Protestant clergy, I shall here state that this work is not intended to censure them particularly, since, speaking generally, I consider all of them in a forced and false position. My pen has only attacked the measures and not the men, except perhaps in some rare cases, where these have been able to become more free agents than usual, and have used such power to the detri­ ment of truth and justice, or have given outward approval to a faith in which they cannot believe. There is, however, more excuse for the clergy doing this bv writing their Evidences of Christia­ nity and of Prophecy, &c., than for men of science and letters among laymen doing the same. It is double hvpocrisv in these men to write in favour of an obvious fallacy ; and as they are not neces­ sarily called upon to do so, they, more especially of all others, deserve to have their writings keenly criticised. As to the clergy—seeing their false position— though I feel no ill-will towards the quiet part of them—yet I shall not forget that there are a number of them roaming about, or settled on the continent, and who make it a part of their profes­ sion to commence their verbal war against Catho­ lics, or unbelievers generally. I speak from expe­ �112 LETTERS TO rience, having lately on the continent been drawn into arguments by two such men, at what might almost be called a public table, and during which arguments (as usual) the laymen present took the side of the church. On one of these occasions I felt at last obliged to tell my adversary that I thought it a dishonour to our English government that such a man as Gibbon {known as an infidel) could not sit in the “House;” for even the ad­ mission of the Jews to Parliament only goes half­ way. Our worthy clergyman then called Gibbon “ an insincere man,” forgetting that not one of our Legislators is allowed by opinion, or even law, to be even half as sincere as he ! These are the sort of men, too, that try often to insinuate, and if that fail, to push themselves into the sick infidel’s or Dissenter’s room uncalled for ; an instance of which I knew in the case of an artist who died rather suddenly in Italy, and who, in my presence, never expressed more than a modest doubt on the subject. I see also by the Advertiser, (October 2nd, 1855,) that this sort of conduct was attempted ineffectually in the case of the Lord Chesterfield, whose “infidelity” has been alluded to in these Letters. Now, of course, anything like friendship is im­ possible with such characters as these, and as at the serious period in question a man mav not always, from acquiescence of relatives or friends, be in a position to keep these possibly well-mean­ ing persons at a distance, I consider it right here to state that these Letters contain mv matured opinions—after an examination of the “ religious question ” at different intervals, and with some­ what different results for the last twenty years. I say this now, while, thank God, I feel my intel­ lect clear, and as strong as ever. Although phi­ �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 113 losophers, put little confidence in the change of opi­ nions said to have been brought about in several un­ believers when on their death-bed, yet the clergy ever appeal to these cases—where human reason is almost always injured, often nearly annihilated —as the best evidence that the man changed his opinions ! They thus show how weak is their cause. I, an humble individual, mindful I hope, in the words of Thomas Carlyle, of the “ Duties of Man” as well as the “ Rights of Man,” put down this, out of no spirit of bravado, but merely as a check on that foolish desire even of “ home conversion” which animates the great proportion of our clergy. I am sorry to say that these gentlemen are too often only thinking of their oun eternal interest, when, at the serious period in question, they seem to be thinking alone of that of the sick man. As believers in the scriptures—when, indeed, they are so in reality—they do not forget the reward held out hereafter to those who make converts of the Heathen. Since, in the reforms proposed in this Letter, I have not alluded in a sufficiently clear manner to the “ population question,” and since a work * treating more especially on this topic, has only fallen into my hands after all the above was written, I propose here to add a few remarks on the Chapter, Poverty, its only cause and only cure, apprising the reader that this is ascribed to over-population, and, consequently, that its “ only cure” is the use of some of the “ checks” enume­ rated in the work quoted. As I cannot here discuss this subject at length, I shall content my­ self by recommending it to the attention of the * Physical, Sexual, and Natural Religion, By a Medical Student, (p. 449. Price 2s. Published by E. Truelove, 240, Strand, Temple-bar. 1855.) �114 LETTERS TO poorer part of the public in general, as a work containing a greater amount of “ free thought” and general information on these—with us—sacred subjects, than is probably elsewhere to be found. Notwithstanding, that “ war, pestilence, and famine,” have decimated the human race, a philo­ sopher cannot but remark, that even these causes seem hardly to have been considered by nature, adequate to keep down population, since she has almost everywhere, at different times of the earth’s history, prompted legislators to recommend, and parents to commit, what we now consider so fearful a crime, viz., that of infanticide. In Sparta alone —of all civilised antiquity—was it confined more especially within what might appear the just limits of humanity, viz., where infants were mal-formed. Solon recommended infanticide ; Aristotle, abor­ tion ; and Plato seems in a great measure to have anticipated Malthus, for he, also, is for limiting, as well as improving the physical condition of the population, of course by one of the above means. Such general consent among sages and savages (for infanticide, has prevailed almost always in barbarous countries,) might well have turned Malthus’s powerful mind to this subject ; for no doubt the wise Romans would never have tolerated it—particularly as in population consisted their strength for war—had they not considered it some­ what in the light of necessary evil fur greater good. Of course, neither Malthus, nor any at the pre­ sent day, could suggest to a government the legali­ sation of a limited amount of abortion produced artificially, nor of infanticide ; neither probably would the ancients have permitted anything of the kind, had what are called “ checks” been known to them. These are the substitutes for it, and far �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 115 superior, inasmuch of the two. it is better to pre­ vent life, than to take it away even before it can hardly be called life. Malthus’s check—abstinence from marriage till a person can support a family—becomes often a peculiar hardship to the poor man; indeed, it is almost insulting him under the name of Chris­ tianity. No doubt, it is strictly in accordance with this faith, which makes, as already stated, forni­ cation “ deadly sin;” but if it be so, then surely it is the duty of a government to do something more towards bettering the condition of the poor, that they may have it in their power to marry with­ out actually bringing additional beggars into the world. Doubtless, other checks noticed as efficacious in the work in question, would not be tolerated as moral by our religion ; but the author also men­ tions that one somewhat recently discovered by Ra • ciborski, viz., “ abstinence from sexual intercourse, from the third day before menstruation, till the eighth day after it,” (p. 348) ; and this might even be used by married people, who firmly be­ lieved in Christianity. Professor Muller, some few years back, (see Physiology} mentioned this discovery; and it is right to say, that even now it seems only highly probable as such, but cer­ tainly worth attending to by the religious with large families, who are in poor circumstances, as giving a good chance. As this last check is the only one, the very strict believer in Christianity would use, and as this party constitutes at the very least more than three fourths of our population, we see clearly that if over-population be the “ only cause” of poverty, as our author asserts, there is very little chance in this “ religious country” at least, of his �116 LETTERS TO remedy being followed. Indeed, even if all the checks he suggests were pretty generally followed, I apprehend, that still the destruction of mono­ polies. or the regulation of prices, as already ad­ vocated in this Letter, would be requisite to equalise property to a reasonable extent. 1 however, admit, that a general use of his “ checks,” would tend to diminish poverty to a very considerable extent. As then, while Christianity is the established religion, it is in vain to expect any diminution of poverty by a general use of this author’s checks ; we have here, again, another injurious effect of this creed to add to those already mentioned in this work. I believe I may also enumerate among these, its tendency, by its opposition to Burke’s wise maxim, (see p. 4), to increase the number of the very worst cases of prostitution, viz., those in which a woman is left totally without means of support. The author of the work now noticed, says justly, “ only by allowing greater sexual freedom, is it possible to eradicate prostitution." (p. 3G9.) I have long been of this opinion, and there was an otherwise good article on the subject in the IFestmister Review some years ago, but it it did not make the above suggestion. The Turkish Empire, however, shows its truth, where fornication on the part of the man and adultery on that of the wo­ man or man, is very severely punished. If we punished adultery by imprisonment and hard labour, and opinion passed a less severe sentence on illegitimate connexions, (which nevertheless exist clandestinely to an enormous extent in this country), I believe our social liberty would be vastly improved, and our female population less often driven to prostitution. Gibbon and Crevier �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 117 both speak of connexions 'without actual marriage recognised by law among the Romans; and the former writer says justly of this concubinage (as it was called in legal terms), that “ in it the two Antonines, the best of princes and of men, en­ joyed the comforts of domestic love.” (Decline and Fall, ch. xliv.) I may add that Antoninus Pius was the more justified in such a step as the Empress Faustina seems to have been unfaithful to him. This concubine of the Romans was com­ monly of the lower classes of life, but she very properly had legal rights, and her children also, who were “ capable of succeeding to a sixth part of the inheritance of their reputed father.” (Idem.J I observe that the author of the work very properly published by Mr. Truelove for promo­ ting discussion on these sacred matters, says justly, without indeed alluding to the concubinage above noticed of the Romans, or “ secondary marriage” as Gibbon also calls it, and which seems similar to what our author suggests for Britain,—“ that all parents should be legally forced to support their children.” {Op. Cit., p. 368.) The only objection I can perceive to the utility of the above suggestions is, that such “ secondary marriages” might in some cases tend to prevent marriages justly so called ; but I apprehend only in a very limited degree, and perhaps it would be unfair to put this one bad effect in opposition to the nume­ rous good ones the author of the work in question attempts to show would follow were opinion less severe on all cases of illicit sexual intercourse. I do not think when the “ population question” is thus widely considered, not only as to the mere permission of abortion or infanticide, but also as regards checks, that Christianity has done any real good on this subject. At the present day, �118 LETTERS TO certainly, infanticide should be put down by severe law, since checks supply its place; but since Chris­ tianity would not consider this as a reason, or in­ fluence legislation on any such principle, \ see no reason to praise Christianity on this point, even though I freely give it and Judaism the credit, if any there really be, of having changed the world’s ideas on this subject. “ Christianity,” says Gibbon, {chap. xliv.) had been insufficient (till the time of Valentinian) to eradicate this inhuman practice, until its gentle influence was fortified by the ter­ rors of capital punishment.” Nevertheless, as it fortified the original Jewish idea, it must, I con­ ceive, lay claim to any merit attached to such change of ideas; though such came near half a century after the time of Constantine. But, as Gibbon hints, it was actual law that put down the practice ; and if there be anything really good in Christianity, this can always be resorted to by a government to punish such crime or sin. As law can always thus seize the kernel, we should do well to throw the shell with its ambiguity, and other bad qualities away, i. e., the so-called re­ vealed religion itself. After having suggested what may probably be called Utopian and impracticable, and too vast changes in our social system, and that of the United States, I shall close this letter by referring to a minor reform that is, at least, not impractica­ ble. I allude to the multiplication of places of accomodation for the relief of the urinary organs, &c., &c., as Mr. Lewis Gompertz, (the liberalminded originator, along with Mr. Martin, Sir J. Mackintosh and others of our laws against cruelty to animals) justly observed in a letter which some time back he printed and sent to the journals on this subject, stating that by the absence of the places �THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 119 alluded to, disease is often slowly produced in the or­ gans in question. In the city during late years there has been great improvement, but such has not ex­ tended to the West End. This neglect is the less jus­ tifiable in this country, because we have a law against “ exposure of person,” and because we often find convictions under this law printed up at our park gates. Now it seems very difficult occasionally to decide whether such “ exposure” may not have been a case almost of necessity, mis­ taken for one of express intention ; and if so, it shows that prudery, or economy, here sometimes defeats its object, and becomes a source of injus­ tice to the public. �Note A., page 13.—I find Hume seems to doubt the utility of Theism as a State Religion. He says, (Natural History of Religion, p. 468J “If we should suppose, what never happens, that a popular religion were found, in which it was declared that nothing but morality could gain the divine favour ; if an order of priests were instituted to in­ culcate this opinion in sermons with all the arts of persua sion ; yet so inveterate are prejudices, that for want of some other superstition, they would make the very attendance on these sermons the essentials of religion, rather than place them in virtue and good morals.” Again, (p. 469,) “The moral obligation (in the opinion of the masses) removes all pretension to religious merit.” Again, in his Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, (p. 523,) we find him having so little regard to the religion of this, that he actually says, “The Presbyterian government is established.” To be sure, he puts this ecclesiastical court under the civil magistrate, by giving him “power to try, depose, or suspend, any Presbyter.” He adds, (p. 528,) “ Without dependance of the clergy on the civil magis­ trates, it is in vain to think that any free government will have security.” But, though good, this is not enough to secure “ free government,” since, as the magistrates them­ selves, in all Christian countries, must adopt some form of Christianity, they themselves are under its influence, almost as much as the clergy are, as the example of Eng­ land, and even America, now shows ; and as Jefferson said, Presbyterians have proved themselves the most intolerant of the Protestant sects. I think, therefore, we must admit that on the mere question of religion. Sir T. More, in his Utopia, is wiser than Hume ; although Hume begins the present Essay by saying, in reference to More, that “ all plans of government which suppose great reformation in the manners of mankind, are plainly imaginary.” (p. 516.) Hence, perhaps, it was that he thought a revealed and in­ �NOTES. 121 tolerant religion was as good as a tolerant one laying no claims to revelation, supposing the former were dependant on the civil power. But, if “ manners cannot be reformed ” by good laws, what is the use of proposing these ? But that Hume errs on this point, great as his talents are, I think is proved by some nations surpassing others in civilisation now, just as Greece and Rome did formerly. To be sure, Hume says, “ great reformation,” and perhaps the history of the world has proved him right in this respect. Still, I must consider his “ Commonwealth ” very defective as regards religion. In alluding to Plato, too, on this subject, it is singular that he only mentions the Republic., (which he classes with the Utopia) as “imaginary;” while he does not mention the Laws, the very last work of Plato, and as St • John justly says, “ a more really practical work.” (Introduction to More’s Utopia.) It might have been possible, after recommending Pres­ byterianism, to have classed Hume with Frederick the Great and others, who thought Christianity at least a wseful creed, though they did not believe in it. But in the following passage he justly enumerates its defects, and though Catholicism only is alluded to, still the History even of Elizabeth’s reign shows, as Sydney Smith remarks, (Edinburgh Review), that Protestantism at times has been quite as intolerant. “ Virtue, knowledge, love of liberty, are the qualities which call down the fatal vengeance of inquisitors.” (p. 445.) And such being the case, he in this page, most wisely and justly, places the atrocities com­ mitted by the followers of the Carthaginian and Mexican religions in a more excusable light, than those committed by Catholics. In his Commonwealth Hume forgets that intolerance is directly preached by Christianity, and that Catholics and Presbyterians are only more intolerant than other sects, because they follow Christianity more to the letter. All revealed religions are always more intolerant than natural religion, as a matter of course: thus, as Gibbon shows, the, in some respects, wise religion of Zoroaster was more intolerant than Deism, because it pro­ fessed to be revealed. But as there was not any TEXT in that religion, which expressly consigned heretics to damnation, so, of course, even this religion would not be so intolerant as Christianity, Mahommedanism, and Judaism. In like manner, the Deism, said to have been revealed to Numa, was more tolerant than these. G �122 NOTES. In consequence of these reflections, I find myself again opposed to Hume, “ The intolerance of almost all religions which have maintained the unity of God, is as remarkable as the contrary opinion of Polytheists.” (p. 444.) We have just seen there is a gradation in the tolerance even of Revealed Religions which proclaim Monotheism: but when this doctrine is held merely as a consequence of induction from the phenomena of Nature, it is certainly far more tole­ rant even than Polytheism. In his remarks on toleration, in the Essay On a Parti­ cular Providence, (vol. ii., p. 149,) Hume says, “ There are scarcely any instances to be met with, in Ancient His­ tory, of this bigotted jealousy, with which the present age is so much infested. Epicurus lived at Athens to an ad­ vanced age in peace ; Epicureans were even permitted to officiate at the altar in the most sacred rites of the estab­ lished religion : and the public encouragement of pensions and salaries was afforded equally by the wisest of the Roman Emperors to the Professors of various sects of philosophy, says Lucian.”* Hume had just before stated, that “The death of Socrates proceeded partly from other motives,” (probably his indulging in irony against powerful individuals?) than a want of toleration m Polytheism. But I think it is clear from Diogenes Laertius’s Lives, that there is a distinction to be made in this respect, and that the Greeks were far more intolerant than the Romans; for we find that Stilpo, Protagoras, and Aristotle were banished, and Theophrastus nearly so; and that Anaxa­ goras killed himself to avoid further persecution [for religion’s sake. Hume would perhaps have us believe by his Note, (C. C., vol. i., p. 535,) that the Romans were as bad in this re­ spect, since he mentions the Emperor Claudius abolishing the superstition of the Druids by penal law. But Gibbon takes a j uster view of this supposed infringement on their usual spirit of toleration, by stating that the religion of the Druids was obviously highly immoral, since it enforced on certain occasions, human sacrifices; and yet, though even this was the case, “thepriests themselves, their gods, and altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final de­ struction of Paganism.” (Decline and Fall. Chap, ii., sect. i.)f So that in fact, even in this case, it was Chris­ * Hume also, in his History of England, (vol. i.,) calls the Romans “ tolerating conquerors.” f Again—Diocletian (a. d. 284) frequently conferred �NOTES. 123 tianity that may be said to have put down the religion: Paganism, far more tolerant, left this free, after it had wisely prohibited the bad moral part of it, viz., human sacrifices. Gibbon, too, has so fully shown that Paganism was obliged, for its own existence, to persecute Christianity, that Hume’s allusion to this case is not in point. Paganism was still surely too lenient, for we see that in the end it was actually exterminated by Christianity. Now, in order to point out an oversight in Hume, I must beg the reader to refer to my last quotations from his Essays, and to compare with the following from the same, placed at the head of his Note C., p. 535, vol. i. “ It is a vulgar error to imagine that the Ancients were as great friends to toleration as the English or Dutch are at pre­ sent.” But even the Athenians tolerated Epicurus, as he informed us, and I think by the aid of Gibbon I have shown these people were far less tolerant than the Romans. It follows, then, clearly that the toleration at least of the Romans was greater than that of the English or Dutch ; and I doubt not, indeed, than even that of the Greeks was, considered as mere religion. And, in fact, if we refer again to the Natural History of Religion, p. 444, we shall find the following passage:—“ If among Christians the English and Dutch have embraced the principles of toleration, this has proceeded from the steady resolution of the civil magis­ trate, in opposition to the continued efforts of priests and bigots.” This is in fact saying that Christianity itself is far more intolerant than Polytheism, which, in truth, is one of the points for which he wrote his Essay in question, directly to prove. We now see the reason why Hume, in his Commonwealth, makes Presbyterianism under the power of the “ civil magistratebecause he had seen that such subjection could diminish its persecuting spirit, as in England and Holland. But the magistrate can only do this in part, and that as far as actual law goes. But Hume forgot the per­ secution by opinion—the social persecution which must ever remain while so intolerant a religion is predominant, even as a religion. Besides, this power of the magistrate only “ most important offices ” on people of ability, who even “ avowed Atheism. ” (Chap, xvi., Diocletian.) This fact alone will induce any impartial person to believe that there were urgent secular causes for his persecution of the Chris tians, still much exaggerated. (See Gibbon.) �J24 NOTES. remains as long as the laws remain: but as Christianity in­ fluences the very making of the laws, such laws stand a chance of being repealed any day by the influence of some bigots, or new ones made more in accordance with the strict spirit of Christianity. Hume admits that priestly influence has been set aside very judiciously by the civil power ; why, then, if there must be a religion for the people, has he not preferred the old Polytheism for his Commonwealth ? he being a friend of toleration, and himself admitting that such was the most tolerant form of religion. I say this on the supposition that he thought pure Theism would not do for the people. But I cannot think he is right on this point: for a religion, under the control of the magistrate, may, in fact, be said to be no religion, except that, to show its intolerance and power, it will still always continue to per­ secute by opinion. Now, pure Theism would not do this. I do not apprehend that Cicero was so much in favour of religious toleration, as a consistent Republican should be, for in his Republic or Laws he merely recommends every citizen to profess the religion of his country. It seems, indeed, probable from Adams’s statement, that under the Emperors, (as a sort of compensation for the loss of much political liberty,) the spirit of religious tole­ ration increased. “ If any one,” says Adams,, “intro­ duced foreign rites of himself, they were publicly con­ demned by the Senate. But under the Emperors, all superstition, (even of Isis, Serapis, and Anubis, from Egypt,) flocked to Rome.”* We must, however, bear in mind on this subject, that as “ Nero repealed many of the decrees of Claudius,” (SSuetonius's Nero, sect. 33) ; so one Emperor acted towards the laws of another. Thus, although Augustus disliked the Jewish and Egyptian rites, still it was only under Tiberius we find something at all events like persecution; both * Roman Antiquities, (p. 56,) quoted from Livy. (Liv. xxix., 11 and 12,—iv., 30,—xxv., 50.) In proof of this greater tendency to toleration under the Emperors, I may quote Cxibbon, (chap, xi., Note,) who says, that “ in the year of Rome 701, the Temple of Isis was demolished by order of the Senate: but after the death of Csesar it was restored at the public expense." {Dion Cassius, 1. xl., p. 252, et. 1. xlvii., p. 501.) These last words speak volumes in favour of Pagan toleration; and this we observe was just as the Empire was beginning. �NOTES. 125 Suetonius (Tiberius, 36,) and TacitHS, (Annafe. s. 11 85,) agreeing that he made the Jews undergo a sort of banish­ ment. But it seems most probable, even at this time, that their hatred of Paganism (strongly disposing them to actual revolt) was the cause of this severity, for we know that Tiberius was indifferent to all religions; and Suetonius further on, (Life of Claudius, sect 25,) expressly says, “ this Timperor banished the Jews out of Rome, who were perpetually making disturbances." But we observe here, they were banished even a very little way, viz., 44 out of Borne” only. Vespasian obliged the Jews, after the des­ truction of Jerusalem, to pay a slight tribute, and was otherwise severe. But all this was not on account of Ju­ daism, as a religion, but because we see that, even from the time of Claudius, such religion had 44 caused disturbances" Under Domitian, (Suetonius, sect 12,) it appears some of them had their estates confiscated, 44 because they did not pay the tribute laid upon that nation.”* But before the Jews forced Vespasian into that war, by which Jerusalem fell, there seems no evidence that they had any tribute laid upon themselves as Jews. Rome seems to have left re­ ligion, even in this case, free; and the Jews were justly punished, because they wanted their religion to be above Paganism. . 44 The only direct tribute imposed by the Romans, says Lord Brougham, (Nature of Democracy. Roman Polity, chap, v., p. 244), “ upon a conquered people, was a tax of one-twentieth on the sale of all slaves.f * * They were allowed to retain their own laws, form of government, and magistrates. No Governor was sent from Rome, and the Senate and Consuls exercised no authority except in mat­ ters of peace, and war, and alliances, except, that the * 44 Imposita genti tributa, non pependissent." See my Historical Sketches of some of the Roman Emperors, or Crevier’s learned French work on the same subject. f We here observe that Lord Brougham says nothing about the conquered nations being obliged to pay a tribute towards the support of a religion they often (as regarded its details) might not believe in, viz., the state religion of Rome. Rousseau also says (Contrat Social, liv. iv.) 44 a crown to Jupiter of the Capitol was often the only tribute they imposed.” This was in fact only obliging men to acknowledge subjection to one Supreme God (D. O. M.) z>r powe", which all must, or ought, to acknowledge. I find �126 NOTES. troops for the wars of the Republic were paid, as well aa raised, by the conquered districts. * * * The con­ quered people were not allowed to intermarry with Romans, nor to dwell in the city, nor to hold any offices, nor to have any voice in elections, nor to enjoy any intercourse of sacred rites." It is from this last passage, which I have marked in italics, that we may, I think, infer that Polytheism and Christianity seemed to have directly opposite tendencies as to the desire to extend themselves, and, consequently, as to toleration. Paganism seemed to say, worship your own Gods, we can­ not permit you to worship ours, which are either too good for you, or superior to your comprehension. The Pagans wisely would have scouted our modern ideas of “ missionaries,” or our constant attempts even at home conversion. Under such circumstances, it was not very likely they would have forced the Jews to pay for the sup­ port of the Pagan religion, viz., as religion * It was not till after the insurrection, A. U. C., 658, that the whole ofltaly, south of the Arno and Rubicon, was com­ prehended in the Roman State, and the above restrictions were removed. Julius Ca?sar, A. U. C., 705, added Gaul, and Caracalla all the provinces of the Roman Empire to the citizenship. Recurring again more especially to religious toleration, I may perhaps urge the less amount of this under the Athenian Republic (already alluded to), than under the Roman, government generally, whether Republican or Tmperial, in confirmation of my opinion that religious toleranothing in the Empire under Paganism like forcing men to pay to an “ established church,” in the doctrines of which they cannot believe. This acme of tyranny (see Ireland especially) vitiates all the glory of our too highly extolled civil liberty. * There can be no doubt that it was only because the Romans saw that the nature of the Jewish religion was most intolerant to all other religions, and hence, consequently, often exciting the Jews to revoZt, that at last they were obliged to act with great seeming intolerance to them. Under Trajan again they tried to revolt, and under Adrian succeeded in keeping up a formidable war against the Empire two years. (See Crevier’s Adrian.} These remarks apply also to Christians, who seem at this time to have often been called Jews. �NOTES. 127 tion was greater at Rome under the Empire than under the ReDublic. The Athenians no doubt found that their amount of political liberty was so great, that they dared not, for the safety of the Republic, allow too great religious liberty. Probably the Romans, under their Republic, thought so too ; and the opinion seems wise that a Republic should not allow such perfect religious toleration as a more despotic government can well afford to do. . __ It is true that the grand Atheistic or Pantheistic poem of Lucretius was written under the Republic before the. time of Cicero, and this may seem to go against the opinion ot the greater amount of religious liberty under the Empire. But even supposing the poem was circulated as widely as any other works, and by a similar number of copies under the Republic, still this would only show that from first to last, the expression of thought on religious matters was Jree at Rome (Caesar’s assertions in the open Senate seem to show the same) ; but under the Empire, religious rites or practices, (as already stated in regard to Isis) were per­ mitted, which the Republic would not tolerate. Freedom of thought shows great toleration in religious matters no doubt, but freedom of practice still greater. Since writing the above, I have re-read Montesquieu s Dissertation sur la Politique des Romains dans la Religion, and find in it, on the authority of Cicero, (De Leg., 1. 2, c. that “ Aimurs could pronounce nothing on public affairs without the permission of the magistrates ; and that it was so ordered in the books of the Pontiffs.” As we have already seen that Hume was in favour of ecclesiastical power being under civil, he probably adopted this wise view from the Romans, but he forgot the British people had a far more intolerant religion to deal with, and this, I think, shouId have induced him to have wished to have seen the old Pagan religion back again along with the wise regulation On much the same principle, I think, Roman Catholics should do the same, for, strange to say, they also have on y borrowed half—unfortunately the worst half—and it would have been well for toleration had they borrowed the whole We know that their priests object to the Biole being read generally, and Montesquieu tells us that the Senate did the same with regard to the sibillyne books, and would not allow them to be read, except under the pressure of some great public calamity. Again, like the Catholics, “ all interpretations of these sacred books were forbid,” and, adds Montesquieu, �128 NOTES. “ by so wise a precaution, arms were taEen out of the hands of fanaticism and sedition.” No doubt any exami­ nation of the details of Polytheism would have injured the stability of the government; and as these details were in fact the religion of the people—who were too ignorant at that time to appreciate the generalities—so true—on which Polytheism is founded, the Senate were wise in making the above regulations. I apprehend the Catholics are so too in the present day in these respects; for they also allow no “interpretations” of scripture. But the vast superiority of Polytheism over Catholicism is clear from two considerations—1st, as I just observed, its generalities are true ; for, as Montesquieu says, the Pagans thought it mattered little whether we adored the Divinity itself or the manifestations of the Divinity; for example, Venus, as the passive generative power of nature, and the sun as the active power,” &c., &c. Thus Cicero says (De. Nat. Deorum, b. 2, chap, xxviii.) the Supreme Power on land is worshipped under the name of Ceres ; on sea, under that of Neptune. 2ndly, There was no intolerance in Polytheism. Now even the generalities of scripture will not bear any philosophical examination of the above kind ; and of course, both the Jewish and Christian religions have filled the world with dissention and bloodshed by their great intoler­ ance. I say, then, I think the Catholics right in allowing little exammation and no dissent, because, as reasonable men, they must be convinced that the generalities, as well as the details of their religion, have no solid foundation ; and, consequently, that philosophical examination can only lead to discord, and a fatal development of that intolerent spirit which is the very essence of all real Christianity. The im­ mense number of sects, and the intolerant state of opinion in the “ States,” although not having led to much blood­ shed, will, I think, also favour the wisdom of the Catholics on these points; and I much query whether the sort of half-toleration (or even less) of the reformation, admitting its good in some respects, was worth the immense amount of bloodshed it has cost the world. Montesquieu does not say that the Romans imposed any tax on conquered nations for the support of their (so to call it) “ established Church.” On the contrary, he asserts that they found, or always tried to find, their own Gods, but assuming a different name, in all the conquered districts ; and �NOTES. 129 thus were enabled to give them the strongest possible claim to that ACTUAL EQUALITY which, provided they were not themselves intolerant, they in fact acquired at Rome. JN o w this system was not only wise and just, but it was TRUE; for God is everywhere. “ Thus," says Montesquieu, with real eloquence, “ conquered nations regarded Rome rather as the SANCTUARY OF religion, than the mistress oi the To sum up, recurring again to Hume. I think he should have seen in Paganism itself, that Theism (at all events when graced with a little poetry, so to call it,) was a possi­ ble religion for the people. Lord Brougham (Paleys Natural Theology Illustrated,'Sotes viu. andix., pp. 2to to 296) shows well that Plato and Cicero held very ra­ tional opinions on a future state, and that these, Strabo, and I rni-ht add Polybius, regarded Theism as the foundation of Paganism, (Jupiter was always the chief God,. see Tay­ lor’s Diegesis, Pl>. 14-15) ; and that the Mythological fables were merely added as being more suited to the comprehen­ sion of the vulgar—much in the same way as Catholics oi the present day have by similar embellishments and faction made their faith, replete with male and female saints, like the “lesser Deities” of Paganism—more adapted to the devo­ tional feelings of the mass of the community. Certainly, the poet will, also, rather praise such additions, (“ pious frauds if you like so to call them) for by them Paganism and Catho­ licism have both become far more poetical religions than Protestantism. In consequence, (speaking generally) they may be said almost to have given birth to poetry, painting, and sculpture. If the Pope would but separate intolerance, &c., from Catholicism, I should regard that as. a .system of pure Theism, and the best of any at present existing. Note B., page 18.—While laws exist in the statute book, as they do’still with us in England in favour of Christi­ anity, our still very useful martyrs in the cause of free • thou Hit, can scarcely say they have forced the government to its present very laudable spirit of toleration in matters of religion. The government has only given way from otives of policy, and on emergency could still if it thoug ht fit resort to its former disgraceful course of persecution, which, indeed, was only following Christianity m its real spirit. To-day, the government is wisely,, only nominally Christian in ignoring (for it cannot be said absolutely to sanction) the attacks of free-thinkers. It seems to me a mistake to suppose that Richard Carlile G 2 �130 NOTES. (or Robert Taylor,) contributed much to the freedom of the British Press as regarded Theology, since Hume and Gibbon had previously found publishers. But Carlile, at the same time, that he published against Christianity, ad­ vocated the freest political theories and practice, (short of actual communism,) and this was probably very greatly concerned in the violent government persecutions in this case, though Messrs. Taylor’s and Holyoake’s imprisonments show that lecturing against Christianity offended govern­ ment much at that time. Thomas Paine commenced writ­ ing in favour of Republics, and only years afterwards attacked Christianity, which attack lost him the friendship of Dr. Rush, (see Vale’s Life of Paine,) and as Rush was a most intimate friend of Jeffersons, caused, perhaps, even this latter great man to regard Paine with less cordiality on his return to America, than he otherwise would have done. (See Memoirs of Jefferson, by Randolph, (in four vols.) It was not till the Throne seemed attacked as well as the Altar, that our government moved. Be it also remembered, that America and France had actually succeeded in estab­ lishing Republics at the time Paine wrote, and when Carlile began to reprint his works. Now, as there is no fear of any party succeeding in establishing a Republic here, further than on paper, government ignores political writings that go even farther than Carlile thought desirable. lie did not advocate communism; but many works now left free do ; nor are the writers prosecuted. But, I ap­ prehend, the government has not lost the power to prose­ cute, should a change of circumstances seem to render such a step desirable. Some old law exists in the statute book, like the one in reference to Christianity, and like that could be evoked on emergency. These spectres, too, might not only “ be called but would actually “ come,” when called for. That the British government merely ignores, and can not in reality be said, even now actually to tolerate writings against Christianity, the following case among others, distmctly sbows. It is taken from Cox’s Work, p. p. 477-8. After stating that from policy, (“ as prohibition tends rather to increase then diminish circulation,”) the press is left free, except in some peculiarly offensive cases, Cox continues, 4b In England the celebrated maxim, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law,” continues to operate as a bar to the free propagation of opinion, in a manner which it is impossible for a moment to defend. On �NOTES. 131 this principle, Lord Hardwicke in 1743, decided that a sum of money left to found an institution for reading the Jewish law, could not legally be so applied ; and so late as June, L1855! a similar decision was given by the ViceChancellor, and the following bequest was declared to be null, as being “ repugnant to revealed religion. . W. J. Hartley, by will, dated 1843, “ gave to Major General Bri^s £300 as a remuneration, for the best ori­ ginal essay on Natural Theology, treating it as a science. &c. ; also demonstrating the adequacy of this, wlieu so treated and taught as a science, to constitute a true, perfect, and philosophical system of universal religion, founded on immutable facts, and the works of creation, and beautifully adapted to man’s reason, and tending as other sciences o, but in a higher degree, to improve and elevate his nature, * and render him a wise, happy, and exalted being. The Vice-Chancellor said, that in bis opinion, the above words which the testator had chosen to adopt, could not mean anything that was at all consistent with Christianity . In this respect, no doubt, he was right; but his decision shows, that even now, as Cox justly says, ^supposed non­ belief in Christianity operates on a person s interest in a “ manner which it is impossible to defend. For here we see, that although a person uses no disrespect whatever to the prevailing creed, yet, because Ins views are considered to be even secrei/y hostile to it, his bequest is made null. This will be warning enough to those who believe _ only in the one true religion, (viz., Theism,) to give anything they wish for its support, during their life-time, since trea Christianity as respectfully as you may, you cannot anu late its inherent persecuting spirit. Had Theism, on the contrary, been the religion of the State as I suggest, it would have tolerated a bequest of this sort from any sec­ tarian to his sect, whether it were Jew, Christian or In­ fidel. Cox goes on to say, that the same unjust decision did not occur in Scotland in 1832 in Taylors case. Iu here the bequest was “ to the general Unitarian Baptist Assembly," and as Unitarians are admitted to our Farlianient, as calling themselves Christians, the cases are totally different ; and besides, this decision was made by Lord Jeffery, who, as a writer for the Edinburgh Review, was as * Cox justly praises this as appearing to have' been the religion of “Socrates, Cicero, Collins, Adam Smith, ‘Franklin, and Jefferson.” (p. 480.) �J 32 NOTES. liberal as opinion allowed him to be. Therefore, I appre­ hend, Cox to be in error, when he considers Scotland, in this respect, more free than England. (Op. Cit., p. 479.) It follows, from all the above, that our free-thinkers should not consider their victory complete, till they have got the noxious laws in question out of the statute book. We see obsolete laws (as we suppose,) almost every week being attempted to be put in practice again, as for instance, in reference to the labourer, (p. 32, note) : and though I am glad to see, that Sir George Grey has reversed the de­ cision of those magistrates, it seems still, perhaps, doubt­ ful, whether their decision was not strictly legal; and whether or not, it is to be remembered, that this old man has been subjected to a vast deal of annoyance, on account of our bad mode of legislation. This is anything but liberty. The Athenian custom, noticed, p. 82, is clearly the proper one ; and Lord Brougham is said to be now occu­ pied in endeavouring to get all the useless or injurious laws ou our statute book repealed. Doubtless, he deserves great praise for such labour; but time will show whether our Christian, by necessity, legislature, will tolerate this blow —which alone can be called the death blow—against bigotry, or if “things were called by their right names”—actual IRRELIGION. Note C., Page 23.—As the Bible expressly commands death to witches, I have urged this in my third argument (p. 23) as another objection against even the utility of the scriptures. I propose here to enter into a few details of the evils this scripture doctrine has caused. 1. —“ The charge of witchcraft too commonly arose out of the medical success of the offender.” (Sandby’s Mes­ merism, p. 40.) “ The persecutions for witchcraft did not commence till towards the close of the 15th century, i. e., when what are called the dark or middle ages were rapidly passing away !” 2. —“ This persecution extended all over Europe, and by it many thousands suffered death.” 3. —“ During the Puritanic supremacy of the famous long parliament, 3,000 victims perished." (p. 41.) “ The General Assembly passed an act for all ministers to take note of witches and eharms.” In pp. 42 and 43, after many instances of the persecu­ ting spirit of the Presbyterian clergy on this point, we find that “ three poor women were executed in 1623 at Perth for doctoring.” (p. 44.) �NOTES. 1 QQ loo “These charges were generally connected with cures wrought, or attempted, for some severe disease. The igno­ rant prosecutors could not explain what they saw. it was a paradox how an old woman could by 4 simples cure dis­ eases which had resisted the wisdom of the professor. Hence the charge of sorcery. I am indebted to Mr. Sandby’s work for the above facts ; * but I shall no doubt draw a somewhat different conclusion from them from what the rev. gentleman has done. . 1st.—They show the danger there is to the public in ad • mitting that anything like supernatural science is tiue, with­ out complete and impartial examination. Here we find people punished for imaginary crimes. Individuals who themselves professed to have the power of witchcraft, de­ served, no doubt, a lenient punishment (fine) for fraud ; just as astrologers, and many mesmerists and somnambules do at the present day. But those who did not themselves profess to know such art, deserved no punishment. 2ndly._ They show that Protestantism can sometimes be as intolerant as Catholicism; and that the advantages of a free form of government may be very materially diminished by co-existence of superstition, or a pernicious senti­ ment which is the offspring of revealed religion. (See No. 3 above quotation.) 3rdly.—They confirm what I have said in this work in reference to preaching Christianity to “the heathen, and nations immersed in ignorance—nay perhaps even further to highly educated nations ; since the reader will ob­ serve the curious fact, viz., it was at “ the close of the 15th century,” just about the time of the spread of knowledge by printing and the so-called reformation, that believersin Cihristianity began to persecute for witchcraft ! The present religious condition of the highly educated United States, with its Shakers, Swedenbourgians, and Spirit Rappers, &c., &c., (I speak with no disrespect) added to the fact just noted, confirms me more and more in the belief that every State should have an established religion ; but also, that that religion should be natural Theism. The command—“ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” still exists in the scriptures, nor can any man tell when opinion * The student should also refer to a No. in the Edinburgh some years ago for details of still further horrors, and to mark the vast numbers executed. �134 NOTES. or clerical influence may again be powerful enough—at all events in new and barbarous nations—to cause it to be obeyed. Note D., page 57.—As I have often called Protestantism only a sort of half reformation, I shall here add some de­ tails on the subject by way of establishing my points. Gibbon very justly calls the reformers of the loth and 16th centuries “ a set of fanatics.”* That great historian contented himself as a reformer in matters of religion, with showing that Christianity was not altogether of divine origin ; and as this was a vast step indeed in advance of Luther and Calvin, he deserves immortal honour, yet is not likely to get his statue in the “Abbey.” However, he is still too guarded in his remarks on the tendency of Chris­ tianity. In regard to “ unconditional submission,” his views arc clear enough as he prefers the views of Paganism to Christianity on this point—the sway of the Antonines to that of Constantine or Theodosius. But in different parts we find him speaking of the “ mild tendency of the gospel,” as if in approval of its true spirit,! in contradistinction to the precept and practices of its degenerate professors. But surely, when noticing the persecutions of Charles the Fifth, he might justly have said, here we have an instance of its bad tendency on a man of an enlarged and otherwise liberal mind. No doubt, Charles V., began very mildly with Luther * No doubt they were, and some of the changes they made were as foolish as they were unjust; witness the closed pew system, shutting up churches six days in the week, and building such small ones. It is to be remarked, too, that every form of Catholicism is of a more cheerful character than of Calvinistic Protestantism, even to the sound of the church bell I have no doubt that ail except fanatics would be very glad to find this, reminding one of anything rather than heaven, tolling only ten minutes instead of twenty minutes, or half an hour twice each Sunday—es­ pecially if they lived in the immediate vicinity of the Pro­ testant church. f See end of chap. xvi. I think, too, that Gibbon was deterred by the unjust clamour raised against this chapter, from doing full justice afterwards to the life of the Em­ peror Julian (ch. xxiii.) Indeed, he almost says so himself by implication. (See Life by himself.) �NOTES. 135 when he summoned him to Worms ; but afterwards we * find him approving of the punishment of death for heresy, and asserting that “ it was strange the German nation should undertake to do what all other nations in the uni­ verse, even with the Pope, would not be authorised to do,” and concluding by censuring “ the new Mahomet,” as he called Luther, t He did not resort to harsh measures, certainly, before he found mild ones ineffectual to sup­ press the “ movement but let us reflect that these harsh measures were the stake, and that during his reign, (from 1545 to 1556) no less 1,320 were burnt alive, and 6,600 sentenced to the galleys or imprisonment for mere heresy.\ Although nothing can justify such barbarity, still it must be confessed that Charles might have viewed one of Luther's innovations, viz.—justification by faith, not only as unscriptural, but what is of vast more importance, as highly immoral; and this too in a man who professed to start a purer view of Christianity. “ Penance, says he, and such sort of sacrifice is not wantedwe are led by implication to infer the sole sacrifice,” Luther considered wanted, was that of Reason!! This was to be sacrificed to what he called Faith! (D’Aubigne, vol. 1, p. 73). Let us admit on this subject, that if the Roman Catholics had pushed the * D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, (by Scott,) vol. i., pp. 585-636. f Idem., vol. ii., p. 305. | Vol. ii., p. 626. The numbers burnt by order of Torquemada between 1481 and 1498 were 10,220. It is not till from 1759 till 1788, in the reign of Charles III., that we find a very great diminution, the numbers burnt being only four ; and from 1788 to 1808 none. After giving the above and the other details, Scott re­ marks, “ It is lamentable to think that infidel philosophy, not evangelical Christianity, has been the grand agent in effecting the diminution of victims." So much for the blessings, then, of mere Protestantism to the world! This, for a time, tended to increase the number of victims, giving indeed some, but not very great, advantage to mankind for such vast sacrifice. It was not till Montesquieu, Diderot, Volney, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Gibbon, and others began to doubt or deny the truth of Christianity itself, viz., from before 1770 to 1788, that this bloody persecution was changed to the milder form in which we see it exist at the present, viz., censure by opinion. �136 notes. belief in the power of the Pope and their church to pardon sins (after penance) too far, the Lutherans, on the other side, insisted to an absurd and prejudicial extent, on the text:—“ If we confess our sins to God, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” (p. 40). With the great mass, this sort of confession is no confession at all; and certainly confession to a conscientious Roman Catholic priest (and there are many such) would have been a greater check on crime, had not that church unfortunately got into the practice of selling indulgences. Here, I confess, Luther justly attacked them; but when we find Leo X. making such good use for the public of the vast sums acquired by the sale of these, as building St. Peter’s at Rome, and buying M.S.S. of Livy, (p. 232), Tacitus, {Valery's Tra­ vels), and other classical authors,. we must regard even this abuse with more lenity than otherwise. The fault is inherent in the creed itself, which tells us that by repen­ tance the reddest sins will be forgiven. Such belief will ever be as much liable to abuse with Luther’s views equally as with those of the Roman Catholics, as the case (a few years ago) of the wholesale Norwich murderer Rush—to all appearance a very sincere Protestant—evinced. “No man can prove from scripture, that God’s justice requires any satisfaction (except repentance) from the sinner,” said Luther, (p. 238), and perhaps he may be right ; but I ap­ prehend it would have been better for the community, had Rush and similar characters, held the belief, that confession and repentance openly to a priest, and even some payment or penance, was necessary as a “ satisfaction.” Again, (p. 599), Luther preaches :—“ We are saved by the works of Christ, not our own works.” The Pope says something very different, and he probably says something better, though whether more strictly scriptural, I apprehend neither he or any one else can truly decide, seeing how am­ biguous every point looks by scripture light. As our own works cannot save us ; so thought Rush they cannot damn us, provided we repent, or appear to do so, for (see his trial) he seemed to expect salvation. “ People must first be made partakers of life by faith, if they would do works pleasing to God,” says D’Aubigne’s commentator, (p. 578,) in which the gross immorality and injustice of Lutheran “justification by faith” may be said to be summed up. Again, in Luther's own confession, ‘■'•Faith alone justifies before God, without works!” (p. 179.) Charles V. must indeed have looked with �notes. 137 contempt on such pretended reforms in doctrine as these words imply. ,. ,___ Again/ from one of Luther’s sermons, We do not become righteous, as Aristotle pretends, by omg wor s of righteousness: but having become righteous, we do such works!! ” (p. 193.) So Luther himself broke his vow as a Monk and married ; justifying perhaps his falsehood by his faith. On the same ground Rush might have said, since I believe, my works must be good. 1 do not by this mean to put these men in the same category certainly : and I allow that Luther did good in spite of his doctrine, in getting permission for priests to marry: but this does not excuse him personally, for he was a Monk, and had made a vow; and if men or women (after a certain age and of their own free choice) like even now to adopt such chastity, 1 do not see why they should be prevented. . The revival of letters, the discovery of printing, and the magnetic compass in the loth century, preceded Luther’s Reformation-in the 16th. The Medici family at Florence, after learned Greek scholars had been forced into Italy from Constantinople, in consequence of the con­ quest of this by the Turks in 1453, countenanced the revival of the religion contained in Plato s works. ( pCit., p. 71.) It is a great pity for the world they did not succeed in putting the religion of these in place of that of the Reformation, which was partly occasioned by the above discoveries. Mr. Scott, in the preface to D Aubigne, p. 9, opposes even this writer himself, when he says, as we have just seen was the case, that the enfranchisement of the human mind was by the discoveries of printing, the compass, &c., &c. The Puritanical Scotch Translator, however, will not allow these even to have played a minor part in forwarding the Reformation! He says— take from philosophy what she owes to the Gospel, and even France will be found to owe little indeed to the natural powers of the mind.” Now I may reply, as I have done before, that the state of the ancient Greek and Koman Pagan world is a satisfactory answer to Mr. Scott s argu­ ment, that civil liberty, and order, and civilisation, cannot exist without protestantism, and consequently without Christianity. I am willing to admit, that Protestantism is somewhat more favourable to civil liberty, than the pure Catholicism of Italy and Spain is, though not so much so as the reformed Catholicism, (so to call it,) at least was under Louis Phillippc of France ; and I am also ready to �138 NOTES. allow, that as Luther preached—“ none ought to suffer constraint, liberty is the essence of the faith," he deserves * credit on the score of having in respect to theoretical toleration made a real improvement. But we must at the same time remember, that Luther could scarcely attempt any reform in the church, and preach otherwise ; since his ▼ery object was the liberty of changing. But to say that he was preaching real Christianity—which expressly com­ mands unconditional submission, and was probably adopted by Constantine and others on this account—when he was preaching as above, is totally absurd. When we are told to “ obey the powers which be”—and when St. Paul tells the fugitive slave to go back to his master—any attempt to engraft the principles of civil liberty on such a creed, must be clearly futile. The increase of such liberty, then in Europe, after the Reformation, was caused in reality by the Reformers declining to adhere to strict principles of Christianity. The inventions of the 15th century show that (contrary to Scott’s view,) the human mind could, without the assistance of scripture, contribute to civilisation ; and though, as Mr. Hallam truly says, {Introduction to the Literature of Europe,) “ the doctrines of Luther, taken together, are not more rational * * than those of the church of Rome,” still Luther was obliged to change some­ thing for the better to gain converts, and fortunately for mankind, he preached against the supreme spiritual power of the Pope—“ the priest having the power to forgive sin,” (vol. ii, p. 292,) and against the celibacy of the clergy. Let us add—Although it may be doubtful whether “ Luther contributed much to take learning out of the hands of the priests, who had engrossed it to themselves, as those of ancient Egypt did,” we must, according to D’Aubigne, give him credit for attempting (vol. ii., p. 331) to do this. It was printing that did it in reality; and contrary to Mr. Scott’s opinion, Luther was, therefore, in * Vol. ii, p. 206. When Luther preached thus, too, he was not in power. This consideration takes off much from the merit of the man ; for, out of power, tolerance is a much easier virtue. Accordingly, we find that, though Protestantism at first was more tolerant than its enemy, still when it got the ascendancy under Elizabeth, it was sufficiently intolerant, (see p. 36,) and has only become somewhat less so at present, in consequence of the spirit of the age. �NOTES. 139 this respect, much indebted to this recent invention, for power to carry on the work of the Reformation. But this and the other inventions of the 15th century would, no doubt, of themselves, eventually have brought about the above useful practical changes, and the same increase in the amount of civil liberty. D’Aubigne, indeed, thinks not: but he is still far more sensible than his translator who will not admit they had any influence whatever /in the work of the Reformation. It is not improbable that this could not have taken place, even so easily as it did, without some previous general improvement, in conse­ quence of the invention of printing, &c., &c. I his inven­ tion, by enabling the middle and poorer class to get books, would also enable them (after the revival of the study of Greek and Roman authors) to perceive, that as good government had existed before the appearance of Chris­ tianity, so it might exist with less oj it than Catholicism required; and such is, in fact, Protestantism, (1 mean it is a sort of half Christianity,) though of course 1 rotestants will deny such an obvious truth. But one of the most powerful causes of the success of the Reformation (1 think omitted by D’Aubigne?) was the following, viz., that its principles were embraced bysome oj those in power, viz., Albert, hereditary Duke of Prussia, the Elector of Saxonv, and partly by our Henry V1U. Frederick the Great justly said, he owed his ancestors much for throwing oil this thraldom ; and no doubt some idea of personal interest contributed to make the above sovereigns embrace Luther’s views. And without this the Reformation would probably have stopped ! So much for Scott attributing the change solely to Divine interposition Henry VIII.’s adoption of it arose from the very lowest kind of personal interest. . 0 I am glad to find that an author, who published in 1822 a bold and excellent reply to the Rev. T. Pennell's Essay aqainst Scepticism,—and which Essay, supported as it was by opinion all through the country, may, perhaps, be said to have forced Mr. Lawrence to a recantation dishonour­ able, if not to himself, at all events so to the opinion of Britain,—-holds the views of the Reformation advocated in this note. I allude to Sir T. C. Morgan, who says, (Philosophy of Morals, p. 289, note,—Colburn, 1822,) “ Notwithstanding the number of sects, there are but three modifications of opinion at all tenable: Deism, Unitananism, and Catholicism. The doctrines of the Church of �140 NOTES. England are too .much like Popery, tinder another name and head. Such being the case, we may well, indeed, ask, if Luther s so-called Reformation was worth even the blood of the 70,000 Protestants (to name no other victims) it caused to be butchered in France, on August 24th, 1572, called the massacre of St. Bartholomew ? (Taylor’s Diegesis. p. 137. Truelove and Holyoake.) Luther would certainly have done far more good to humanity had he at once preached Theism, and, probably, such religion would have been quite as well received by the Roman Catholics: the vast extent of the above-named massacre, shows it could scarcely have been worse received. Sir C. Morgan, also like myself, has no great opinion of Christian Missionary labours, anil (p. 180) he calls them “ill-timed and irrational." In short, his is no doubt the work of a Theist or Pantheist. Perhaps he speaks almost as plainly as Gibbon, as to his own faith; and certainly more so than Mr. Robert Cox. So that the work deserves to be studied attentively eren noze by all Statesmen, were it, indeed, only for the following passage as to what the Reformation, at all events, should have been. “ The punishment of libel against the established religion, (he alludes probably to the cases of Paine and Richard Carlile,) is a flat contradiction to the right of private judgment on which Protestantism is founded.” (p. 336.) The despotic opinion of Britain will not even yet admit the truth of this, but, as usual, is so much the more disposed to punish socially, because Law at the present period, it seems, will not imprison the supposed culprit. R’e Auve yet to learn that political liberty constitutes only a part of real freedom; and that many nations behind us in this are yet far before us in social, and, I may add, practical religious liberty. I conclude this note, then, by referring the reader to the quotation from Quinet with which I have begun and by re-asserting that this applies in many re­ spects more forcibly to our Puritanical Protestantism than to Catholicism. The latter is at least the open foe of liberty ; while the former, by pretending to concede it, in­ sinuates its love of monotonous and strict order into our every-day intercourse, and by its tyrannical influence leaves us scarcely a vestige of the most valuable perhaps of all liberty,—I mean social liberty. Note E, Page 70.—Since the remarks on the passages in Tacitus and Suetonius were written, I find the Rev. Robert Taylor in his Duyem (pp. 372-9,) endeavours to make out, �NOTES. 14 I 1st —that the passage in Tacitus is “a forgery or inter­ polation and, 2ndly ,—that “ there is no reasonable ground that by Chrestus, Suetonius meant Christus. ✓ 377 In regard to Tacitus, I have only to observe that Gib­ bon (chap, xvi.) considers it genuine; and as to its having been put into the text in order to favour the truth of the evidences of Christianity as Taylor suggests, (p. 376), it seems to make Tacitus speak more against the utility and purity of this religion, than was necessary. Surely a skilfiil interpolator would have been anxious to have got a testimony of so mnch value as that of the great historian somewhat less inimical to the very utility of the creed. Without, therefore, denying merit to Taylor for his at­ tempts to get at truth on this point, and recommending impartial men to read the twenty reasons he gives, I for the present follow Gibbon on this head. . . For similar reasons I follow him in considering that Chrestus in Suetonius is synonymous with Christus, for here again Gibbon in a note renders the term malefca (not magical as he says some have done) but like exitiabilis per­ nicious. Surely interpolaters would not have spoken so decidedly against the very utility of a creed they wished future generations to adopt. I now come to what Mr. Taylor says about the passage in Pliny, who was the personal friend of Tacitus. He ob­ serves that, contrary to Dr. Sender, of Leipsic, and others, he cannot “ admit it to be fairly conquered.” . (p. 383.) But this passage will tend then to favour the belief that the foregoing in Tacitus is genuine, for the sentiments of Plmy on the Christian faith, as I shall now proceed to state, are very similar, as was to be expected, to those of Tacitus and Suetonius, though, perhaps, he scarcely speaks so badly of it as a creed, for, although in one place he calls it ame/ifia, and in another superstitio prava, (p. 380), yet he had, in a passage just before, spoken well of its morality, (hut be it observed, in this latter respect only on the testimony of a Christian, for he himself, as Gibbon says, (chap, xvi.), seems to have known little or nothing about it !) Hence, as the Christian under accusation was naturally enough * anxious to make the new religion appear good, we should not value this testimony too highly; and certainly not regard it as Pliny's own opinion. _ In this letter of Pliny we find two assertions that will, 1 think, justify the Roman government in its somewhat harsh �142 NOTES. treatment of the Christians on this occasion, 1st,—They seemed to have objected to recognise the Roman Emperors as the head of the government, probably because they were “ required to invoke the image of the Emperor with wine and frankincense,” and this seemed to them more akin to divine honours than what he was entitled to. Perhaps in this they were partly right; and yet they should have re­ membered that even such honours did not make the Em­ peror equal to Jupiter, the D. O. M., or Supreme God. 2ndly.—As Mr. Taylor observes, they met in societies "before daylight (ante lucem), and the Romans might well believe nocturnal meetings of bodies of men plotted something “ against the welfare and peace of society.” (p. 381.) Such nocturnal meetings had always been by the xii tables considered illegal. (Gibbon, chap, xliv.) I think when these two points are considered, we shall see in the Roman apparent persecution, nothing more than a mere political precaution for the safety ofthe state,.andwith Gibbon “be unable to discover any bigotry in the language or proceedings of Pliny.” (Note, chap, xvi.) He was only doing his duty in requiring that the new infatuation (amentia), as he justly calledit, should not actually jout down the established divinities of the empire, and that this was its object, the subsequent suppression of Paganism by force —by the “ punishment even of death,” (Diegesis, p. 137)— fully evinced. We can more easily excuse a little severity of Pliny too, because, (as Gibbon observes), his father, the naturalist, lived at the time of the supposed darkness of the crucifixion, yet says nothing about it in his great work which recorded all such wonders of nature ! The learned son, then, might well call such creed an “ infatua­ tion.” As to the—at frst sight—more reasonable objection of the Jews and Christians to pay divine honours to the statue of the Emperor, Pliny, in another passage, separates, in some measure, the human and divine, and does not call the Emperor a Deity. It was merely something on the same principle as we say—“ Fear God and honour the King.” Note F, Page 110.—Having spoken of Roman oaths, I may here add some remarks on the precautions the Romans took to favour justice, in case also of debts. I shall with the same view then allude to the state of lawyers. In the early time of the Republic, the debtor was re­ tained in a state of slavery (Quin., vi., 3, 26) by his ere- �NOTES. 143 ditor until he found means to discharge his debt. Subse­ quently, (A. U. 429), “ the law only required that the goods of the debtor, and not his person, should be given up to the creditor.” (Roman Antiquities, p. 40.) Subsequently, “ only one-fourth part of the debt” required to be paid by law, which, with some little change, seems to have been in force at the time of Julius Caesar and afterwards. If the debtor were actually always obliged sooner or later to pay even this one-fourth, it seems to have been better than some of our modern laws, that allow the debtor to escape without paying any part of his debt. Lawyers, too, under the Roman government seem to have been in a better position for the public, though not perhaps for themselves, than in modern times. _ By the Cincian law, lawyers were prohibited froni takulg or presents from those who consulted them. . Hence the law was studied from a desire of assisting fellow citi­ zens, and through their favour of rising to preferments. (Roman Antiquities, p. 155.) “Afterwards, lawyers were permitted to take fees, but not above a certain sum. (Idem.) I apprehend while such laws are in force, there is at least less temptation than there is at present, to make the worse appear the better cause, and that no gentleman at that period had much inducement to make a flaming speech in favour of a murderer’s innocence, when he had the man s confession of guilt in his pocket, as one . of our lawyers (now noted among pious persecutors) is said to have done, I know not with what truth. r I think when the above view as to the state of debtor and creditor, and lawyers, is considered, and the fact added to it of a distribution of corn gratuitously at stated periods to the poorest classes (under Augustus 200,000 received corn from the public,” Op. Cit., p. 160), we shall be in­ clined to think with Adams, that “ the bulk of the people * * were not more oppressed under the Empire than they had been under the Republic (Op. Cit., p. 145) and fur­ ther, when their high state of religious freedom is added, that ancient surpasses modern civilization as far as that most important point, the moral and political state of the world, is concerned. I shall close this note by an allusion to a belief that seems tolhave somewhat increased even while this work has been passing through the press—I mean “ spirit-rapping. In a work on Reforms, I am the more bound to notice this, as in some cases too vivid a belief in this fallacy seems not only �144 NOTES. to have impaired the reason, but actually to have led to suicide. I well know from the sacrifice of time and money I was obliged to make to satisfy myself that clairvoyance is a fallacy, that the same will be required as regards spiritrapping, since, of course, our American and other exhibi­ tors who come over here are not in general in a position to work for nothing. But even when their belief is sincere, and they are known as honest, this is very little more reason for taking their exhibitions almost on trust, as many do, than if they were known as pennyless impostors. Although I do not approve of ridicule in such matters, yet (this apart) I am glad to observe the “ wizard of the north” is now showing how all these “ rappings” may be done by merely natural means. The mysterious lady ” did the same for­ merly as regards clairvoyance; and it had a good effect, by showing that such wonderful feats were not of necessity su­ pernatural. When this is clearly seen, men will soon begin to investigate the matter more strictly, and no longer be half frightened away from all investigation, as I have known parties to be in regard to the far less awful pretentions of clairvoyance. THE END. � 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 &amp; 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 Letters to the American people on Christianity and the sabbath Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Prater, Horatio Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: xi, 144 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Includes bibliographical references. Dedicated to the memory of the Emperor Julian (p.[v]). Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available J. Clayton and Son [etc.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1856 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N544 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity USA 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 (Letters to the American people on Christianity and the sabbath), 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 Christianity NSS Rationalism Religion United States of America https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3349e10708f87756eebed5a5ad1a33be.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=G9MNrRu9okDwAMl6EIpboYm0o7qFJ7vh6-RGVh4vaICzErtKgeyyMYV8kxbZv1Orpdn-2VrQQi3H3zrmDAqFbe957yBeQmiex65r3s%7Er%7ESnCuDLsYo-twgXLAQIbQTilM3h7Wk0G3ZtoJOR2gcQ99vxGCoHeJJigk4VWkeKKilKKo-LtwUtzD3O39AOhknsocyN9GjQH9Xshyu2XoBflqJ4EXyEBZmrKbL1wz6FrkWJ1O2iZLts3i2XVzhWeVphXfU22yCjFFiER4R4bwC3dzu9KBhpVTFNha71McaKtlr-FvLGUhFCFkohnqnCGDfVRPtggZxw-K6dw8Ngf3-oCkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c72de2c244a70176ca9520c41a47d1d0 PDF Text Text “For no more can he who understands hut one religion under­ stand even that religion,than the man who knows only one language can understand that language.”—Primitive Culture, E. B. Tylor. “ Woe to the Philosopher who will not condescend to flatter in his picture of man 1 ... he sets the reading public against him ; he is refuted beforehand or -worse than refuted, for he is laid aside unread.”—Minor JKorZs, Geo. Grote. �CHRISTIANITY: Viewed in the Light of our Present Knowledge and Moral Sense. L—RELIGION : PRIMITIVE, AND AMONG THE LOWEST RACES. Part II.—THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Part By CHARLES BRAY, AUTHOR OF THE “PHILOSOPHY OF NECESSITY: ” “ A MANUAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF MAN,” ETC. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS. SCOTT, NO. Il, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. Price One. Shilling. �T �CHRISTIANITY. PART I. RELIGION ! PRIMITIVE AND AMONG THE LOWEST RACES. “Everything that exists depends upon the Past, prepares the Future, and is related to the whole.”—Oersted. “ I view all beings, not as special creations, but as the lineal de­ scendants of some few beings which lived before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited.”—Origin of Species, C. Darwin, first Edition, pp. 488-9. “ Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gra­ dation.”—Ibid., p. 488. “ The variation of human thought proceeds in a continuous man­ ner, new ideas springing out of old ones, either as corrections or developments, but never spontaneously originating. With them as with organic forms, each requires a germ or seed. The intel­ lectual phase of humanity, observed at any moment, is therefore an embodiment of many different things. It is connected with the past, is in unison with the present, and contains the embryo of the future.”—The Intellectual Development of Europe. J. W. Draper, vol. ii. p. 109. HESE views embody the philosophy of the present day, and it is a no less interesting than profitable study to follow the evidence in the works of Lubbock, Tylor, Draper, Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, and others, upon which these truths are founded. By slow and gradual, and probably unbroken links, the whole physi­ cal world has been evolved, and this is no less true of the world of mind. There has been nothing spon­ taneous, nothing supernatural, but everything that exists in the growth of mind, as in the physical world, T CA. �4 Primitive Religion. depends upon the past, prepares the future, and is related to the whole. We must go hack to pre-historic times to explain the thoughts and feelings, the aptitudes and prejudices, the customs and languages of the present. Many things otherwise utterly incomprehensible are “ survivals” of primaeval barbaric life and thought. Customs differ widely according to climate and the world’s age. There is no telling in what form they may come down to us, but they are evidence that one human nature is common to all the races and tribes scattered over the habitable globe. The world, at the present time, furnishes illustrations of all the forces that have been at work in its original formation both physical and mental. Heat and water, certainly, are a little moderated in their action, but as rude savages as the world has ever known still continue to exist, and the ex­ tremes of civilization are as great now as at any previous era. In the north, where the cold imposes considerable limitation to the pleasures of life, the Esquimau enters his house by the chimney, the occupants passing in and out “ by means of a strong pole notched deep enough to afford a little holding for a toe” (“Pre-his­ toric Man,” p. 393, by Sir John Lubbock). A more civilized person would no doubt prefer a ladder, and perhaps a different place of entrance, but this mode of ingress and egress may have conveniences that are not at once obvious to a European. In the midst of all the ice and snow in these regions, the great want is water. The houses being built of ice and snow, a tem­ perature above 32 degrees would make them what would be considered unpleasantly damp to a European. But fortunately for this phase of domestic comfort they have no wood, but use blubber and oil to keep up a tolerable temperature. They use lamps outside and consume an immense quantity of blubber inside. The temperature of their bodies is about the same as our own ! they are heated from within by the slow e.ombustion—the union of carbon and oxygen—of what �Primitive Religion. 5 thus constitutes both food and fuel. The heat is sus­ tained by thick skins. The inhabitant of Central Africa, on the contrary, enters his house, very much of the same shape, by a hole at the bottom, through which he crawls on his hands and knees. The Fuegians of the Antarctic region are a much lower race than their Esquimaux brethren of the Arctic, and the Australians, Papuans, and Fijians are lower still. The Fuegians, when hard pressed for food in severe winters, kill an old woman, and when asked why they did not kill their dogs, they said ££ Dog catch ioppo” (■£.<?.) otters. We should justly consider this a rather narrow view of utilitarianism, and the conscience does not appear to speak very loud in this stage of civilization: all doubtless have their ideas of right and wrong, slightly varying, however, in their significance : thus a savage explained that if anybody took away his wife that was bad, but if he took another man’s that would be good (Tylor, vol. ii., p. 289). The marriage ceremony among the Bushmen of Australia is very simple and inexpensive. The man selects his lady-love, knocks her down with a club, and drags her to his camp. In South Africa, in the British settlement of Natal, the natives are beginning to show marked evidence of civilization. Mr Froude tells us that a young Zulu, by hiring himself out at six shil­ lings a day, soon finds himself in a position to buy a couple of wives; he makes them work for him as well as for their own living, and he thus sets up as a gentleman for life, and a very troublesome one we are told. An interesting question has, however, arisen in Dutch Borneo as to the extent of the duty a wife owes to her husband. The circumstances, as detailed in a letter written from Bandj ermassin, and published in a Java paper, are as follows:—“ It seems that a fugitive rebel chief, who is now well stricken in years, has lately with commendable prudence been making arrangements as to the disposition of his property after his departure �6 Primitive Religion. from this life. Among other directions he has given orders that immediately on his decease his two youngest wives shall he killed in order that they may accompany him to the next world. The two ladies for whom this honour is designed strangely enough fail to appreciate it, and have fled to the Dutch fort on the Tewch, where they have put themselves under the protection of the com­ mandant. The venerable chief is naturally incensed at their having taken this ill-advised step, and has expressed his intention of compelling the fugitives to return to their domestic duties without further nonsense. His indigna­ tion is shared by his family, friends, and followers, who have rallied round him in his trouble, and by the latest accounts he was preparing to attack the fort where his wives had taken refuge. In the meantime, the govern­ ment steamer ‘Baritoy’ had been despatched to the assistance of the commandant, with a reinforcement of twenty-five soldiers; and a howitzer, with artillerymen, had also arrived at the fort. This painful family dif­ ference has naturally created a profound sensation in the colony, and it is to be hoped that it will be satis-, factprily arranged without a recourse to arms.”—Pall Mall Gazette. The conventional practices and views of etiquette of what we call savages differ considerably from our own ; thus, with us, to pull a man’s nose is not considered polite, whereas the Esquimaux pull noses as a mark of respect (“Pre-historic Man,” p. 456). Among them also the temporary loan of a wife is considered a mark of peculiar friendship (“Primitive Culture,” vol. ii., p. 136). Civilization borrows the wife without the consent of the husband. The inhabitants of the Eastern Archipelago are of increasing interest as our intercourse with them extends. Little, however, comparatively, is yet known of the natives of Hew Guinea and the neighbour­ ing islands, and that little certainly does not reveal them to us as a very interesting people. The principal �Primitive Religion. 7 supply of meat is from human flesh, and that not always from the bodies of their enemies, for Mr Kiehl tells us, in an article read before the London Anthropo­ logical Society, that the people “ of the Solomon Archi­ pelago are obliged to build their houses in the most inaccessible spots on the rocks, even to the very sum­ mit of the peak on Eddystone Island, to prevent being treacherously killed at night and eaten by the very friends with whom they feasted the day before on a roasted enemy’s body, or perhaps on a raw one j those of Vaati, who, as late as 1849, were yet all cannibals, pre­ ferring children to adults, and girls to boys.” Mr Kiehl thinks it by no means a sufficient excuse for this that other animal food is scarce, for although there are neither cattle nor sheep, still there are plenty of dogs, fowls, pigeons, and fish. When we consider, he says, how many Hindoos live altogether without animal food, “ the Papuans must be a desperately wicked people.” Their social customs are certainly unpleasant. “ What good,” he says, “ can be said of such people as the natives of Vaati, whose custom it is, when they wish to make peace, to kill one or more of their own people, and send the bodies to those with whom they have been fighting, to eat ? On the death of chiefs it is the frequent custom among them to kill two, three, or more men, to make a feast for the mourners. When parents are unwilling to bear the fatigue of rearing their children, or when they find them a hindrance to their work, they often bury them alive.” As these interest­ ing creatures are near relations to the Fijians, who are about to become British subjects, it is as well to know something about their habits, and it is pleasing to think also, that they are “ beginning to find out that trading with the white men is more advantageous than killing and eating them.” Commerce is everywhere the great civiliser. Mr Kiehl says, “ I regret not to know any­ thing about the religion of the Papuans. The practice of circumcision seems to point to at least some form of �8 Primitive Religion. religious observances.” Unless eating their fellows is another form, we certainly cannot say much for their devotional aspirations. I mention those things to show that the savages now in the world are as primitive and varied in their indi­ vidual habits and customs as in pre-historic times, and that we may probably learn as much, by the study of their interesting ways, of the origin of many of our own modes of thought and action as by going far back into the past. It is a question whether all our altered customs are improvements. Thus at Tahiti and some other islands, tattooing was almost universal, and a person not properly tattooed would be as much reproached and shunned, as if with us he should go about the streets naked (“Primitive Culture,”p. 377), and the Pijian fully believed that a woman who was not tattooed in an orthodox manner during life, could not possibly hope for happiness after death (Idem, p. 459). This mode of painting our clothes upon our bodies would certainly save much thought and time that might be devoted to more useful purposes, and it would probably save many of those colds that are caught by going about only half-naked, when people are in what they call fulldress. But it is the religions of the world that furnish the largest amount and best illustration of “survivals.” The ideas upon which they are mainly founded have been thousands of years forming, and the question immediately presents itself how far opinion and con­ duct based on such ideas are in conformity with modern knowledge, or only with such knowledge as was available in the earlier and ruder stages of culture ? Upon in­ vestigation, it is evident that the religious opinions of the present day are results adopted from previous systems which have come down from the earliest age, and that they could not otherwise have found accept­ ance now. We should shrink with horror from our �Primitive Religion. 9 present theological creeds, if they had not come down to us from a thousand generations of the past. The deities of savages are evil, not good; they may be forced into compliance with the wishes of man; they require bloody, and rejoice in human, sacrifices; they are mortal, not immortal; a part, not the author of, nature ; they are to be approached by dances rather than by prayers ; and often approve what we call vice, rather than what we esteem a virtue (“ The Origin of Civilisation,” by Sir John Lubbock, p. 195). For like ourselves, “ they think the blessings come of them­ selves, and attribute all evil to the interference of malignant beings” (Idem, p. 196). “ They have much clearer notions of an evil than of a good Deity, whom they fear, believing him to be* the occasion of sickness, death, thunder, and every calamity that befalls them” (Idem, p. 212). The Tartars of Katschiutze (like our Pessimists) con­ sider the evil spirit to be more powerful than the good. (Idem, p. 213). All religion is originally based on fear—love does not enter till long after—fear of the invisible and unknown, and all cause at first is invisible and un­ known. Darwin in “ Expressions and Emotions in Men and Animals,” p. 144, speaking of the effect of fear among some of the larger baboons, says of one of d;hem (Cynopetheius Niger) that “ when a turtle was placed in its compartment, this monkey moved its lips in an odd, rapid, jabbering manner, which the keeper declared was meant to conciliate and please the turtle.” Here we have probably the origin of what is now called Divine Service. “ Id awe,”Tylor tells us, “the Philippine Islanders, when they saw an alligator, prayed him with great tenderness to do them no harm, and to this end offered him whatever they had in their boats, casting it into the water” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 209). “Primos in orbe deos fecit timor.” “As an object of worship, the serpent is pre-eminent among animals. Not only �io Primitive Religion. is it malevolent and mysterious, but its bite—so trifling in appearance, and yet so deadly, producing fatal effects rapidly, and apparently by no adequate means— suggests to the savage almost irresistibly the notion of something divine, according to his notions of divinity ” (Sir John Lubbock). “All things that are able to do them hurt beyond their prevention/’ says Tylor, “the primitive man adores” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 340). The first idea of God is almost always as an evil spirit, and among the savages of the present day, religion is anything but an ennobling sentiment. Thus the Caffres believe in the existence of a heaven for those only who had killed and eaten many of their enemies, while those who were effeminate would be compelled to dwell with Aygnan, their devil (“ Pre-historic Man,” p. 469). The Maories were perpetually at war during life, and hoped to continue so after death. They believed in a spirit named Atona. When any one was ill, Atona was supposed to be devouring his inside, and their religious service was curses and threats, on some occasions attended with human and other sacrifices in the hope of appeasing his wrath. The New Zealanders believed that the greater number of human bodies they eat, the higher would be their position in the world to come. Under such a creed, we are told there is a certain diabolical nobility about the habit, which is, at any rate, far removed from the grovelling sensuality of a Fijian. Certainly to qualify yourself to go to heaven by eating your fellow-creatures, is much more spiritual than to eat them from mere gluttony. The Dayaks considered that the owner of every human head they could procure would serve them in the next world, where indeed a man’s rank would be according to the number of heads in this a young man might not marry till he had procured a head. Waylaying and_ murdering men for their heads was the Layak s religion. To be an acknowledged murderer is �Primitive Religion. 11 the object of the Fijian’s restless ambition. Even among the women there were few, who, in some way, had not been murderers. To this they were trained from their infancy. One of the first lessons taught an infant, is to strike its mother. Mr Ellis tells us that no portion of the human race was ever perhaps sunk lower in brutal licentiousness, than this isolated people. Certainly their customs and conscience differed a little from our own, but notwithstanding, we are told that Captain Cook and his officers lived with the natives “in the most cordial friendship,” and took leave of them with great regret, and Mr Ellis says, they showed great anxiety to possess copies of the Bible, when it was translated into their language. “ They were,” he says, “ deemed by them more precious than gold—yea, than much fine gold;” no doubt being very discriminat­ ing as to the quality of gold, and able also to appreciate the dealings of God’s chosen people with the Canaan­ ites, in which the inhabitants of whole cities were murdered in cold-blood—men, women, and children, ruthlessly slaughtered—more highly than we should. Among most savages it was considered the right thing, and there was no resisting public opinion, that wives, friends and slaves, should accompany their chiefs into the next world. By some they were strangled, by others buried alive. “The Gauls in Caesar’s time,” Tylor tells us, “burned at the dead man’s sumptuous funeral, whatever was dear to him, animals also, and much-loved slaves and clients (“Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 419). The ancient Gauls had also a convenient custom of transferring to the world below the repayment of loans. Even in comparatively modern times, the Japanese would borrow money in this life, to be repaid with heavy interest in the next {Idem, p. 443). When a New Zealand chief died, the mourning family gave his chief widow a rope to hang herself with in the woods, and so rejoin her husband. In Cochin China, the common people object to celebrating their feast of the �12 Primitive Religion. dead on the same day with the upper classes, for this excellent reason, that the aristocratic souls might make the servants’ souls carry their presents for them— which presents were given with the most lavish ex­ travagance (Idem, p. 441). As to what became of the objects sacrificed for the dead—strangled wives, servants, golden vessels, gay clothes or jewels—although they rot in the ground, or are consumed on the pile, they nevertheless come into the possession of the dis­ embodied souls they are intended for, not the material things themselves, but phantasmal shapes corresponding to them (Idem, p. 439). The native Australian goes gladly to be hanged, in the belief that he would “jump up whitefellow, and have plenty of sixpences;” and the West African negroes commit suicide when in distant slavery, that they may revive in their own land (Idem, vol. ii. p. 5). Souls are supposed to appear in the other world in the same age and condition as they leave this, conse­ quently true religion, and the liveliest filial piety require that parents should be dispatched before they get too old. They are generally, where this belief obtains, buried alive, with their own joyous consent. The Fijians consider the gods as beings of like passions with themselves. They love and hate; they are proud and revengeful, and make war, and kill and eat each other; yet they look upon the Samoans with horror, because they have no religion, and no belief in any such deities. “It has been asserted,” says Sir John Lubbock over and over again, “ that there is no race of men so degraded as to be entirely without a religion— without some idea of a Deity. So far,” he says, “ from beuUr true’ the verJ reverse is the case ” (Idem, p. 467). Let us hope so! Primitive men, as mankind do now, worshipped Un­ known Cause—the powers of nature ; every tree, spring, river, mountain, grotto, had its divinity: the sun, the moon, the stars, had each their spirit. The names of �Primitive Religion. 13 the Semitic deities, Max Muller tells us (Fraser,. June 1870), are mostly words expressive of moral qualities, they mean the strong, the exalted, the Lord, the King j and they grow hut seldom into divine personalities. The Aryan race are recognised every­ where, in the valleys of India, in the forests of Germany, by the common names of their deity, all originally ex­ pressive of natural powers, thousands of years before Homer or the Veda, worshipping an unseen being under the self-same name, the best, the most exalted name they could find in their vocabulary. The popular worship of ancient China was, Max Muller says, a worship of single spirits, of powers, we might almost say of names ; the names of the most prominent powers of nature which are supposed to exercise an influence for good or evil on the life of man. If the presence of the divine was perceived in the strong wind, the strong wind became its name; if its presence was perceived in the earthquake and the fire, they became its name; “wherever in other religions we should expect the name of the Supreme Deity, whether Jupiter or Allah, we find in Chinese the name of Tien or Sky.” “Do we still wonder/ he says, “at polytheism or mythology 1” No doubt the first religious worship was of the powers of Nature or Spirits—a sort of deprecation of their evil influence, and of their power to hurt. But whence came man’s knowledge of spirits ? Brom his own supposed double nature. When a man died, he felt that with the life something had left the dead upon which life and consciousness, i.e., all the difference between life and death, depended. This he called his soul or spirit. In sleep, he often dreamed of distant places, and he thought his spirit went there ; in dreams also his dead comrades often appeared to him, and he thought therefore they continued to exist somewhere. Out of this dream has grown the popular religion in all times and in all countries; Man has an instinctive love of life and dread of death, and he thinks he must �14 Primitive Religion. live again, somewhere, because he wishes to do so, accordingly the somewhere was soon found—a place above for the good, and below for the bad, where people would be rewarded or punished as they might behave themselves here. No one liked to part for ever with his parents, children, and friends, and if there was not a place where the bereaved could meet them again, why, there ought to be, and that soon settled it. A place was wanted also for the naughty people, and the people we did not like, to go to. The primitive notions of this Future State differed considerably from our own, only the worst part of it has come down to us—an eternity of torture for the great majority? Of the locality of this Future State, Herbert Spencer says, “ The general conclusion to which we are led is, that the ideas of another world pass through stages of development. The habitat of the dead, originally con­ ceived as coinciding with that of the living, generally diverges—here to the adjacent forest, and elsewhere to distant hills and mountains. The belief that the dead rejoin their ancestors, leads to further divergences which vary according to the traditions. Stationary descend­ ants of troglodytes think they return to a subterranean other world, whence they emerged; while immigrant races have for their other-worlds, the abodes of their fathers, to which they journey after death, over land, down a river, or across the sea, as the case may be. Societies consisting of conquerors and conquered, having separate traditions of origin, have separate other worlds, which differentiate into superior and inferior places, in correspondence with the respective positions of the two races. Conquests of these mixed people by more powerful immigrants, bring further complica­ tions- additional other worlds, more or less unlike in their characters, finally, where the places for the departed, or for superior classes of beings, are mountain tops, there is a transition to an abode in the heavens ; which, at first near and definite, passes into the remote �Primitive Religion. 15 and indefinite, so that the supposed residence of the dead, coinciding at first with the residence of the living, is little by little removed in thought: distance and direction grow increasingly vague, and finally the localization disappears in spaced’ (“ The Principles of Sociology,” p. 232.) This dream of a double self—of a living soul and spirit, the cause of life and all mental action, if it has done good, has also done infinite mischief in the world. On the one side it is true that children in many cases would scarcely have been induced to take care of their parents in old age, if it had not been from fear of their ghosts when they were dead, and on the other, in China, ancestor worship is the dominant religion of the land, and it has had more to do with checking civilization there, than anything else. The Chinese look backwards, not forwards, and “ for thousands of years this great people have been seeking the living among the dead.” It is the ghosts of their fathers and mothers that they are always thinking of, and of the harm that they may do them, every unknown cause with them being a spirit. This is why mines cannot be worked, or railways made, lest these inter­ esting relics should be disturbed, and this insult to the remains of the dead visited upon the living : and after the birth of a Chinese baby, it is customary to hang up its father’s trousers in the room, wrong way up, that all such evil influences may enter into them, instead of into the child. All diseases are supposed to come from such source, or from some tormenting, offended deity, the latter being most easily appeased by the offer of a hog ; in the same way as the Negroes of Sierra Leone sacrifice an ox when they want “ to make God glad very much, and do Kroomen good.” At the present day when an affectionate wife says to a sneezing husband, “Bless you, my dear,” the ex­ pression comes from the time when sneezing was thought to indicate “possession” by an ancestral �i6 Primitive Religion. spirit; and the Hindu when he gapes still snaps his thumb and finger, and repeats the name of some god— Rama, to prevent an evil spirit going down his throat. It has been in this kind of chaotic superstitious atmosphere, in which everything was supposed to be brought about by spirits, that what are called our religious instincts, were originally formed. This is the soil in which even our present ideas of God, the Soul, and Immortality first took root. Mr Tylor says (vol. ii. p. 286) “ Conceptions originat­ ing under rude and primitive conditions of human thought, suffer in the course of ages the most various fates. Yet the philosophy of modern ages still, to a remarkable degree, follows the primitive courses of savage thought.” This is true as regards our philo­ sophy, but it is still more true with respect to our religion, for ancestor-worship in the saints, and inter­ cession to them and to the “ mother of God, the Queen of heaven,” and anxiety for the future condition of this dream-created soul, still rule the mind of Christendom. Propitiation and sacrifice form the substance of all religions in their earliest stages. Man first of all, and above all, fears the spirits and gods that his imagination has created, and he offers up to them what he most values, and which he thinks, therefore, they will most value—his finest fruit, the firstling of the flock, even his own children. An only son was thought to be the greatest and most acceptable sacrifice. When the Carthagenians got into trouble, three hundred children of the first people of the city were offered up in the fire to their God; so willing has man always been to cast upon another the burden of his own misdeeds. The religion of the present day is little more than a “survival” of the past, and “ throughout the rituals of Christendom stands an endless array of supplications unaltered in principle from savage times—that the weather may be adjusted to our local needs, that we may have the victory over all our enemies, and that life, and health, and wealth, and �Primitive Religion. 17 happiness, may beours.” (“Primitive Culture,” vol. ii. p. 336). We are told that man. is especially distinguished by the possession of a conscience which, like a heavenly messenger, guides him in his choice in the immutable and eternal distinctions between right and wrong. If this be so, it is in a very incipient state in primitive man, and this guide itself seems to require educating and guiding quite as much as any other of his faculties. Thus Dr Seeman tells us of the Fijians, that “in any transaction where the national honour had to be avenged, it was incumbent on the king and principal chiefs—in fact a duty they owed their exalted station, to avenge the insult offered to the country, by eating the perpetrators of it.” He adds, “ I am convinced, however, that there was a religious, as well as a political aspect of this custom.” No doubt conscience gave them a high sense of their social, political, and religious duties, only they differed slightly from us, as to the mode in which they should be carried out. So also of the practice, where from a religious sense of duty, children eat their parents, when they got old and in­ firm, waiting however, till the season when salt and limes were at the cheapest. The savage theory of the universe refers its pheno­ mena to the action of pervading personal spirits, similar to what in dreams they have made out their own spirits to be; the powers of nature are everywhere spiritual­ ized and personified. With increasing knowledge unity is given to these powers, and we have a God One and Indivisible : at least this becomes the creed of the highest minds, the multitude still continue to find a separate God in everything, and for everything. (An excellent account of how these so-called religious ideas of the existence of the “ double ” or soul, of a future state, and another world, arise in the minds of savages, from which they have come down to us, changed from a very definite and material conception to a very indefi­ �18 Primitive Religion. nite and immaterial one, is to be found in Mr Herbert Spencer’s “Principles of Sociology,” now publishing.) From this point, says Dr J. W. Draper, that is, from the very earliest ages when the comparative theology of India was inaccessible, “ there are two well-marked steps of advance. The first reaches the consideration of material nature : the second, which is very grandly and severely philosophical, contemplates the universe under the conceptions of space and force alone. The former is exemplified in the Vedas and Institutes of Menu, the latter in Buddhism. In neither of these stages do the ideas lie idle as mere abstractions ; they introduce a moral plan, and display a constructive power not equalled even by the Italian Papal system. They take charge not only of the individual, but regu­ late society, and show their influence in accomplishing political organizations, commanding our attention from their prodigious extent, and venerable for their anti­ quity. “ I shall, therefore, briefly refer, first, to the elder, Vedaism, and then to its successor Buddhism. The Vedas, which are the Hindu Scriptures, are asserted to have been revealed by Brahma. They are based upon an acknowledgment of a universal spirit pervading all things: ‘ There is in truth but one Deity, the Supreme Spirit, the Lord of the Universe, whose work is the Universe.’ ‘ The God above all Gods, who created the earth, the heavens, and the waters.’ The world, thus considered as an emanation of God, is therefore a part of him ; it is kept in a manifest state by his energy, and would instantly disappear if that energy were for a moment withdrawn. Even as it is, it is undergoing unceasing transformations, everything be­ ing in a transitory condition. The moment a given phase is reached, it is departed from or ceases. In these per­ petual movements, the present can scarcely be said to have any existence, for as the past is ending, the future has begun. �Primitive Religion. ig “ In such a never-ceasing career all material things are urged, their forms continually changing, and returning, as it were, through revolving cycles to similar states. . . “ In this doctrine of universal transformation there is something more than appears at first. The theology of India is underlaid with Pantheism. “ God is One because he is All.’ The Vedas in speaking of the rela­ tion of nature to God, make use of the expression that he is the Material as well as the Cause of the Universe, ‘ the Clay as well as the Potter.’ They convey the idea that while there is a pervading spirit existing everywhere of the same nature as the soul of man, though differing from it infinitely in degree, visible nature is essentially and inseparably connected there­ with : that as in man the body is perpetually undergo­ ing change, perpetually decaying and being renewed, or, as in the case of the whole human species, nations come into existence and pass away, yet still there con­ tinues to exist what may be termed the universal human­ mind, so for ever associated and for ever connected are the material and the spiritual. And under this aspect we must contemplate the Supreme Being, not merely as a presiding intellect, but as illustrated by the parallel case of man, whose mental principle shows no tokens ex­ cept through its connections with the body j so matter, or nature, or the visible universe, is to be looked upon as the corporeal manifestation of God. “We must continually bear in mind that matter ‘ has no essence, independent of mental perception ; that ex­ istence and perceptibility are convertible terms; that external appearances and sensations are illusory, and would vanish into nothing if the divine energy which alone sustains them were suspended but for a moment.” — (“ The Intellectual Development of Europe,” Vol. i. pp. 54, 55, 56.) Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. Here we have the most advanced Pantheistic Theology of the present day, and being given some two thousand years before the Christian era it would seem B �20 Primitive Religion. almost as if the Vedas were inspired. Here also, we have the Idealism that constitutes the creed of so many of our most cultivated philosophers. However pure a doctrine may be at its source, as it comes from the highest minds, it is soon perverted to suit the lowest, and high and simple and true as it seems to me this doctrine is, it was soon twisted into every possible form of error and superstition that was best calculated to give the Brotherhood command over the ignorant multitude. It soon needed Reforming, and Buddhism came before the world as that Reformation. Buddhism most probably dates from about 1000 years before Christ, and Draper says it is now professed by a greater number of the human race than any other religion. “ The fundamental principle of Buddhism is that there is a supreme power, but no Supreme Being. . . It is a rejection of the idea of Being, an acknowledgment of that of Force. If it admits the existence of God, it declines him as a Creator. It asserts an impelling power in the .universe, a self-existent and plastic principle, but not a self-existent, an eternal, a personal God. It rejects inquiry into first causes as being unphilosophical, and considers that phenomena alone can be dealt with by our finite minds. . . . Gotama contemplates the existence of pure force without any association of Substance. He necessarily denies the immediate interposition of any such agency as Providence, maintaining that the system of nature, once arising, must proceed irresistibly accord­ ing to the laws which brought it into being, and that from this point of view the universe is merely a gigantic engine. Equally does Gotama deny the existence of chance, saying that that which we call chance is nothing but the effect of an unknown, unavoidable cause.” (“ In­ tellectual Development of Europe,” vol. i. p. 65.) I scarcely need point out the similarity existing between this creed and that of the leading physicists of the present day. “ As to the external world, we cannot tell how far it �Primitive Religion. 21 is a phantasm, how far a reality, for our senses possess no reliable criterion of truth. They convey to the mind representations of what we consider to be external things by which it is furnished with materials for its various operations; but unless it acts in conjunction with the senses, the operation is lost, as in that absence which takes place in deep contemplation. It is owing to our inability to determine what share these internal and ex­ ternal conditions take in producing a result, that the absolute or actual state of nature is incomprehensible to us. Nevertheless, conceding to our mental infirmity the idea of a real existence of visible nature, we may con­ sider it as offering a succession of impermanent forms, and as exhibiting an orderly series of transmutations, in­ numerable universes in periods of inconceivable time emerging one after another, and creations and extinc­ tions of systems of worlds taking place according to a primordial law. “ Of the nature of man, Gotama tells us that there is no such thing as individuality or personality—that the Ego is altogether a nonentity. In these profound con­ siderations he brings to bear his conception of force, in the light thereof asserting that all sentient beings are homogeneous. . . . Each one must however work out his own salvation, when, after many transmigrations, life may come to an end. That end he calls Nirwana— Nirwana, the end of successive existences. It is the supreme end, Nonentity. The attaining of this is the object to which we ought to aspire. . . . The panthe­ istic Brahman expects absorption in God; the Buddhist, having no God, expects extinction. “ India has thus given to the world two distinct philosophical systems —Vedaism, which makes its resting-point the existence of matter, and Buddhism, of which the resting-point is force. The philosophical ability displayed in the latter is very great; indeed, it may be doubted whether Europe has produced its meta­ physical equivalent.” (Idem, 66, 67, 68.) �22 Primitive Religion. It need scarcely excite our surprise then if our Christian missionaries make but little progress in India. It is worthy of note with reference to those who assert that the “ Immortality of the Soul ” is among the unextinguishable instincts of our nature, that in the two religions of the world—if we must call them two—which contain the greatest number of adherents, not Immortality is sought, but absorption in God, or Nir­ wana, both of which include the extinction of the individual. The Lazarist Hue testifies that they die with incomparable tranquillity, and adds, they are what many in Europe are wanting to be. It is worthy of note also how much there is in each system in accord­ ance with the most advanced modern thought: the one as Idealism, the other as represented by the recent dis­ covery of the Persistence and Correlation of Force. For if Vedaism connects itself with Matter, it is Matter as regarded only as “ the corporeal manifestation of God,” and I have endeavoured to show elsewhere how and where, as so regarded, Materialism and Absolute Idealism meet. (“ Illusion and Delusion,” published by T. Scott.) In my work also “ On Force, and its Mental Correlates” (Longmans & Co.), I have endeavoured to illustrate and enforce the following propositions :— There is but one Beality in the universe, which Physical Philosophers call “Force;” and Metaphy­ sicians “Noumenon.” It is the “Substance” of Spinoza, and the “ Being ” of Hegel. Everything. around us results from the mode of action or motion, or correlation of this one force, the different Forms of which we call Phenomena. The difference in the mode of action depends upon the difference in the structure it passes through; such Structure consisting of concentrated Force, or centres of Force, and has been called Matter. “ Every form is force visible; a form of rest is a balance of forces • a form undergoing change is the predominance of one over others.”—Huxley. �Primitive Religion. 23 Heat, Light, Magnetism, Electricity, Attraction, Re­ pulsion, Chemical Affinity, Life, Mind, or Sentience, are modes of action or manifestations of Force, and die or cease to exist, when, the Force passes on into other forms. Cause and Effect is this sequence or correlation; and each cause and effect is a new Life and a new Death : each new form being a new creation, which dies and passes away, never to return, for “ nothing repeats itself, because nothing can be placed again in the same condition : the past being irrevocable.”—-W. R. drove. 11 There is no death in the concrete, what passes away passes away into its own self—only the passing away passes away.”-—Hegel. Force passing through a portion of the structure of the brain creates the “ World” of our intellectual con­ sciousness, with the “Ego ” or sense of personal identity; passing through other portions the world of our likes and antipathies—called the moral world: Good and Evil being purely subjective. The character and direction of Volition depend upon the Persistent Force and the structure through which it passes. Every existing state, both bodily and mental, has grown out of the preceding, and all its Forces have been used up in present phenomena. Thus, “ everything that exists depends upon the past, pre­ pares the future, and is related to the whole.”— Oersted. As no force acts singly, but is always combined with other forces or modes of action to produce some given purpose or particular result, we infer that Force is not blind but intelligent. As Force is intelligent and One, it would be more properly called Being—possessing personality ; and that being we have called God. “ He is the universal Being of which all things are the mani­ festations.”-—-Spinoza. All power is Will power,—the will of God. “ Caus­ ation is the will, Creation the act of God.”—W. R. �24 The Christian Religion. Grove. The will which originally required a distinct conscious volition for each act has passed, in the ages, generally into the unconscious or automatic state, con­ stituting the fixed laws and order of nature. PART II. THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. “ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.”—Herbert Spencer. We in this Christian country are brought up in the belief that the Jews were chosen by God to perpetuate a worthy representation of Himself in a Pagan world given up wholly to Idolatry : that the character and attributes of the Creator, as given to man in the books of the Old Testament, are a Revelation from God Himself. On examination this turns out to be by no means the case. The Hebrew god is made entirely after the likeness of man ; wiser and more powerful, but with all his vices as well as his virtues greatly exaggerated—a conception fitted only for a barbarous age and a bar­ barous people; and notwithstanding some sublime poetical passages of the later prophets, altogether in­ ferior to that formed by the wise men of other Eastern nations. To Jewish conception, even to the last, the Creator of the Universe was the family God of the Patriarchs—the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, the titular or national God of the Hebrews, and it was not till after the Babyionic captivity that the <£ chosen people” abandoned altogether other supposed protecting deities, and became confirmed monotheists. Thus the religious history of the Jewish people in the historical books of the Old Testament, presents a series of vacillations between the worship of Jehovah and that �The Christian Religion. 25 of the gods of the surrounding nations ; the people serving that god who they think will afford them the most powerful protection. Hence the jealousy of Jehovah, and the term the living God, and the First Commandment, “ Thou shalt have no other gods l?ut me.” It will be necessary to show this, as Christianity is based on Judaism, and the orthodox theology of the present day is derived more from the Old Testament than the New. I shall let the Bible speak for itself. “ And God said, let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.”-—Gen. i. 26. “ And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.”—Gen. ii. 2. “ And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” —Gen. iii. 8. Cain and Abel from the very first make offering unto the Lord of fruit and flesh, and “of the fat thereof,” and they are accepted by him.”—Gen. iv. 3, 4, 5. And the Lord appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre accompanied by two angels, and they eat of a calf that was “ tender and good,” and the Lord said unto Abraham Wherefore does Sarah laugh, &c., and the Lord went his way as soon as he had left com­ muning with Abraham.”—Gen. xviii. 1, 7, 8, 13. The Lord also afterwards appeared unto Moses, on his desiring to see the glory of God. And he (Moses) said, I beseech thee show me thy glory. And he (the Lord) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee ; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And He said Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live. And the Lord said, Behold there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover �26 I X The Christian Religion. thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away my hand, and thon shalt see my back parts : but my face shall not be seen.”—Gen. xxxiii. 18-23. And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all thy house into the ark, and the Lord shut him in.”—Gen. vii. 1, 16. “And when Noah came out of the ark he builded an altar unto the Lord ; and took of every clean beast, and of every elean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. “And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake.”—Gen. viii. 20, 21. “ And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded,” and the Lord said, “ Go to, let us go down and there confound their language, that tKey may not understand one another’s speech.”-—Gen. xiv. 5, 7. “ It repenteth the Lord that he had made man upon the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.”—Gen. vi. 6. “And God heard the voice of the lad : and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven?’—Gen. xxi. 17. “ And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice, and let Israel go 1 I know not the Lord (Jehovah) neither will I let Israel go. And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met us, let us go three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our God : lest He fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.”—Exod. v. 2, 3. “ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.”—Exod. vii. 3, 5. And I (Jehovah) will give the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians : and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty. But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth m her house, jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and �The Christian Religion. IS] upon your daughters ; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. —Exod. iii. 21, 22. “ And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent them such things as they required, and they spoiled the Egyptians.’ Exod. xii. 36. When “wrath is gone out from the Lord, and the plague is begun, Aaron put on incense, and made an atonement, and the plague was stayed” (Num. xvi. 46-48.) God’s promise to Abram. “Thou art the Lord God, who didst choose Abram, and brought him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful before Thee, and mad’st a covenant with him to give the lands of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites to give it, I say to his seed, and hast per­ formed Thy words: for Thou art righteous” (Neh. ix. 7-8). Of how this promise was kept we need give only one illustration. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses ; and slew all the males. And Moses was wroth, and ordered every male among the little ones to be killed in cold-blood, and every woman that had known man : “ but all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” “And there were 32,000 persons in all, of women that bad not known man by lying with him ” (Num. xxxi. 1,2,7,14,17,18,35.) “Righteous” is not perhaps exactly the word which we should now apply to such dealings ! And the child­ ren of Israel said to Samuel, “ Cease not to cry unto the Lord our God for us, that He will save us out of the hands of the Philistines.” And Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered it for a burnt-offering wholly unto the �28 The Christian Religion. Lord : and Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel; and the Lord heard him. And as Samuel was offering up the burnt-offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel: but the Lord thundered zoith a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discom­ fited them ; and they were smitten before Israel (Sam­ uel, 1 Book, vii. 8, 9, 10.) The Lord fights for Israel, and casts down hailstones from heaven ; “ they were more which died -with hail­ stones than they which the children of Israel slew with the sword; ” and he makes the sun and moon to stand still until the people are avenged. “ Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel. (Num. x. 8, 14.) Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech (Judges ix. 23.) Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead ? and one said in this manner, and another said in that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will per­ suade him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith ? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said, thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets (1 Kings xxii. 20, 23.) God’s throne is in heaven. “ The Lord hath pre- �The Christian Religion. 29 pared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over all (Ps. ciii. 19.) I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory (Isaiah vi. 1, 3.) Por I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods (Ps. cxxxv.) He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh (Ps. ii. 4.) Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name. (Mai. iii. 16.) In every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering : for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts (Mai. i. 11.) I saw the Lord sitting upon His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand, and on His left (Micaiah.) Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills (Ps. i. 7, 15.) The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein. Eor He hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. (Ps. xxiv. 1-2.) The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels (Ps. lxxiii. 17j After the Chaldean captivity, when it was thought to be beneath the dignity of God to appear personally, these angels are very active and much more plentiful. Then the Lord employs his destroying angel to slay 185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. David also sees an angel. �jo c The Christian Religion. So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, it is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshingfloor of Oman the Jebusite. And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem (1 Chron. xxi. 14, 16.) Here is Daniel’s description of the angel Gabriel:— “ A man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. (Dan. x. 5-6.) This God of the Hebrews is certainly not a very sub­ lime conception, and it is difficult to say in what it differs from that of other primitive savages. He shows him­ self in bodily presence as a man to Adam and to Abram, walks in the cool of the evening, shows his parts behind to Moses, comes down to prevent a tower being built up into heaven, spoils the Egyptians, utterly exterminating the Canaanites, man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass, that he may give their land to his chosen people, sending lying spirits into his prophets, and in fact possessing all man’s greatest vices greatly exaggerated. He is angry, furious, cruel, vindictive, jealous, treacherous, partial, and by the smell of a sweet savour of poor innocent slaughtered beasts and birds, and by incense and sackcloth and ashes is turned from his purpose and repents. The Hebrew God is everywhere represented as delighting in blood, requiring the first-born of both man and beast to be offered up to him, and a lamb to be supplied to him both night and morning throughout the year. Is �The Christian Religion. 31 it not strange that this barbarons conception of a blood­ thirsty people should have been chosen by the modern world as the foundation of its religion, and can we wonder that the picture of such a Being, painted as we are told by himself, should have had a most deleterious effect on the moral sense of all who have been intro­ duced to it, or that those who prefer to believe in no God at all, rather than in such a God, should increase daily 1 The Jews have continued to “ spoil the Egyptians,” that is, all the nations among whom they are thrown, until this day, and this spoiling the Egyptians is quoted as a precedent for every kind of cheating and dis­ honesty among all who are disposed to prey by false pretence upon their fellow creatures. The religion of the Hebrews was like that of every savage nation. It consisted of Prayer and Supplication and Sacrifice. All unusual and extraordinary phenomena, all good gifts and evil fortune came direct from God, and they sought by gifts to him of what they thought he would like best, and by praise and adulation which they knew they most liked, to propitiate him, and win his favour. This was accomplished by a Priesthood who made it difficult to approach him except through themselves, and who claimed a reversionary interest in all gifts offered to him. It is true that more refined notions of deity prevailed among “ God’s chosen people,” as civilization advanced, and after they had spent seventy years in captivity in Babylon, and had become acquainted with the much higher “ revelation ” of Zoroaster. Still their most sublime and poetical conception never rose above that of a mighty magician, speaking the word of power ; the heaven his throne, and the earth his footstool; to whom belonged,—not the countless worlds of which they had no idea, but the cattle upon a thousand hills ; rid­ ing upon the wings of the wind ; governing the world by his angels, and in whose name every possible atrocity �^2 The Christian Religion. is committed : to whom such men as Jacob, David, and that wisest of all men, Solomon, with his three hundred wives, and nine hundred concubines, are represented as especially acceptable and favoured, but who show an utter indifference to any moral law whatever. Notwith­ standing this, we have that good man, the late Dr Norman Macleod, telling us almost with his last words, that “ The Bible practically says to all seekers after God, ‘Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.’ It professes to give a true history, in harmony with reason, conscience and experience, of God’s revelation of Him­ self during past ages, culminating in Jesus Christ, and continued in the Church by His Holy Spirit.’—Good Words, June 1875, p. 420. Hear also His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest authority of all. He says, “ Good Words,” May 1875, “As to morality, upholding as we do the immutable and eternal distinction between right and wrong, and thankful that in all but degraded specimens of the human race there is a conscience capable of learning these distinctions. ... We believe that the Great Being who controls the universe is in Himself the very good, and very right.” Now as His Grace identifies the Great Being who controls the universe with the Hebrew God of the Bible, and as we cannot certainly classify His Grace among “ the degraded specimens of the human race,” we are obliged to conclude that his conscience has yet something to learn. An aged and' much respected dissenting Minister tells me that “ The Bible will treat you as you treat it,” that is, you may find whatever you are looking for, and only nineteenth century ideas are looked for ; we look for a reformed God, and a reformed religion, and this is the only way I can account for the judgments of the good men I have -, quoted above, and also for the fact that such chapters as Gen. xix., xxxvii., Jud. xix., 2 Sam. ix., xiii., &c., i are allowed to be retained, although they would not ' obtain admission into any book in the present day in any refined and civilized community. �The Christian Religion. 33 But even among those who reject Revelation as a revelation, the deistic conception of God as a governing power outside the universe is probably as childish as the original one conceived in the childhood of the world, when all the earth was supposed to be filled with his glory. The cosmogony of the Hebrews, as might be expected, is exactly upon a par with their Theology. The earth, according to their revelation, was the centre of all things j it was flat, founded upon the seas, and could not be moved. The sun, and moon, and stars, are so many lamps placed in the firmament to give light to the earth. The firmament or sky is a solid structure, and supports a great ocean like that upon which the earth rests, in which are little windows through which pour the waters of this upper ocean—under the earth is the land of graves, called sheol, and is the hell, to which it is said, Christ descended.* Above the waters of the firmament is heaven, where Jehovah reigns, surrounded by hosts of angels. It is to this heaven that Christians say Christ ascended, his disciples and a vast multitude having seen him go up, where he sitteth on the right hand of God. There is some little discrepancy as to whether Christ is sitting or standing, as St Stephen saw him standing, and we might well believe it was “sometimes one and sometimes the other,” if the Athanasian creed, supported by the church, did not say that we shall be damned if we do not believe he is sitting. Between the firmament and the earth is the air, which is the habitation of evil spirits, and properly belongs to Satan, the “ prince of * Mr George Smith informs the Daily Telegraph that some of the Assyrian tablets discovered by Mr Smith and presented by the proprietors of the Telegraph to the British Museum, contain a much longer and fuller account of the creation and fall of man than the Book of Genesis. In particular, the fall of Satan, which in the Bible is only assumed, is in these records reported at length, and the description of this being is characterized by Mr Smith as “ really magnificent. �j4 The Christian Religion. the powers of the air.” As to the order of creation, the sun is made on the fourth day, the changes of day and night preceding it. The sun and moon are subordinate to the earth. It took no less than five days to create the earth, while for the sun, the whole starry host, and the planets it took only one day, but then they were made just to light up the earth. It was for professing some little doubt as to the accuracy of this plan of the universe that poor Galileo was persecuted and imprisoned, and the special charge against Giordano Bruno was that he had taught the plurality of worlds, a doctrine, it was said, repugnant to the whole tenor of Scriptures, and inimical to revealed religion, especially as regards the plan of salvation. For this he was to be punished as mercifully as possible, and “ without the shedding of blood,” the horrible formula for burning people alive. It was this adoption of the Jewish sacred writings as the standard of all knowledge, this conflict between religion and science, this attempt to put the Cosmos into a quart pot, that has put a logger on science, even up to the present day. The so-called revelation now stands in the way of mental science as it formally did in the way of physics ; but as our astronomy has come from science and not from revelation, so also, must our mental and moral philosophy. Mohammedanism released the people of Asia, Africa, and the Continent of Europe, from those narrow and erroneous scriptural dogmas, and the thick darkness of papal Borne, and left science free; and the lamp of discovery was kept burning through Arabian learning, and the highest civilization we have yet reached, that of the Moors in Spain. We are evidently approaching another Reformation in which Science not in one department only, but in all, shall be left entirely free. The intellectual development of Europe has reached that stage where Arabism left us in the 1 Oth and 11 th centuries. Through the influence of Rome the world then took the wrong way ; had it adopted Averhoism, which was rejected only by a �The Christian Religion. 35 small majority, we should have been then where we are now. But if the Jewish conception of God was a most unworthy one, what must we say of that of the orthodox Christian 1 Why, that it is infinitely worse. With both he is the Creator of all things, therefore, of evil and good, but with the former evil is confined to time and this world, while with the latter it is absolute and endless. Thus, according to the orthodox creed the Almighty and All-wise, with a perfect knowledge therefore of what he was doing, and full power to do otherwise, made our first parents, Adam and Eve, and put them into Paradise, with the full knowledge that they would get themselves immediately turned out for a single act of disobedience. They were not to eat of a certain magic tree, for if they did so on that day they should surely die. But our poor inexperienced mother Eve, not knowing even what death was, was beguiled by a talking serpent, into eating, and Adam, like a gentleman, determined to share the consequences with his wife : and if they had merely died on that day they would only have been where they were before they were made. But did God keep His word? No, they did not die that day, but after cursing the earth for their sake, they were kept alive to fill it with their children, all of whom, with themselves, were condemned to everlasting torture for this single act of disobedience. But God had already arranged a scheme by which the world might be saved; He would give His only be­ gotten Son; Christ was to die for our salvation, an innocent person for the guilty; but the conditions were such that God in His infinite fore-knowledge knew perfectly well they would not be accepted, and that the great majority would be damned, notwithstanding this infinite loving kindness, and awful sacrifice. From the “Westminster Confession of Faith,” we learn that by the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some c �j6 The Christian Religion. men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death. “ Those 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.” “ The rest of mankind, God was pleased, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” Glorious justice indeed 1 an infinite punishment for a finite sin, or rather for no sin at all, for if the causes that pro­ duced the act had not been adequate to the result, God could not have foreseen it. “ Our first parents, we are told, on the same authority, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy council, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.” Thus He permitted a subtle and powerful being to tempt our first parents, knowing full well the result, and having already prepared a place of eternal torment, that he might “ order it to His own glory.” J. S. Mill says (“Autobiography,” p. 41.) “I have a hundred times heard him (his father) say, that all ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing progression; that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have called this God, and prostrated themselves before it. This ne plus ultra of wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is commonly presented to mankind as the creed of Chris­ tianity.” The Rev. Dr Norman Macleod, however, says, 11 God has manifested in humanity the same kind of joy He Himself had in beholding the works which He had made very good, and in which He rested and reposed ’’ �The Christian Religion. 37 (“Good Words,” June 1875, p. 421.) Fancy such a work being “ very good f ’ but we trust the Doctor did not believe it, any more than we do ourselves. He may, how­ ever, possibly have held with Luther, that it is by faith we are saved and Luther says, “ it is the highest degree of faith to believe Him merciful, who saves so few and damns so many: to believe him just who of his own will makes us necessarily damnable.” However laud­ able such a degree of faith may be, we must confess ourselves unequal to it, for it points to a devil, not a god, and one wonders how such a horrid conception could ever get into people’s heads, and ever form the faith of a civilised people. It has taken ages of “ sur­ vivals ” of hideous barbarism from the earliest ages to put the idea together, and ages of transmission to propagate the faith. No one coming fresh to it could entertain it for a moment. It is absurd to say that God’s original intentions were frustrated with respect to man ; it is a contradiction to suppose that anything can take place contrary to the will and wish of Almighty power and wisdom. The “Spectator,” (Nov. 7, 1874), however, regards it “ as a higher act of power to create free beings, and therefore beings liable to sin on their own responsibility, than to create only those whose natures are for ever fixed in the grooves of good; ” that is, it may be a much higher act of power to create beings capable of damning themselves to all eternity, than to create them so good that they could not do it; granted, but then what shall we say of the wisdom ? We very much doubt, however, whether omnipotence itself could create a free, that is self-originating, uncaused act of any kind ; it is very certain it never has. It is wonderful that it never seems to occur to the ortho­ dox school, that if God had kept His word, and Adam had really died, and another pair had been created, less “ free ” to damn themselves and all their posterity, how much trouble might have been spared. There would have been no necessity then to “ keep a devil,” or a ( �38 The Christian Religion. place of eternal torment, and the Son of God need not have died, and this, as it appears to poor human reason, might have been turned equally to God’s glory. “ If Christ, as St John writes, appeared on earth to destroy the works of the devil, He might have been dispensed with if no devil had existed” (Strauss.) This doctrine of the atonement, of sacrificing an innocent person for a guilty one, and that in Christ’s case only for an elect few: for although “many are called few are chosen”—must have come down from the very earliest times. “ Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins” (Heb. ix. 22) must be a “sur­ vival ” from pre-historic men and the most barbarous races. The law of vengeance, life for life, blood for blood, was the savage law; and what was thus acceptable to man was thought to be the most acceptable to his Deity that he wanted to propitiate. Hence human sacrifices. An only son being the dearest to man was t thought to be most acceptable to God. At length animals were substituted for human beings, as in Abra­ ham’s case, the ram for his only son Isaac, and the first-born among the Hebrews ceased in time to be sacrificed according to primitive barbaric custom, and was redeemed by a ram or a lamb. In Exodus and Leviticus we have a whole ceremonial worship based upon sacrifices, as we are told, by divine command. “ Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering for atonement ” (Ex. xxix. 36, &c.) The Jewish ritual is full of bloody sacrifices, and Paul, not Christ, has made it the key-stone of the Christian system, in the blood of God’s only begotten and beloved Son. This doctrine of propitiation by blood—of being washed clean in blood, could never have entered a civilised man’s head or heart; we have gradually been ac­ customed to it from the earliest times, until like the sun’s rising, it excites no wonder. That all should fall for the sin of one*—of Adam, and all be saved by the sacrifice of an innocent person, is so �The Christian Religion. 39 great a breach of all moral law that we rather wonder how the Archbishop of Canterbury reconciles it with “ the immutable and eternal distinctions between right and wrong.” There can be little doubt that the con­ founding of all moral distinctions in the “ spoiling of the Egyptians,” and the sacrifice of the innocent for the guilty as a plan of salvation, must have had a most deleterious influence upon the conscience of all who have believed in them, as part of the direct ordinances of God. “ The covenant of grace in which the guilty are pardoned through the agony of the just—and a God kept holy in His own eyes by the double violation of His own standard of rectitude,” can in no way be re­ conciled with the intellect or our moral sense. But these dire chimeras, these awful and blasphem­ ous slanders upon the character of God, are silently dying out before the gradually increasing intelligence of the age, as witchcraft has done before. We no longer burn thousands of old women for having personal inter­ course and dealing with the “ prince of the powers of the air,” and theological dogma is giving place, even in the church itself, to practical religion. There are still, however, many good people who think it desirable to retain these horrible lies and libels upon our Creator, in order to frighten men into being good, and the hope of an immortality attended with such results is thought to be a high and ennobling sentiment. At the present time (June 1875) a case is going through the Court of Arches, Jenkins v. Cook, in which the Rev. F. Cook refuses to allow Mr Jenkins to partake of “ the body and blood of Christ,” which, as the Church Catechism tells us, “ is verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful at the Lord’s Supper,” with his fellow­ communicants, because he had expressed doubts about the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the personality of Satan; he had even gone the length of supposing that there were parts of “ God’s Holy Word” that were better left out, and he had prepared a selec­ �40 The Christian Religion. tion for his young family. On the other hand, we have an article in the “Contemporary,” for May, by Prof. J. B. Mayor, in which he says, 11 reason and conscience inevitably revolt against such a gospel as this (that hopeless misery is the destiny of the larger propor­ tion of created souls), yet how are those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible to avoid accepting it 1 Accept this or give up Christianity is the alternative presented to many minds at the present day—an alter­ native enforced with equal vehemence by the extremists on either side. It is this which is the great stum­ bling-block not, how can I believe in this miracle or that miracle ? but how can I accept a revelation which appears to me to contradict the first and deepest of all revelations, God is just, and God is good? He who would solve this problem and justify to man the ways of God, as revealed in Scripture, would, indeed, do a great and excellent work. Maurice did some­ thing by calling attention to the distinction between endless and eternal.’' A great many equally good and learned men, in the interests, as they believe it to be, of religion, are making similar useless distinctions, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, and by taking things in a non­ natural sense, the spiritual instead of the literal meanby turning affirmed facts into allegory, &c., are earnestly striving to make black appear white and save their livings; the church, as they believe, being much better reformed from within than from without. The question which is really interesting and pressing, according to Principal Tulloch, is not how to get out­ side the church, but how to enlarge and make room in­ side it for varieties of Christian intelligence and culture. But we may read the signs of the times when the “ Edinburgh Review,” not now the organ of advanced but of conservative liberalism, is disposed to go much further „ than “ the distinction between endless and eternal,” and to throw over the Old Testament alto­ �The Christian Religion. 41 gether and much even of the New (Oct. 1873, on Dr Strauss). “ We are not Jews/’ it says, “ and there is no reason in the world why we should be weighted with the burden of understanding and defending at all risks the Jewish Scriptures.” It also says, “Is it right, is it truthful, is it any longer possible, in the face of all that is now known upon the subject, to pretend that legendary matter has not intruded itself into the •hew Testament as well as into the Old?” Still the writer contends for the precious truths which notwith­ standing this lie enshrined in “ Oriental metaphor” and “ Mediaeval dogma,” and accuses Strauss of “ igno­ rant blasphemy or hypocritical sarcasm,” for professing to understand these things literally, and to believe that they form any part of Christianity. This is the attitude that is now assumed by those who do not wish to give up the Bible altogether. They fall back upon what they call Christianity, by which they mean the example and moral teaching of Christ, as far as that can be ascertained. It is very difficult to ascertain what Christ did, and still more to say what he taught. We have the fourth Gospel, and the Epistles of Paul, and of Peter, James, and Jude, all of which have added to and differ from what Christ himself taught. The theologic system that has come down to us is in reality not Christianity, but much has been added to it which Christ himself, as a religious reformer, strongly protested against. The bloody doctrine of sacrifice and atonement, which had been derived from a primitive savage state, was re-introduced and made the corner­ stone of the new faith j in fact, orthodox Christianity is more indebted to Paul and the Alexandrine School, as represented in St John’s Gospel, than to its putative founder. In the midst of the myths and legends that have surrounded Christ, it is very difficult to say who and what he was. Without believing at all in the super­ natural, I yet believe that he wrought most of the �42 7 The Christian Religion. miracles that are ascribed to him, and that this appa­ rently miraculous power deceived him and his disciples and ourselves. This power was not peculiar to Christ, for a power of curing many kind of diseases has attended, and still attends, 'many individuals. One of the best known cases on record is that of Valentine Greatrakes, an Irish gentleman, but no saint, born in 1628. He was invited by the King to London, whither he went, curing very many by the way. There the Royal Society, then young, investigated the matter, publish­ ing some of his cures in their Transactions, and account­ ing for them as produced by “ a sanative contagion in Mr Greatrakes’ body, which had an antipathy to some particular diseases and not to others.” We are told by a contemporary writer, Henry More, what particular diseases this sanative contagion had an antipathy to, viz., “ cancers, scrofula, deafness, king’s evil, headache, epilepsy, fevers (though quartian ones), leprosy, palsy, tympany, lameness, numbness of limbs, stone, convul­ sions, ptysick, sciatica, ulcers, pains of the body, nay, blind and dumb in some measure, and I know not but he cured the gout.” Now if we leave out the cures that were said to be wrought by Christ that the pro­ phecies might be fulfilled, we have here most of the diseases that he was able to cure, for we must not forget that people’s want of faith prevented his being success­ ful in all times and all places. He knew also when “ virtue,” this sanitary power, went out of him, as when touched by the woman with the issue. We may doubt as to the source of this power, but that it exists there can be no doubt. I have seen six cases, including toothache, lameness, and rheumatism cured or relieved in less than a quarter of an hour by the simple contact or laying on of hands, and I have carefully watched many permanent cures by the same person, by what appeared to me an excess of vital power or of the “ vis medecatrix.” Now if Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter’s son, found himself possessed of such a power, he would �The Christian Religion. 43 of course ascribe it to Divine origin and believe that he ■was intended by the Almighty for some special mission, most probably the Messiah, which all the Jews were expecting, to deliver them from the Roman yoke and to place them in the exalted position which had been promised to the seed of Abraham, and to which there had been already several pretenders. He himself does not appear to be quite certain as to the character of his mission, for when sent to by John, asking, “ Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another 1 ” he replied, “ Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see, the blind receive their sight and the lame ■walk, the leapers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them,” intimating that this was all he knew. There is little doubt, I think, that on his entry into Jerusalem he expected a rising of the people in his favour, and probably divine assistance in that direction, as he daily received it, as he thought, in others. When that did not take place, and he saw that a revolt against the Roman power was vain and hopeless, he did not the less doubt his own Divine mission, of which he received daily proofs in the miracles which he wrought; but he began to see that the promised kingdom was not to be of this world, but upon a second coming, which was to take place even in that generation, and when he should be accom­ panied by such divine power as would establish this Heavenly Kingdom for ever. In the meantime he began to prepare for that martyrdom that had always attended all the great prophets and all previous claims to the Messiahship. He prayed that this might pass from him; but was nobly prepared to meet it if such was God’s will, and never once does he seem to have doubted that he was under God’s special care for a special purpose, except in his own most pathetic and despairing cry upon the cross, “ Mv God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me !” Christ died as a rebel to the �44 The Christian Religion. Roman. Empire, and in the full persuasion that on his second coming, then near at hand, all things would be made subservient to himself and to his followers, and that the Jewish nation especially should have the pre­ eminence that had been promised to them. In this belief, his disciples, who had daily witnessed his appa­ rently miraculous power, joined him, and expected to sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It is impossible not to feel love for Christ, especially when we think of the horrid suffering to which he w’as subjected by his fellow-creatures, and to feel respect for him as the most amiable and greatest of our moral and social reformers, but I cannot look upon him as a perfect character, or his example as one that could be followed in the entirely altered conditions we have now. There is much in the spirit of Christ’s character that is most loveable and estimable, but to attempt to follow his example would as certainly bring us wuthin the power of the police, as it did him in his day. In all the phases of social life, as a son, as a celebate, as a producer or worker, his example is certainly one that cannot be followed. As Strauss says, we must have a definite conception of him whom we are to imitate as an exemplar of moral excellence, and there are not such essential facts in the life of Jesus firmly established j neither are we clearly cognizant of his aims, nor the mode and degree in which he hoped for their reali­ zation. It is in the spirit of his doctrine only, that he can be held up as an exemplar, and that certainly, excellent as it is in many points, would not tend to the full development of all our faculties. But whence did Christ get his knowledge, which seems greatly to have exceeded that of his time, and most cer­ tainly that of his condition as a carpenter’s son ? What sources were open to him 1 Was he one of those seers or clairvoyants which the world has occasionally known, and in that sense inspired ? The power of healing and of �The Christian Religion. 45 this kind of intuitional knowledge, are seldom found together. It is very difficult to ascertain what Christ really did teach. There were no short-hand writers in those days, and the traditional reports we have, would come to us strained through, and coloured by, the much lower minds of his followers. We must therefore take the spirit of his teaching, and not take it literally; and we must recollect that much of what he taught was under the firm conviction that the world was coming to an end, probably in that generation. The morality of the New Testament, to which the Broad Church is now driven, giving up the conventional theological creed, furnishes no system of morals, or one upon which a science of mental and moral philosophy can be based. The sun still goes round the earth in the mental science of the New Testament, as much as it did in the physics of the Old, for of course there can be no science of mind, if the mind obeys no law, and it has power to resist the strongest motives, as the advocates of Free Will affirm. If, on the contrary, the mind necessarily obeys its own laws, then we require a re-modelling of the whole of Christ’s morality, as it must be based upon a different idea of responsibility to that which he taught; for the whole tendency of Christianity is to separate conduct from its immediate and natural consequences, and to place such consequences far away, or even in some distant world; whereas the only divine judgment or responsibility which science can admit, is that only “ which fulfils itself hour by hour, and day by day.” Thus Christ taught, as his especial doctrine, the Fatherhood of God; now in the sense that God ever interferes with natural law in our favour, this is not true, and if not true, however comforting such a doctrine of a Heaven-Father, or Father in Heaven, may be to weak people, it had better be given up, as the truth must always serve us best. God has put everything we require within our reach, and has appointed a way by which it may be attained, and has lent us his power to �46 The Christian Religion. act for ourselves, and after that we have no right to expect he will interfere personally in our behalf, and if he did, it could only be to our injury, by weakening that self-reliance upon which certainly all progress, if not our very existence, depends. If we do not take this natural course towards the object of our desires, we are punished in the consequences, and as such punishment is for our good, God never injures us by forgiving our sins. ' And this is what I have principally to say against Christianity. It has attempted to come between man and the natural consequences of his actions; it has filled the world with eleemosynary charity, and has thus weakened his most important springs of action. . Here we have the orthodox creed on this subject, “ If man is compelled to distinguish between right and wrong, he is a responsible agent, subject to penalties for the misuse, &c., of his moral powers. He must be responsible to some one. That some one must be omniscient and omnipotent (or little less) in order to act as Judge of humanity, and to mete out adequate rewards and punishments. As these adequate rewards and punishments do not follow in this life, there must be a future state. If not, there would exist in man a whole class of moral faculties which seem to find in the present state of things an appropriate field for their exercise, but which man is under no necessity of using.” (The Dean of Canterbury on “ Science and Revelation ”). Now it is the consequences of man’s actions that enable him to distinguish between right and wrong, and at the same time mete out an adequate reward and punish­ ment. He is judged at once, and by an infallible judge, and where the rewards and punishments, the pains and pleasures attending his actions, may be of some use to him and not carried on to some future state or other world, where the conditions being different, they can be of no use whatever. Man is responsible to himself, and to the society of which he forms a member. This idea �The Christian Religion. 47 of vengeance, this notion that has come down from savage life of apportioning a certain amount of useless suffering to a certain amount of sin, pervades the whole of the Bible. We are told also that man is endowed with certain faculties for the exercise of which no proper field has been furnished him by natural means, and that therefore it requires a supernatural interposi­ tion to provide him with one. We know of no faculties that man possesses, that are not brought into daily use, that he could live without, or which are not active in. providing an improved state of things here in this world, for himself and fellows. The two great commandments of Christianity are that we should “ Love God with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves.” Now is this possible ? If not, is it not time that we should give up pretending that it is ? Can we love the God of the Hebrews who puts whole towns to the sword, men, women, and little children, and every living thing, and who throws great stones out of heaven upon the retreating hosts, and who kills more in that way, than are killed by the sword 1 Can we love the God of the Christians who has ordained an eternity of torture for the majority of his weak and erring creatures, having full power to save them or not to have created them 1 It is true we can make an idol of all the ' highest attributes with which we are acquainted and give it a personality after our own image, and love that, but that is not God. Can we love the Great Unknown ? We may love goodness and beauty, but they must take some form to enable us to do so, we cannot love a mere abstraction. The Universal Bather works for the good of all, and does not recognise individuals. Love is a human feeling applicable to our fellow creatures, and is not applicable, as it appears to me, to the All Supreme, which supports the Universe, or rather which is the Universe. We cannot know enough of this power to make it an object of love, however much it may create a feeling of reverence and �48 The Christian Religion. awe, and this idea and feeling increase the higher our conception rises of the Great Supreme. We may love Christ as the highest manifestation of God we may know, but this is a very different and inferior feeling to that which we have for the Great All. As to “ loving our neighbour as ourselves ” that is neither possible nor desirable. Suppose my neighbour is a nasty sneak, a mere animal, full of low and vicious propensities, why should I love him ? I am not called upon to love vice in any form, although it is my neighbour, and to do so, as man’s conduct is governed by the consequences, would be holding out a premium for vice. Let my neighbour make himself loveable, and I cannot help loving him. On principle I may do him all the good I can—getting him hanged perhaps being the greatest good I can do him—but as to loving him, I must decline. We can only love what is loveable, and believe what is credible. It is true that orthodoxy professes to love the Being who may send themselves or their best and dearest friend to spend an eternity in “ ever­ lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” and as to belief, it thinks that any fool can believe what is credible, but that that only is a saving and justifying faith which believes what is incredible. If all that it is meant to inculcate is a settled principle of good-will to all men, that certainly is a most desirable feeling to encourage, even towards the unworthy. The same may be said about loving our enemies. Why should we love our enemies? The interests of the community, and therefore of morality, do not require it. We cannot do more for our friends. It is true we may bless them that curse, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us, and we can do what pious people are very fond of doing, pray for our enemies; but as to loving them! when by doing them all the good we can, if they deserve it, we have made them our friends, then we may love them. Does God love his enemies when he exacts an infinite �The Christian Religion. 49 penalty for a finite fault, or is it not true that he pre­ pares an eternity of torment for them ? “ They shall drink,” John says, “the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation, and they shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” How the holy angels must enjoy the sight ! we are told also on the same ‘ loving ’ authority, ‘ they have no rest day nor night, they shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them, they blaspheme God, they gnaw their tongues for pain.’ ” Moses says, “ Slay every man his brother,” rather than allow the existence of heretics, but Moses did not believe in a future state, and therefore he could not damn them as well. Christ says, “ He that believeth not in me the wrath of God abideth on him ”—■ “He that believeth not shall be damned,” and Paul says of the unbelievers in his day, “ God shall send them strong delusion (as he had previously done to Pharaoh and to Ahab), that they should believe a lie, that they may all be damned.” All that can come of setting up a false standard, and professing to love our enemies, is a pharisaical hypocrisy. What we have to do is to love the true, the good, and the beautiful; to stand up for the right regardless of consequences, and to maintain an unending battle against evil in all its forms. This may be done in all kindness, and in the full conviction that “ Society prepares crime, and the guilty are only the instruments by which it is executed.”—Quetelet. It is justice that ought to rule the world. We are governed by the con­ sequences of our actions, and if we can get love without being loveable, and good for evil, the chief motives to be good and loveable are taken away. The same reason­ ing applies to the whole doctrine of the non-resistance of evil. Not to resist evil is to encourage it. If a man smite us unjustly on one cheek, and turning the other Jo be smitten would prevent its recurrence, let us do it. �50 The Christian Religion. With a good man it might do so, but with the great majority it would only encourage them to further aggression. To give a man my cloak who had taken my coat would be a premium for robbery; and to give to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow of me not to turn away, as a rule, would be equally a premium for improvidence. So also to take no thought for the morrow, to trust to God to clothe us as he does the lilies of the field, would sap self-reliance and self­ dependence, the foundation of all morality. No society that ever existed in Christ’s time or since could hold together on such principles, translate them into what­ ever transcendental or sesthetic language we may. As to the golden rule, which is not peculiar to Christianity, viz., “ that we should do as we would be done by,” it can only be received in spirit, in a very broad and general application, for people differ so in bodily and mental constitution that what suits one person by no means suits another. It is not at all safe to judge of other people by ourselves. Not to do to others what we would not like to have done to ourselves is a much safer way of putting it. We must notice also, it is that W’e may be rewarded, not that we may do right, is the inducement every­ where held out. With reference to prayer, Christ says, “when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” We are expressly told that we are not to pray standing in the synagogues, that we may be seen of men; that we are not to use vain repetitions and much speaking, for that our Father knoweth what things we have need of, before we ask Him. The whole of Christendom has systematically set these injunctions at defiance, for there would be little use for the priests were they carried out, and with one sex at least, church-going would be less popular if they were �The Christian Religion. 51 not to be “ seen of men.” The last new bonnet is a great stimulant to devotion. The great majority of Christians, who believe their saints to be ubiquitous, or omniscient, and who pray to those who are always listening, to intercede with the Mother of God, to petition her Son, to ask his Father, can have little faith that the “Father knows what things we have need ■of, before we ask Him,” or that if he does, he is very hard to persuade to let us have them. His Holi­ ness, the Pope, in his Encyclical, recently issued, enjoins incessant prayer, employing a Mediatrix with Him, the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who sits, he says, as a queen upon the right hand of her only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in a golden vestment, clothed around with various adornments. There is nothing she cannot obtain from him. Now is it likely that God will be constantly altering the •course he has appointed for our well-being at our ignor­ ant intercession ? Surely he knows what is right, and will do it, without our asking him or constantly re­ minding him! No amount of toadying, which we call worship, or serving him, will induce him to do other­ wise than what is right, or prevent him from doing it, whether “ we praise him,” or “ acknowledge him to be the Lord,” or not. The savage with the noise of pots and pans tries to prevent an eclipse, that is, to prevent the sun eating up the moon, or vice versa, and the noises we make in the churches to bring or prevent rain, or in any way to alter the course of natural law, may be expected to be equally efficacious. The whole tendency of modern research goes to show that if law is anywhere, it is everywhere. The Kyoungtha of Chittagong are Buddhists. Their village temples contain a small stand of bells and an image of Buddha, which the villagers generally worship, morning and evening, first ringing the bells to let him know that they are there (Sir John Lubbock’s “Origin of Civilisation,” p. 220). This is no more than polite or D < » • �52 The Christian Religion. politic; we ring our bells merely to call the people together, thinking God is always ready to listen to petitions, to do for us what he has given us full power to do for ourselves, or simply perhaps, to reverse the order of nature, upon the invariability of which the good of all depends. Surely it is better that all people should know that miracles will not be constantly worked on their behalf. It is true that by the laws of the mind, prayer often answers itself, and we get what we ask for, but should we mock God that we may be so benefited? No man prays for the success of his chemical experiments, neither will he for moral results when he knows as much of the likes and antipathies of human beings, as he does of the attractions and repul­ sions of atoms. Our present practice is a “ survival ” of primitive barbarous times, when all evil was supposed to come directly from spirits, or from the gods, and prayer was the only means supposed capable of averting such evils. We certainly have no right to reflect on less civilised times and nations for their superstition, so long as we expect the ordinary course of nature to be altered in our behalf whenever we choose to ask it. It never seems to occur to those who pray without ceasing, to ask the question that if in answer to their repeated importunity, God delivers them from evil, why an infinitely powerful, good, and benevolent being does not deliver all from evil, without asking. If it were right in their case it would be right in all; but it would be not right. Any interference with the estab­ lished order of nature would render both reason and instinct useless, and would weaken those springs of action on which all progress depends. The late Bev. Charles Kingsley, says, speaking of Atheism •—££ Has every suffering, searching soul, which ever gazed up into the darkness of the unknown, in hopes of catching even a glimpse of a divine eye, beholding. all, and ordering all, and pitying all, gazed up in vain ?.............Oh! my friends, those who �The Christian Religion. 53 believe or fancy that they believe such things, must be able to do so only through some peculiar conformation, either of brain or heart. Only want of imagination to conceive the consequences of such doctrines can enable them, if they have any love and pity for their fellow­ men, to preach those doctrines without pity and horror. They know not, they know not, of what they rob a mankind already but too miserable by its own folly and its own sin, a mankind which, if it have not hope in God and in Christ, is truly—as Homer said of old— more miserable than the beasts of the field. If their unconscious conceit did not make them unintentionally cruel, they would surely be more silent for pity’s sake ; they would let men go on in the pleasant delusion that there is a living God, and a Word of God who has revealed him to men, and would hide from their fellow­ creatures the dreadful secret which they think they have discovered—that there is none that heareth prayer, and therefore to him need no flesh come.” No doubt this is very eloquent, but if such eloquence were compatible with reason, I should ask, who is it that professes to have discovered “the dreadful secret,” that the majority after a moment spent here, are con­ signed to endless torments, where there “ is none that heareth prayer, and therefore to Him need no flesh come.” Surely Atheism is better than this orthodox belief, and if any have discovered that it is a blasphem­ ous libel upon our Creator, the sooner they proclaim it the better. The good, most loving, and gentle Cowper, the Poet, not having felt, as he and his Par­ son thought, sufficient evidence of conversion, lived year after year in the full belief that God had utterly rejected him, and on his death-bed exclaimed, “ I feel unutterable despair.” The self-righteous people who feel so certain of their own salvation, forget, or more probably selfishly disregard, the numberless cases of this kind, of sensitive people being driven, as poor Cowper was, to despair; they think it so hard that �any should be deprived of the comforting notion. It is a great mystery, they say, but it is one of their own making: they first make it dark, and then complain that they cannot see. I need not say any more, I think, to show that the Christianity of Christ, however much of excellence there is in it, is not up to the thought and moral sense of our time. Great efforts are being made to adapt it to the altered conditions by new and forced meanings, and by dropping, what no forcing can adapt, as not abidingprinciples intended for our times. So far as attempts have been made to put Christianity systematically into practice, they have been failures. The early Christians were communists—they had all things in common ; and no doubt it is better adapted tosuch a social system than to any other. When all are dependent upon each and each upon all; when all have a direct and immediate interest in the well-being, physical, moral, and intellectual of every member of the community, when conscience or the sense of duty is as strong a feeling as hunger and pride and vanity are now, when the unselfish feelings shall decidedly pre­ dominate, then some form of Christianity will be practi­ cable. But society in no country has ever yet approached such a state. Communism is still, and may continue so for ages, the great Socialist Utopia. Where Christianity has been attempted to be carried out as a system of theological belief; where he “ who believeth shall be saved and he who believeth not shall be damned,” the burnings of millions of people have not brought us any nearer to it in practice. People will con­ tinue to believe that what appears to them to be black and not white, is black, whether they are to be burned here and hereafter for it or not; and as to “ renouncing the devil and all his works,” and burning some nine millions of poor old women and others for supposed personal deal­ ings with him, the devil, or at least the principle of evil, is nearly as rampant as ever. It -would have been much �The Christian Religion. 55 more convincing if those who burned others for want of faith, had exhibited a proper evidence of their own, which they never did. “ And these signs shall follow them that believe says Mark xvi. 17, 18, 19, “ In my name shall they cast out devils j they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” But such is the perversity of human nature, that had such powers attended their faith, they would probably have been burned for witchcraft. “ So then,” Mark goes on to say, xvi. 20, “ after the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The asceticism, which is a part of Christianity, has done the world infinite mischief, if it were only in depriving it of the offspring of so many of its highest minds, who were either imprisoned, burnt, or voluntarily retired from it. What wise man had time to marry when he had an eternity to prepare for ? what good man would run the risk of introducing beings to a life of everlasting torment ? The stake was so great, that no wonder that among those who were not good utter sel­ fishness prevailed, and men thought only of their own salvation. The soul was the only thing to be thought of, the body was despised, mortified, degraded, and neglected. Monks, nuns, and hermits were the only sensible people. Prayer was the only occupation in which a man could profitably engage, and conse­ quently no more attention was given to the body than its natural wants absolutely required. This absurd de­ preciation of the body, the sole instrument of thought, has continued to the present time. It is absurd to say that we owe modern civilization to Christianity. Islamism \yas a real reform on the state of society induced by the Christianity of that day, and carried willingly all the East and the great cities of its birth along with it; and when it had reduced Europe �56 The Christian Religion. to the dark ages, we were saved again by the Moors and Saracens, and a return to Greece and Rome. The Greek and Roman philosophers aim at the perfect de­ velopment of the individual man—mind and body— and of the individual state. “ Magnanimity, self-reli­ ance, dignity, independence, and, in a word, elevation of character, constituted the Roman idea of perfection ; while humility, obedience, gentleness, patience, resigna­ tion are Christian virtues” (Lecky, vol. ii., pp. 72, 155), and it is not, I think, saying too much to affirm, that had the principles of Christianity been really practised, modern civilization could never have existed. His Excellency Iwakura Tomomi, chief of the supreme Japanese Embassy, which visited England a few years ago, has presented to the Library of the India Office a set of the Chinese version of the Buddhist Scriptures. The work weighs 3| tons. A selection is probably, in their case, allowed to be made for the use of families. If, as is reported, the Chinese and Hindus are about to send missionaries to Europe, they certainly cannot come Bible in hand. The time was when people were really in earnest about their religion, but now all living faith in the dogmas of the past seems to have died out. Where the idea of duty first makes its appearance is in the sacrifices to the dead. The most costly gifts of men, and women, and horses, and dogs, and arms, and money, were presented to the dead, and buried or burned with them. The Chinese, however, are a practical people, and Tylor tells us that in China “ the fanciful art of replacing these costly offerings by worthless imitations is at this day worked out into the quaintest devices— the men and horses dispatched by fire for the service of the dead are but paper figures and the manufacture of mock-money, both in gold and silver, is the trade of thousands of women and children in a Chinese city” (“ Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 445). Such a change has come over our religion,—which has now become a �The Christian Religion. 57 mere conventional custom of what is called good society —a great sham which thousands of men, women and clergymen are engaged in manufacturing. There is no doubt we are bordering on change. Not that we expect this change to be rapid; all per­ manent change is very slow. Besides the two extremes of the positivists and scientific men at one end, and work­ ing men at the other—who regard religion as allied always with monarchy and aristocracy, and as offering post-obit bills on heaven for what they think they are unjustly deprived of here—the great body of society looks upon Christianity as containing their highest ideal of excellence. Its dogmas are a dead letter to all but a very few, people have got used to them, or they are interpreted so as not to shock their moral sense, or they are regarded as awful mysteries to be cleared up in another world, and without which their religion would be mere morality and Dot half so acceptable. Add to this that custom, conventional usage, fashion, and re­ spectability, with the toll-gates of birth, marriage and death, are all on the side of the national religion, and we certainly need expect no sudden change. The Christianity of the present day is not taken from the Bible, but is Bible doctrine strained through the mind of the nineteenth century, and many good people still pre­ fer to call themselves Christians because there is nothing really at present equally good and of equal authority to take its place. There cannot be a doubt that church membership, whether of churchmen or dissenters, helps to keep people within the broader and most obvious moral laws ; and it will be some time before the mass of the people will set themselves to learn what is true in order that they may do what is right, or that they will do what is right because it is right, and not from the hope of reward or from the fear of punishment. We must wait; in the meantime let no one fear or hesitate to proclaim what he believes to be the truth and of highest excellence. � 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 &amp; 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 Christianity : viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bray, Charles [1811-1884] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Upper Norwood, London, S.E. Collation: 57 p, ; 18 cm. Notes: Annotations in pencil and ink. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N106 RA1829 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity 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 (Christianity : viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense), 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 Christianity Primitive Religion https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/61c225f14db7d69c523e41b0b2f14833.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=ViJ9Neqf0UMjrbeQiHLxDgl3o1xJ%7EXI%7EIumiUrhmZFnU85eQxlc7W1d7GXqECtz7fZNZ4b2dnY19zKoR0eO16RPBRfuVvpZCU2qm9FjNpvwM5Cz3JlWkilkOj09Ri1OKxYb6MbEvsKhSOfRnCOgUEhC4Iz8KKHaJWrSNrAN4x9XTWIRAtFr4wMEOJf5JHtOrzWK3CpjzHrgyYh1BvMFupX4WxG8jB0vCnycuV-6HVQ-9NH%7EsBnZ3idjLCBGAlVIjNn0AWAwOaoBTmlWhZ8pqdL4Odgl16yPztQQDRML5K7tf6xZk-o495TVdar6VGqVQdVpmlfUHq9Ypu%7EppTDvrxg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM b5c740f851e9acafa466370cdee2723d PDF Text Text ������������������������������������ 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 &amp; 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 Keble and "The Christian year" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Shairp, J.C. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [s.l.] Collation: p. 229-264 ; 22 cm. Notes: Attribution of author and journal title from Wellesley Guide to Victorian Periodicals, 1824-1900. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From North British Review, no. 6 (September, 1866). The North British Review was a Scottish periodical founded in 1844 to act as the organ of the new Free Church of Scotland. 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 [1866] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT30 Subject The topic of the resource Poetry Christianity 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 (Keble and "The Christian year"), 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 Christianity Conway Tracts John Keble Poetry https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0b4b7ddb9a007a357b0e1cf0433103ab.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=aZ%7E2VGTn0ZbxCb-BC7CU5gGkVMatWWOxg7NoAy9kUr%7Ed4HbKnRO7WVKlo3Gk2YDsJZBDk2V2RA6DZPnSZaV0SqVUPAXpiGJOckttoutrozm6UNT5AENPKuBDtV24kU4ZpPc-UDAgNtsTHjhw988LIZG3V685I2qtCDbPUM0EO4mqcOrMo8nUsAaakDX6xyL63ReOAM-hisZF2COPo8O2pBVrRYtrhPa815eCxkrE55DEw26wOjgP0Q-c4sEEda4QpfRAj9Ck5u5Y71HvxJht%7EmTPD526-FnsdKS1aHLhf6RnVjyIT-p5jhnQ3B4JH5DnS5o9tl3zYkJHfeYbSCm3NQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 95444a00fb095174bf13b32a559b41fc PDF Text Text Ol ON THE HISTORICAL DEPRAVATION OF CHRISTIANITY. F. W. NEWMAN. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. 1873. Price Threepence. �LONDON: PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELI, 16 LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET, W. �ON THE HISTORICAL DEPRAVATION OF CHRISTIANITY. HRISTIANITY is not the only religion which has undergone depravation. Side by side with it Mohammedanism has developed its celibate fakirs and its traditions, directly or indirectly, against the doctrine of the prophet. The Parsee religion has been corrupted by apathy, ignorance, and contact with Hindooism, and Parsee reformers look back to the earlier state for purer doctrine. Hindoos also allege, and in important points have proved, that moral enormities in their creed and practice are a later depravation ; insomuch that a school has arisen which appeals to the Vedas or ancient Scriptures against modern error. Finally, in the farthest east and north of India the Buddhist religion has undergone change, damaging additions, startling developments, which remind every one of Christianity. Its first preacher and eminent founder has been deified, an enormous apparatus of monks, nuns, and holy orders has grown up, with a materialistic worship utterly opposed to the spirituality of its origin. There is a philosophy now abroad among the opponents of Christianity, which charges upon the religion whatever evil has been historically intro­ C �4 On the Historical duced into it. The main purpose of this tract is to consider under what form such charge is justified, and where it is unjust. I. But before entering on the general question, I wish to deal with a special accusation, which I perceive to be made very widely and persistently. I copy from a book which I just now opened at random :—“ The tenets of every man’s religious creed determine, more or less, the precepts of his morality. He whose creed includes salvation to its recipients and damnation to doubters and unbelievers, is of necessity a persecutor.” This is part of a chapter with which I on the whole agree, while I strongly deprecate this mode of attack as unjust and untrue. The vague phrase more or less makes it impossi­ ble to deny the former sentence; yet the theoretic and the practical morality of every nation are far more influenced by national law and history, by literature and science, than by its religious creed ; and, in turn, the current morals modify the creed. Next, at no time did any Christianity known to me teach that all its recipients would be saved. “ Re­ pentance of sin ” has always been taught and held to be as needful as “ faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” To do evil that good may come has always (in theory) been held sinful. However intense a Christian’s be­ lief that rejection of Christianity is a damnable sin, that has not the slightest tendency (according to any good logic) to turn him into a persecutor. I want to know, Was the man who wrote this charge ever a Christian himself ? If so, had he the heart of a per­ secutor then ? I do not believe it; yet I cannot ac­ count for his inability to understand how the case presents itself to Christians who abhor persecution, as I think all earnest Protestants do. It may be of interest to state what arguments were used (to my personal knowledge) from within the Anglican Church in the years 1827-29, in favour of admitting Dis­ senters, Catholics, and Jews to an equal participa- �Depravation of Christianity. $ tion of all civil and political rights. Of course it was seen that they applied equally to Hindoos and Mussulmans in India ; but indeed that was not in contest. It was urged :— “ Christians who happen to be English have the political rights of Englishmen, just as Paul had Roman citizenship from his birth ; but it is not &ecause we are Christians that we have any right to State-power. We can claim nothing to which every Pagan would not be equally entitled ; for imagine that some spiteful opponent had attacked Paul by saying, that if Christians could get the opportunity, they would eject from the Senate and from all the posts of administration every adherent of the old re­ ligion, and ask yourself how Paul would have re­ plied. Would he not have rebutted the charge as a slander showing utter ignorance of Christianity, which teaches that our citizenship is in heaven ? Christ’s kingdom is not of this world; we have no more right to oust Pagans from posts of honour than to deprive them of their goods. If we could use power better than they, perhaps also we could use money better than they ; but this will not justify despoiling them. We claim our rights as men and equals. In order to rob us of these, it is pretended, most falsely, that we do not concede to others the rights of men and equals. Such, surely, would have been Paul’s reply.” A fortiori, like arguments apply to the direct per­ secution of a misbeliever. “I claim to announce Christianity anywhere and everywhere. If I were to preach in Turkey, and a Mussulman were to im­ prison me for it, I should feel and judge that he was unjust. If he may not use violence against me for uttering my convictions, neither may I against him for uttering his convictions. To persecute him for it would be sin in me ; and my sin would be worse than his error. To kill him for his error would be murder in me. If his error is a wickedness, God is his judge; but I am not. Who made me judge over him ? �6 On the Historical Where does Jesus or an Apostle command any pri­ vate person or any magistrate to use violence against the teachers of error ? Did the Apostles teach that magistrates or any hierarchy bear the sword to enforce religious truth ? Nay, but Paul says that a Bishop must be no striker. And again : The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing opponents, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. James not only agrees with Paul, but goes beyond him. The wise man, full of knowledge, is to win over opponents by good works and meekness of wisdom, which is pure, peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated. James will not permit even denunciations, but declares that these furies of the tongue are set on fire by hell; and that if a man cannot keep his tongue with a bridle, his religion is vain.” In my youth and early manhood, I believed (or supposed myself to believe) that there was an eternal hell in which the wicked would be punished, and a perverse rejection of Christ I held to be wickedness. Nevertheless, this never suggested to me, nor could have suggested, that it was right for Christians to touch by legal punishment or restraint those who taught a foreign religion or atheism. To justify per­ secution by logic from the New Testament would have appeared to me then, as it does now, to be wholly puerile. I am amazed to find people quote, “ Vengeance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord,” as an argument why Christians must believe it right to use the sword against unbelievers; whereas it is Paul’s argument for the very contrary. Not only so, but if the case had happened—which certainly never did—that I met a Christian reasoning from the Scrip­ tures for persecution, I should unhesitatingly have said that the doctrine was essentially opposed to the whole spirit of Christianity, and was therefore in­ capable of proof by quoting detailed texts. Nothing �Depravation of Christianity. 7 bat a confusion of the Old Testament with the Newled the Puritans astray, and the Independents set them right before long. Hooker and his contem­ porary Anglicans, I think, were free from this specially Puritanical confusion. The doctrine of persecution I hold to be a depra­ vation of Christianity, to which the New Testament affords no countenance. It rose out of human pas­ sions—pride, self-confidence, impatience, love of power, and other still baser motives, all vehemently condemned by the original Christian doctrine to whichever of the earliest Christian schools we look. II. I return to the more general question. We see how early the elements of monkery and nunnery, of ceremonialism, of episcopal power, of saint-worship, and other errors, can be found within Christianity. Are we therefore to treat full-blown Romanism as the ZegriZwnuZe unfolding of Christianity ? Those who say Yes appear to me to confound two things—the erroneous logic natural to an ignorant age, and legitimate logi'c. Given the Roman world in its actual state, in which the more educated stood aloof from Christianity in disdain, while the unedu­ cated, the busy, and the slaves flocked into it, per­ haps it is strictly true that, with such materials and circumstances, the downward course of Christianity into grossly carnal ordinances, a monstrous creed, and priestly rule, was inevitable. But this has no tendency to disprove the assertion that the new system was a depravation and essentially different from the original; and that to pass it off as Chris­ tianity is a portentous misrepresentation. I gravely deprecate forms of speech which must seem to Protestants a wild injustice. They earnestly desire to hold fast the original Christianity. It is fair and right to tell them that they do not go far enough back, or to show them the difficulties of their search ; and there is nothing in this to irritate them. But to declaim against Christianity, and mean by the �On the Historical word simply Romanism, puzzles them on the one side, or, on the other, insults them by identifying their religion with an essentially different system, which they disclaim, perhaps abhor. When it is notorious that in the course of history the tendency of every national religion is to change, and often for the worse, there is no ostensible fairness, no plausibility, in accepting the latest state as truly exhibiting the essence of the first. Neither, therefore, on the face of the matter, has the critic a right to adduce the later stage as an aspersion on the honour of the earlier. I have carefully written, “ on the face of the matter.” But an assailant may allege, that the depravations are not accidents ; that if the logic of the historical de­ velopment was weak, the weakness was largely caused by errors essential to the religion from the first. If he can prove this, he may justly maintain, that the later state, though a depravation and not a legitimate development, is still a solid objection against the original teachers. The closer the history of Christianity is canvassed, the more undeniable does it appear, that its tendency to depravation was caused by its diligently fostering the spirit of credulity as a religious duty. If it be said, as above, in excuse, that none of the highest in­ tellect of the age entered the Christian Church,—that it was peopled by slaves and an uneducated mass, who hung on the lips of a few pious but narrow­ minded teachers,—the reply is at hand, that neither Jesus nor the Apostles went the way to bring edu­ cated men into the Church. Whether Jesus laid claim to miracles, may be doubtful; but those who believe that he did, will not say that he used any method likely to convince the educated of their truth. He did not even leave behind him an authenticated copy of his precepts and doctrine. So long as James and Paul speak on purely moral subjects, we find plentiful reason to admire and honour them; but as soon as Paul begins to expound the Old Scriptures, �Depravation of Christianity. 9 the intellectual weakness of his Rabbinism warns us at once why he could not make converts among edu­ cated men; yet his failures, instead of suggesting to him that his logic was unsound, makes him only •moralize, like a modern Mussulman, on the mysterious wisdom of God, who hides divine truth from the wise and prudent, and reveals it to babes. Indeed, the Words, as I now quote, are ascribed to Jesus himself. I do not think any candid person can deny that the first teachers of Christianity quickly despaired of con­ verting any but the ignorant. They invariably ad­ dressed men’s consciences only, as if there could be no such thing as legitimate intellectual doubt, which Bfteded for removal arguments addressed to the in­ tellect. What can be more inconsequential and point­ less than the historical rhapsody imputed to the in­ spired Stephen? What less fitted to remove the reasonable hesitations of a thoughtful and good man than the addresses in the book of Acts ascribed to Peter and Paul ? Paul at Athens is said to have moved incredulity by announcing a future day, on which God would judge the world by the interven­ tion of a Man; and the only evidence he offers of the truth of this is, that God has given assurance of it by raising that Man from the dead. Although the book of Acts is not the same thing as Paul’s own epistle, this sketch is in general harmony with his doctrine and method. We see distinctly, in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. xv., where he undertakes to re­ prove and refute those who deny the future resur­ rection of the body, how little understanding he has of the evidence required by his case. That Jesus was risen, he probably did not need to prove, but only to show that this entails the resur­ rection of mankind; yet in his own way he undertakes to prove both. On neither topic is he aware how entirely unsatisfactory is the evidence which he offers. Those who know anything ‘of Socrates or Aristotle may easily imagine the blank �io On the Historical astonishment of those good and wise men, if such, proof had been laid before them as adequate. Yet the resurrection of Jesus, if a fact, was a physical fact, addressed to the common intellect, and no way a spiritual truth, to be judged of by spiritual discern­ ment. But Paul, after a short and rapid assertion that Jesus had been many times seen after his death, and that, last of all, he himself had seen him [of course, in a vision or trance], rushes into a close and animated argument, on which evidently is his chief dependence. They must believe the resurrection of Jesus, he says; for if it be not true, they will lose all future reward for present sacrifice, and all motive for preferring virtue to vice. (What would King Heze­ kiah have said to this astonishingly base argument ?) Nay, he adds, they are “yet in their sins,” if Jesus is not risen, as though deliverance from the power of sin were not a matter of fact to the spiritual man, of which he is himself conscious, and a sufficient judge I Thus he reduces to a minimum ordinary evidence concerning an outward fact, which in no other way can be sustained ; and overbears an inward spiritual fact by a simple dogma! If it be said, that when he wrote, “ Ye are yet in your sins,” he meant, “ Ye are unforgiven ; ” it is obvious to reply that Hebrew Psalmists and Prophets had long taught that God forgives all sins hated and renounced by the sinner, and does not make forgiveness depend on His raising some one from the dead; nor did Jesus ever assert such dependence. In the second place, the resurrec­ tion of Jesus, if a fact, took place under totally dif­ ferent circumstances from that of men whose bodies have “ seen corruption,” that is, suffered dissolution ; and the argument from the one to the other is not com­ plete, even as an analogy. Paul indeed does not define what he means by “ resurrection,” while he scolds as a “ fool ” any one who understands him literally. While the paucity of cultivated men in the Church is a theme of pious exultation, “lest any flesh glory,” �Depravation of Christianity. 11 at the same time even in Paul, noble and heart-stirring as his moral tone is, we cannot but see that he is far quicker to denounce and threaten unbelief, than to meet doubts with patient candour. This element reigns through nearly all the New Testament. I gladly except the Epistle of James, which is almost free from dogmatic elements, and wish to believe that in this respect also he represents Jesus to us. Yet Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree in ascribing to Jesus haughty denunciation, where it appears least justified. It is not practically possible to reach a Christianity in which intellectual doubt was kindly welcomed and candidly satisfied. It is always treated as a sin, and easy faith magnified as a high merit. This, I apprehend, is the fatal fact which ensured corruptions through the triumph of credulity in the Church. Fancy and folly, bad logic and blundering, haste and love of the marvellous, are ever at work to deform every oral tradition, and pervert the inter­ pretation of whatever is written. The only check upon their inroads lies in keen and jealous criticism. To commend easy belief as a virtue, and frown on slowness to believe as a dishonour to God, was certain to entail illimitable error, burying out of sight the original doctrines. If easy belief in a newly-announced marvel is meritorious to-day, so will it be to-morrow, so will it be next year: hereby a premium is offered, for a harvest of lies. From the beginning, the merit of believing things wonderful was distinctly pro­ claimed ; in the third century it was frankly applied to believing things incredible. The reasoning faculty, unless kept in constant exercise, withers as certainly as the hand or the arm. While we approach God mentally, or seek moral edification devoutly, argu­ mentation is lulled to sleep : hence, if devotion absorb the mind wholly, free intellect gets no play. To foster .criticism is the only sure way of holding fast attained truth, not to speak of advancing to new truth. To �12 On the Historical Depravation, &c. scold down free thought prepares the corruption of a religion by weakening the mind of the votaries. When Infallibility is ascribed to any set of enuncia­ tions and statements, every flaw in a noble discourse becomes its most admired feature, and is most insisted on, because it is difficult to believe,—because it mor­ tifies “that beast Reason,” to use Luther’s vehement phrase. The doctrine of Infallibility, which is the head and front of Popery, is but the consolidation of the authoritative tone of teaching which was originally made a supplement to defective argument. It is a familiar thought, that if the earth, without human labour, bore to us, as in a fabled Paradise, milk and honey, fruits and crops, clothes and shelter, our bodies would be enfeebled by laziness and inaction. Just so do our minds become torpid and weak, when truth is guaranteed to us authoritatively. Infallibility, whether in a Church or in a Book, such as shall super­ sede criticism of the things asserted, is as little to be desired, and as little to be expected, in Theology as in Morals or Politics. No form of Christianity has shaken off its incrustations of error, except where Free Science has arisen to exercise and brace the spirit of criticism. The noble moralities of the New Testament will stand out more admirable and more valuable, when surrounding error is purged away : but until this work of criticism is performed, and the dogmatic principle disowned, the spiritual and moral will con­ tinue to be drowned in the ecclesiastical. Depravation and schism, anathema and recrimination, must be expected in the future, as in the past. � 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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource On the historical depravation of Christianity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Newman, Francis William [1805-1897] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1873 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT115 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (On the historical depravation of Christianity), 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 Christianity Christianity-Controversial Literature Conway Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9fe24ac320d9970fd560a5e9ddddf6f8.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=iiJ2L5K-NXUXj6OMIdJKH0xHsSSRul46Vvs3YJydLu4IebNqwZuRy06Bokq%7EqKs2GBlshLUvutuUoTkbdvmvLZp5GTava0c9j1lkcALtC8d7dJipdZNhWBeWqkIJAILrIgke5pwvI0QeEUt7xQDYkXofVKdsCqtMp8bZQ368gXEdrvpS7yEyNv3mY5fEQpZzmZO1dGrym7cgUdZe11P%7ED5pFF7HkFSy8DHQojCDS62CQl-oEj3No4oD4tUQbb55HI%7EDiI5E5amG3vD5S0KMpWVn2-tdXtmD9lJD3YFgH-LjTfXL9h5ZQiEb-Mqf8txxVqyYlvcLRwQJNAGYt8fnpSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c3d87167e989e5d9bd1fb7661a0db192 PDF Text Text CHRISTIANITY AND WAR By the Rev. JOSEPH KEATING, S.J. Note.—In this papei' the term Christianity stands for the full expression of the message of Christ, viz., the code of belief and conduct which He guaranteed should be preserved infallibly by the Catholic Church and taught indefectibly to the end of time. The above title recalls two facts. First, that there exists a religious system on earth which claims to have been founded by God Incarnate and divinely endowed with the means of enabling man to reach his final supernatural destiny. Secondly, that from the beginning of history there has been prevalent amongst the nations a practice of furthering their rival claims', whether just or unjust, by actual physical force or the threat of it. The question therefore arises, How does the system regard the custom ? What is the attitude of the Church of Christ, instituted to unite the races of men by the bond of a common belief, towards this age-long practice, the chief effect of which is to perpetuate and intensify racial antagonism ? What is the Catholic doctrine on the subject of war ? An answer to this question will be attempted in the following pages. Nowadays there is need of a plain, definite expo­ �2 Christianity and War sition of the Catholic position in regard to war and peace, because that position is so often misunder­ stood and misrepresented, sometimes by Catholics themselves. The external aspect of war cannot but excite the feelings, consequently there is a certain risk lest judgement should be obscured and a good cause injured by an influx of emotionalism, which has not the support of reason and principle. In the voice of the Church, Catholics*are privileged to have infallible guidance in moral matters, and are, there­ fore, the less excusable if, at the bidding of mere sentiment, they shut their ears to that sure guidance. Dwelling as they do here in the midst of a vast non-Catholic population, which has no -fixed and uniform standard of ethical judgements, Catholics in England are exposed to these two temptations : either to hold themselves aloof altogether from the vaiious more or less misguided efforts made by their fellow-citizens to combat abuses and to better social conditions, thus laying themselves open to the reproach of not being thoroughly practical Chris­ tians ; or to co-operate so unreservedly in the pro­ motion of good works that they abandon Catholic principle altogether or acquiesce in what is ethically wrong either in aim or method. Under the first impulse they may abstain from joining non-Catholics in measures for the furtherance of temperance, or education, or purity, or social reform, because those excellent objects are apt to be promoted by out­ siders on principles or in ways not sanctioned by Catholic doctrine. They feel that they cannot, for �Christianity and War 3 instance, support associations which advocate tem­ perance on the ground that the use of alcohol is essentially evil, or which condemn gambling as in itself unlawful, or which would abolish vivisection because brutes are one in kind with men, or which, again, in their methods as distinct from their prin­ ciples, unduly interfere with human liberty and responsibility. And thus, not being numerous or influential enough to form similar associations of their own, they seem to be indifferent to abuses which their religion would urge them to be foremost in condemning. Or, if their praiseworthy desire to share the burdens of citizenship leads them to asso­ ciate in such measures with those outside the Church, they may, through ignorance or timidity, countenance the application of remedies to social disorders which ignore essential rights, whether human or divine. Hence the importance of thoroughly understanding that sound middle course, which, in this matter of the ethics of war, as in all others, the Church is inspired to pursue. It is the privilege of her members to make the leaven of her doctrine pene­ trate the whole mass surrounding them. We can no longer remain in the detached attitude of aliens, almost outlaws, in our own country. We are an integral part of the State, with civil duties corre­ sponding to our rights. And, as believers in that true Christianity whose message is for the healing of the nations, it is especially incumbent upon us to bring right principles to bear on all social and political questions. �4 . Christianity and War Unfortunately in the consideration of this par­ ticular question of war, right principles have often been lost sight of. A very slight acquaintance with non-Catholic “ Peace ” literature, or with the utter­ ances of pacificist orators, will convince the educated Catholic that this most Christian object is not unseldom recommended on grounds that are not morally or logically sound. For the better under­ standing of the true doctrine it may be well to enumerate here some of the causes of that unsound­ ness, which, speaking generally, is the result of allowing mere sentiment to usurp the functions of leason. We find, then, non-Catholic advocacy of peace often disfigured— 1. By want of a clear definition of war itself—a little word which stands for a vast variety of things. 2. By the assumption that all the forms and causes of warfare are radically unjust ;1 no discrimi­ nation, for instance, being made between wars of pure aggression and wars of defence. The greatest evil of the world is war,” says one “Peace ” pamphlet, to which the Christian may aptly reply, “ The only evil in the world is sin.” The pamphleteer fails to prove (i) that all forms of war are sinful, and (2) that the deprivation of natural life, which is the worst feature of war, is worse, for instance, than the killing of the soul or grievous sacrilege or the crimes of the heresiarchs. Again, “ The crime of war is inherent, said Mr. Carnegie at the Guildhall on May 24, 1010 • it awards victory, not to the nation that is right, but to that which is strong.” To argue the inherent criminality of war from an accidental effect, is characteristic of the sentimentalist. He does not apparently consider the possibility of a nation being both right and strong. �Christianity and War 5 3. By a confusion between moral and physical evil, the former affecting man’s soul and eternal destiny, the latter only man’s body or goods, things wholly temporal. 4. By a confusion between what binds the con­ science under pain of sin and what is merely recommended as the better course, z.e., between precept and counsel. 5. By a confusion between what is forbidden to the individual who has a superior on earth, and the sovereign State which has none. 6. By a confusion between the abuse of a thing and its right use. 7. By a confusion between cause and occasion.1 8. By undue insistence on man’s temporal welfare, .to the practical neglect of his eternal destiny. 9. By misreading of the history of the past, due to the want of discrimination indicated above. The Catholic view wilfbest appear by a discussion of these several points. It is of the utmost import­ ance that everything unsound should be cut away from the arguments adduced to support the cause of peace. That cause is overwhelmingly strong without them ; on the other hand, arguments logically weak, or at variance with experience, or palpably exaggerated, only serve to discredit it. Let us start then by analyzing the idea of war. 1 This confusion is so embedded in English speech through loose usage that a word of illustration may be helpful. The cause of the daylight in a room is the sun, the occasion (or con­ dition) is the window. Occasion may be necessary, as in this example, or accidental, as when the agent is free. �6 Christianity and War To avoid unending qualifications, we shall consider war only in its fully-developed condition, viz., as an armed conflict between two sovereign States. The aims of such war is to enforce the will of one State upon the other, the method consists of inflicting such damage, each upon other, that one of them may consider submission a preferable alternative to further resistance. When appeals to reason, or to duty, or to interest fail to bring two discordant wills into harmony, the appeal t8^physical constraint is the only resource left, for only on the physical plane is the ultimate trial of strength possible, at any rate in the case of corporate natures such as ours. Accordingly, when two independent States fall out on a point of importance and are unable (or un­ willing) to compose their differences by peaceable means, they instinctively have recourse to physical violence, the object of each being to make the other feel that giving-in is, on the whole, preferable to holding-out. Now, the first point of difference between Catholic and non-Catholic teaching lies in the moral aspect of this appeal to physical force. War, the violent destruction on a large scale of life and property, is essentially a physical calamity of the worst sort, like earthquake and fire, pestilence and famine. But as, unlike these latter, it is a calamity brought on by human volition, it has a moral aspect as well, and its character, good or bad, is determined by the motives and methods of those that will it. The taking of individual human life is similarly a physical �Christianity and War 7 calamity, which may be either a crime or an act of justice according to its moral circumstances. The Catholic doctrine is emphatic on this point, that there are in this fallen world circumstances which may necessitate, and therefore justify,1 war, as an instrument to attain certain desirable ends. To declare it, then, sans phrase, a thing essentially unlawful, is to fly in the face both of reason and revelation. Reason justifies the expedient of war on the part of a State on the same grounds as it justifies defence and prosecution of personal rights on the part of the individual, and to a less qualified extent. The possession of rights implies the law­ fulness of defending them, by force if neceesary, against unjust aggression. Otherwise, there would be no stability in society and much less security for the world’s peace than at present. The individual’s powei' to assert his rights is limited by the fact that he is living under the protection of authority, to which he can appeal in order to obtain justice. He can use violence only when the need is imminent and the appeal to law is in the circum­ stance unavailing. But the sovereign State, ex hypothesi, has no higher earthly authority to which to appeal, and must, therefore, vindicate its position by its own efforts. Thus reason justifies the use of physical might to enforce moral right : it is just 1 Herein the Church but echoes and confirms the dictate of reason, excellently expressed by the pagan historian, Livy, in the words of the Samnite general—“Justum est bellum quibus necessarium, et pia arma, quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes ” ^Hist. ix 1). �Christianity and War because it is necessary, and necessary because other­ wise, as things are here below, the moral law itself would lack its most palpable support. That law not only forbids injustice but also enjoins that just claims should be protected and outraged justice vindicated—processes that ordinarily call for the use or display of force. But why in that case is the Gospel of Christ full of exhortations, both against the employment of violence and resistance to it ? Surely revelation, at any rate, supports the view that war is unlawful. Did not Christ proclaim, “ Resist not evil,” “ Love your enemies,” “Turn the other cheek,” “Give to every asker,” “ They that use the sword shall perish by the sword,” and a host of other similar injunc­ tions ? Is not His whole spirit one of meekness, patience, and love ? Certainly, our Lord said those things, and, as certainly, He inculcated a spirit of forbearance and mutual charity, which, if universally adopted, would render war impossible and unthink­ able. We cannot doubt that He set up an ideal to which the notion of war is utterly abhorrent. If His divine purpose in establishing His Kingdom on earth—a purpose all Christians should have at heart —were perfectly fulfilled, all the causes of war would be done away with. Our Divine Lord set in the clearest light and taught with an emphasis impossible to ignore, the great doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God and its necessary consequence, the common brotherhood of men. From the first, the religion He instituted aimed at �Christianity and War 9 transcending all natural barriers, whether of race or nationality, age or sex or condition, and at uniting all rational creatures in the harmony of one great family, by the bonds of a common origin, of com­ mon duties and interests and a common destiny— a family wherein “ there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor incircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free, but where Christ is all and in all.” 1 But this glorious ideal was to be realized only by means of the free co-operation of man, and man, as a matter of fact, has very generally refused his co-operation. As a consequence, the vast bulk of the race is still outside Christian influences, and even among Christian peoples the principles of the Gospel, rarely practised perfectly by the individual, still less completely affect international relations. Indeed, the struggle that every one experiences in his own breast when he tries to live up to the Christian ideal, is a sufficient indication of the small likelihood of that ideal being fulfilled in the race at large. Of course, God Incarnate foreknew how free-will would operate to frustrate His designs, and, therefore, under what conditions His followers would have to exercise the Christian virtues, and He framed His injunctions in the light of that fore­ knowledge. He could not have meant any com­ mand of His to make human progress impossible. And in any case His directions are not all imposed under the same sanction. To attain Christian per1 I Cor. iii 2. �IO Christianity and War fection in this fallen world necessitates the exercise of moral heroism, but Christ does not exact heroism or perfection under pain of sin. Beyond what is of obligation in His service, He leaves a wide margin for generosity. In the practice of every virtue a certain degree is enjoined under penalty, but beyond this we are free to advance or not as we choose. If we do not choose, we shall of course lose merit and reward proportionately, but we shall not be positively punished.1 On the other hand, to confuse counsel with precept and to make per­ fection obligatory under sin is an error into which many non-Catholic sects, in bondage to the lettei- of the Scriptures and cut off from the Christian tradition, have frequently fallen. By promulgating His ideal of perfection, in the Sermon on the Mount and else­ where, our Lord does not bind us to follow it per­ fectly ; what He does bind us to is to acknowledge it to be the ideal and to give it at least our praise and admiration. We must hold that, ceteris paribus, the better part, is, after Christ’s example, not to assert our rights against those that infringe them, not enter into the obligations of marriage, not to labour for the acquisition of wealth, and so forth. This eminently reasonable doctrine, we may notice, is expressly denied by the fourteenth of the Thirty-Nine Anglican Articles, which says that works of supererogation “ cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety,” and cites our Lord’s words in proof of its assertion— “ When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say, ‘ We are unprofit­ able servants ’ ’’—thus plainly begging the question by assum­ ing that we are commanded to do all that we can do. �Christianity and War 11 These self-negations are all means to perfection. Still, they are not essential means, for His Church sanctions the natural right of private ownership and blesses the state of matrimony and supports the vindication of all just claims, whether individual or national. These are good things, even though there are things better. So far, then, from condemning war­ fare as a thing always and essentially evil, Christian teaching supposes cases which justify and even necessitate it. War is doubtless the direct cause of very great physical evils, such as loss of life and health and property, but physical evil must often be tolerated in order to prevent moral evil, such as the spread of injustice resulting from the wrong-doer going unpunished. And, if it be pointed out that many moral evils accompany war, howevei* just, we reply by recalling the important distinction that war is not the cause but merely the accidental occasion of such evils. The conditions of fighting and cam­ paigning certainly give greater scope for the weak to fall and the depraved to exercise their depravity, but the good man owns the obligation of the moral code on the battlefield as elsewhere. The common epithets “ brutal and licentious ” have no necessary connection with the soldier, but there is a neces­ sary connection between lawlessness and neglect to enforce the law. Another consideration, which further vindicates the apparent setting aside of the counsels of our Lord by communities of men engaged in mutual �12 Christianity and War warfare, is the following : The Gospel Counsels are addressed to individuals, and have primarily in view their spiritual perfection, the acquisition by their souls of greater grace here and higher glory here­ after. Now although those organized societies, which we call States, are as much bound by the Commandments of God as are individuals, because the Commandments are the expression of the eternal law, and their observance is necessary for civil well-being, they stand in a different relation to the Counsels. States exist for temporal ends alone : they have no grace to acquire nor glory to hope for ; they have no hereafter, and must reach their perfection in this world or not at all. And thus, though an individual may lawfully and reason­ ably forgo his rights or neglect his physical and temporal interests in view of the reward to come, the State as such must insist on the recognition of its just claims, whether by its own members or by external communities. If in any matter of import­ ance it condoned disobedience to its laws, it would fail in one chief object of its existence—the maintenance of order. And, again, it would fail in a primary function, if it passed over without effective remon­ strance any serious violation of its rights by another State. Thus the same action—“ turning the other cheek is a point of perfection in the individual, and a dereliction of duty in the community, because of the difference of their raisons d'etre. And so the Catholic position—that war may be justified accords with reason and is not at variance �Christianity and War 13 with revelation. Nowhere does our Lord condemn war in itself, and the counsels He addresses to the individuals are not always applicable, even as counsels, to the State. To the assertion Chris­ tianity is opposed to war, the Catholic reply is, Christianity is certainly opposed to all that is evil in war, to the injustice in which it often originates, to the methods in which it is sometimes pursued, to the excesses of passion of which it is always the sad occasion, but Christianity does not oppose war as the sole means of vindicating moral right, for it is preferable that these incidental evils should occur than that wickedness should triumph unchecked in the world. And hence the divinely guided Church does not hesitate to countenance war on due occa­ sion ; she blesses weapons and consecrates banners to be used in a just cause. Her rulers in the past have invoked war as a means to some good end— whether, for instance, to protect Christendom from infidel foes or to secure the integrity of the Holy See. She has even canonized soldiers like the warrior-maid, Blessed Joan of Arc, showing that she considers heroic sanctity not incompatible with the profession of arms. And her recognition of the fact that the moral law may require war for its enforcement or vindication on earth, makes it easy for her to understand how God Himself could have not merely permitted, but commanded wars, even wars of aggression and extermination, all through­ out the history of His chosen people. Neither time nor other circumstances can alter the intrinsic �i4 Christianity and War nature of a thing ; if war is essentially evil, then those who profess that doctrine have to face the fact that the God of Righteousness constantly com­ pelled the Jews to commit abominable wickedness. It is sometimes urged that the early Christians at any rate did not so learn Christ. We have seen a catena of passages from early Christian writers, selected from a tract published by Thomas Clarkson, the Emancipationist, in 1817, which is supposed to embody the teaching and practice of those who lived in sub-Apostolic times, and were therefore most likely to have caught the true spirit of Christianity. A more uncritical, untrustworthy, and misleading document it would be hard to find. Apart from the initial objection that Christianity, early or late, could not have taught the essential evil of war, because Christianity teaches truth and war is not essentially evil, nothing is said of the circumstances, within and without the Church, in which these early Christians were placed, and which readily explain the views they took of war as they found it. We know, but not from the pamphlet, that the counsels were much more extensively practised then than in later times, that a geneial expectation of the second coming of our Lord made His followers less inclined to follow worldly pui suits, and that the dividing line between the Church and the world was much more clearly diawn. And on the othei' hand, military service meant mingling with pagan comrades, serving under pagan officers, being in constant danger of being involved in pagan observances or employed in duties �Christianity and War i5 unbecoming a Christian, It is strange that under these conditions any Christians were found in the army at all, yet Tertullian, who is one of the chief witnesses cited against the lawfulness of military service, also bears testimony that there were many believers in the imperial armies.1 The process of establishing the possible justice of the act of war has incidentally cleared away many of the other misunderstandings introduced into the question by those who, having broken with the Christian tradition, have endeavoured to reproduce the Christian spirit, as it were from the outside. Physical evil, not being commensurate with moral, must often be caused or permitted to prevent the latter. The individual is allowed by God’s law to assert and enforce his rights with the moderation defined by his position and destiny, even though in cases it might be more Christian to forgo them. The State existing wholly for temporal ends and supreme in its own sphere, has a much wider range of rights and much greater scope to vindicate them. We may insist on these points, without denying that many wars are unjust, that horrible excesses are committed on the battlefield, that war at best is a desperate expedient and often ineffective of its purpose, for none of these circumstances alters our contention. If even good things may be abused, much more may things which have no moral colour 1 See the well-known passage, Adv. Gentiles, c. 37, beginning “ Hesterni sumus, et vestra omnia implevimus.” �i6 Christianity and War of themselves. And we cannot denounce things merely because they are the occasions of evil, other­ wise our human natures, our senses, our passions and instincts, our very free-will should come under the ban. In the interests of truth and the moral law itself, we must insist on the fact, based as it is on the con­ sentient witness of reason and experience, history and tradition, and finally the records of God’s deal­ ings with man, that the organized communities we call States have a right and a duty under certain conditions to assert or protect their rights by force of arms. However, despite this recognition of war as some­ times inevitable in this fallen world and consequently lawful, the spirit of Christianity has always been opposed to it. If it is sometimes a necessity, it is always a hateful one, to be used with reluctance and promptly abandoned as soon as its reason ceases. It should only be undertaken to avoid worse evils, and there are not many evils which are worse. It is, moreover, not unfrequently a useless remedy, for the big battalions may not be on the side of justice. The lesistance of weak States to the encroachments of their stronger neighbours, though valuable as a moral protest against the pernicious doctrine that Might is Right, has from time to time resulted in their more thorough subjugation. So the Christian has no love foi wai, but regards it as one of the curses of humanity, one of the worst fruits of original sin, always implying on the one side or the other, injustice committed or contemplated, opposed altogether to �Christianity and War 17 God’s original design and to the perfect Christian ideal which is the restoration of that design, justifi­ able, because in itself a physical evil only, for certain high ends and under certain clear conditions, and destined to grow more rare as the international conscience, the public opinion of civilization, grows more Christian. Only as an act of justice has war the support of Christianity. In the ideal our religion connotes the absence of all injustice, the recognition of all rights, the harmony of all interests, but in fact it has to take account of a world where injustice of every sort is prevalent, and where moral considera­ tions are frequently too weak to restrain the wrong­ doer. Thus is explained the apparent contradictions of a Church, founded by the Prince of Peace and standing everywhere for the rule of justice, still on occasion giving her sanction to the bloody expedient of war with all its attendant horrors. It is not that she thinks that there should be one moral code for the individual and another for the nation. The un­ changing law of God holds everywhere, and what is unjust as between man and man is equally unjust in the relations of sovereign States. Murder and robbery, jealousy and envy, slander and pride and hatred, do not surely cease to be crimes, because practised by a community and on a colossal scale.1 But—and this is a distinction ignored by many non1 This was not Othello’s thought: cf.— “ the big wars That make ambition virtue.” Othello, iii 3. �18 Christianity and War Catholic peace advocates—there is an essential difference between the condition of a sovereign State and that of a private person. The latter, as we have seen, is not allowed to avenge himself or to do more, in self-defence even, than the exigencies of the moment demand. He cannot, as the phrase is, “ take the law into his own hands.” Recourse tc violence in pursuit of right becomes unjust, precisely when it becomes unnecessary. But from the nature of the case there is no supreme earthly authority to which States can have recourse. Whether, if God’s designs has been fully realized and the whole earth become practically Christian, the Papacy might not have been such an authority, whether in the grow­ ing tendency towards methods of arbitration such an authority may not even yet arise, we can only conjecture. The point is that no such authority does exist to enforce the moral law in disputes between independent communities, and if one party is resolved to push its claims in defiance of that law, nothing remains for the other, but to resist aggression by force. Nor is injustice necessarily all on one side. Although, theoretically, one party in a contest must be in the wrong, or at least more in the wrong than the other (since rights of the same character cannot really conflict, except in regard to priority, and rights lower in nature ought, generally speaking, to yield to those superior), still it is often possible for a state of affairs to arise in which it is extremely doubtful on which side is the preponderance of right, and both parties may �Christianity and War 19 proceed to the arbitrament of the sword, reasonably confiding in the justice of their cause and the uprightness of their motives. In default of any higher authority established by Providence, in­ dependent States have generally preferred to be judges in their own case, and all the Church can do is to insist upon the necessity of at least a sub­ jective conviction of justice in each belligerent. Accordingly, until some international tribunal is set up, invested by mutual agreement with the power of finally settling international disputes, no State can be compelled in justice to submit what it holds to be its rightful claims to the decision of its equals. If it really thinks that it can secure those rights more effectually by war than by arbitration, then it may lawfully choose the former desperate means. Christianity cannot forbid it, but it can and does lay down very definitely the only conditions which make it lawful. They have been mentioned incidentally, but we may summarize them here. The first is, War should be undertaken in the interests of justice. The injury received or the danger to be averted must be genuine, and more­ over must bear some proportion to the evils that war necessarily involves. Thus, the end in view should not only be good, sc., the assertion or defence of some real right, but it must be an occasion of great consequence to the nation, such as a grievous violation of the country’s honour or material interests, serious breach of treaty obliga­ tions, assistance given to the nation’s enemies, or �20 Christianity and War again, a duty imposed by considerations of humanity, as the giving help to another nation unjustly op­ pressed.1 This condition excludes a .host of evil motives, which, as human history shows, have prompted innumerable wars, such as the mere lust of conquest-and extension of territory, or ambition of military glory, or rivalry of commerce, or false zeal for religion, or fear of the growing power of a neighbour2—in general, all the purposes which are rightly reckoned unjust and immoral in the relations of man with man. Secondly, to escape the Christian’s condemnation, war must really be, as it has often been called— ultima ratio regum : the final argument when all 1 This latter point is worth careful attention, for it is directly opposed to that un-Christian development of nationality which declares in effect that the different members of the family of the nations have no concern with each other’s doings, except when the rights of each are severally involved. This error, under the name of “Non-Intervention,” was condemned by Pius IX in the Allocution, Novos et ante (1861). - One may justly endeavour to preserve whatever excellence or supremacy one’s particular nation possesses, but this must be done within the limits of the moral law. The providential preponderance of any special State in the world has not yet been divinely revealed, although it is commonly assumed by the “ Jingo ” press of many nations. Yet we find a presumably Christian writer, in the April Nineteenth Century, 1910, claiming that Great Britain has a right to pick a quarrel with Germany and destroy her growing fleet simply because Britain’s naval supremacy is menaced thereby ! On what grounds, we wonder, does he deny Germany a right claimed by him for Britain ? By strict parity of reasoning a tradesman, threatened with ruin by the competition of a rival, would be justified in destroying that rival's goods. �Christianity and War 21 others have been tried and have failed. If the same ends, therefore, can be obtained by arbitration or diplomacy of one sort or another, or if even there is a reasonable prospect of success by those means, then, Christian principles forbid the use of the terrible instrument of war. Nothing but its practical necessity, as the only means to secure lawful ends of vast importance, can excuse it. Happily the growth of arbitration, as a recognized means of settling disputes between nations, tends to make this con­ dition more and more difficult to fulfil. Thirdly, a just war must be the act of the whole community represented by the supreme authority in the State, precisely because it is a matter affecting the interest of the community as a whole, not those of any particular person or group.1 In every sove­ reign State the right of the sword, whether to repress internal disorder or to resist and punish external aggression, belongs by natural law to the chief power in the State. Subordinate communities, or classes in the same community, must refer their disputes to superior authority, and therefore, so long as there exists a competent superior to have recourse to, war ceases to be necessary. To embroil the whole State in conflict, in the interests of any particular person, or family, or class, or trade, is against Christian teaching, unless the interests are of such moment as to be practically national in import. 1 This primarily refers to offensive warfare : just as the in­ dividual, so any section of the community may defend itself against unjust attack without further authorization. �22 Christianity and War A fourth and last condition regards the method of prosecuting a war, which circumstances have made necessary and therefore justified. This method is determined partly by natural and partly by positive law. Natural law requires that the party at fault should first be afforded the chance of giving satis­ faction: otherwise, the necessity of the war is doubtful and also its lawfulness. If adequate satis­ faction is offered, the injured party is bound in justice to accept it. By positive law, a certain amount has been done to limit in extent and mitigate in effect the horrors of war. In u civilized ” warfare nowadays the lives and persons and property of non­ belligerents are supposed to be respected, captives aie not killed or made slaves of, certain weapons of destruction, such as chain-shot and explosive bullets, are excluded, and ambulance-parties are regarded as neutral improvements which must be ascribed to the influence of Christian principles. The application, by the Church’s teaching, of these piinciples to the circumstances of war is much more detailed than we have space here to indicate ; but, judged even by these four requirements for legality, it must be owned that flagrant injustice has char­ acterized the vast majority of the wars recorded in history. Many have originated in personal pride, or ambition, or lust of gain. Many have been prose­ cuted by heartless methods of barbarism. Before the rise of democracy, the consent of the nation was not even asked; since the rise of democracy,the passions of the nation have ever been played upon by un- �Christianity and War 23 scrupulous politicians through press, platform, and, alas ! pulpit—in a word, if ever a method of securing justice has been discredited by constant misuse, it is the method of war. The true Christian, then, and the true patriot as well, must hold war in abhor­ rence, and labour with all his strength to abolish it. But not by wrong methods. He must seek to promote peace by rooting out the causes of war, racial enmity, lust of territory, commercial greed— all springing from that bastard nationalism which is the mere externation of personal pride, with all the ugly concomitants of that vice—hatred and contempt and jealousy of other nations, unwillingness to oblige 01- to own obligations, insularity of outlook, and inflated self-esteem : a spirit which unfortunately exists in all nations and flourishes in proportion as the spirit of Christianity is absent. That spirit alone can effectually make head against the causes of war. Unless the peace movement is Christian, it is doomed to failure. Let Catholics, then, take their due place in it.1 In addition to the traditions of the Church, they have the warmest exhortations from their chief Pastors. Both the late and present Popes have raised their voices eloquently to plead for peace amongst the nations, and, nearer home, we cannot forget the stirring appeal, uttered on Easter Sunday, 1896, by Cardinals Gibbons, Logue, and Vaughan, in favour of a permanent Tribunal of Arbitration, “ as A “ Catholic Peace Association ” has lately been established, particulars as to which may be obtained from the Hon. Sec., (/>ro tern.} 194 Battersea Park Road, S.W. �24 Christianity and War a rational substitute among the English-speaking races for a resort to the bloody arbitrament of war.” “ Others [they say] may base their appeal upon motives which touch your worldly interests, your prosperity, your world-wide influence and authority in the affairs of men. The Catholic Church recognizes the legitimate force of such motives in the natural order, and blesses whatever tends to the real progress and elevation of the race. But our main ground of appeal rests upon the known character and will of the Prince of Peace, the living Founder, the Divine Head of Christendom. It was He who declared that love of the brotherhood is a second com­ mandment like unto the first. It was He who announced to the people the praise and reward of those who seek after peace and pursue it.” According to those principles we must think and iy work, for the Peace of the World, ^if it is to be, k will be finally secured, not by Socialism, which is y universal tyranny, nor by Herveism, which is universal * anarchy, but only by practical Christianity, which * is universal brotherhood, the establishment on earth xof the Kingdom of Christ. I PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON. U. � 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 &amp; 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 Christianity and war Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Keating, Joseph Ignatius Patrick Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Final paragraph marked in red pencil. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Catholic Truth Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1911] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA1528 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 (Christianity and war), 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 Catholic Church Christianity War https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/73b0c8d8ba0d0859f1ea3036a537a55c.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=qaBgLEAfAMYpAIWmNf-2oHimgKi-UFcB4vDFnBVJL%7Ef6275RCom9EC-%7EJtSC4nTozj%7EhJ%7EDo1Ag3WBeiozfC2IpeQHYb8e8crJgmkqTvu1kUZ2UGMomLMaoLUAjqMCanUU-cH8Pe0QegsVHylwq1NSvcbBkgai4Q93mamKoFPB8fRtAcLwnerVlWoKW-Zdl5KrAGesBacK-hq09m9WKqUZizvZG88GmFwExmpfDDDr6yrHehgfqnxKeM1rbcdMdS7Zb7toQPgP6E4UZI6AwO-9nf%7EXgQWj-n0xZVWpkMS4s-1keAkf70tQp827elt82jx0JVaEHQmwh-WL4k45DvOA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM f1b8c5aef115b17307681385a03d9ddc PDF Text Text INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY AND OF PROTESTANTISM. BY JOHN ROBERTSON, AUTHOR OF “THE FINDING OF THE BOOK.” “ The Christianity of Christ is not one thing, and human nature another;— it is human Virtue, human Religion, man in his highest moments; the effect no less than the cause of human development, and can never fail till man ceases to be man.”—Theodore Parker. “ The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”—Solomon. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. Price Sixpence. �“Far, very far be it from any devout mind, out of an unwarranted, unreasonable, and most unnecessary jealousy, to arrest or stay the progress of inquiry, or look with a timid and suspicious eye on any honest efforts made to extend and diffuse the knowledge of nature. The. upright search after truth can never be dangerous to him who lovingly engages in it, or dis­ honourable to Him who is the God of truth. All scope is given to inquiry into all the wonders, whether of the material world without, or of the moral world within. It is your dignity, and duty so to inquire. You are men, and you are commanded to be men in understanding. As men, you may assert your privilege of investigating all the works of your Creator; and in doing so, you are to follow truth whithersoever it may lead. You are not constituted the judges of consequences and results. Your business is with the facts and principles of truth itself. You are not to determine what should be, or what might be,—you are to discover what is. This is the course be­ coming alike the power and the infirmity of reason. Within this limit you tread surely and safely. Cast aside, then, all alarm as to what may follow from, your inquiries. Only prosecute these inquiries with due caution, and put them fairly and faithfully together, so as to ascertain real facts and draw none but legitimate conclusions. And we may fearlessly ran the hazard of any inferences which they may suggest, confident that they will all tend to shed new light and lustre on the wisdom in which the Lord hath made all his manifold works.”—Dr Candlish, in “Reason and Revelation," pp. 139, 140. “ Every one declares against blindness, and yet who almost is not fond of that which dims his sight, and keeps the clear light out of his mind, which should lead him into truth and knowledge? False or doubtful positions, relied upon as unquestionable maxims, keep those in the dark from truth who build on them. Such are usually the prejudices imbibed from educa­ tion, party, reverence, fashion, interest, &c. This is the mote which every one sees in his brother’s eye, but never regards the beam in his own. For who is there almost that is ever brought fairly to examine his own prin­ ciples, and see whether they are such as will bear the trial? But yet this should be one of the first things every one should set about, and be scrupul­ ous in, who would rightly conduct his understanding in the search of truth and knowledge.”—John Locke. �INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY AND OF PROTESTANTISM. --------- ♦--------- PROPOSE an experiment. Before reading my next sentence, I invite those who favour me with their attention to write down, or to think out, as I have just now been trying to do, such a general defi­ nition and explanation of the word Priest, as shall * fairly describe, and apply to, most or all of the dif­ ferent varieties of men, to whom the word is appli­ cable. Those who have done so may now compare their definition with mine, and see whether they at all agree or totally differ, and whether they contradict or supplement each other. The definition which I propose is, that a priest is an officer or minister of a traditional or authorita­ tive, and national or corporate, religious institution; and, as such, his distinctive mission is to be an exponent or advocate of a religious system or creed, I * “ Our word Priest is corrupted of Presbyter. Our ancestors, the Saxons, first used Preostre, whence by further contraction came Preste and Priest. The high and low Dutch have Priester; the French Prestre; the Italian Prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full Presbytero.”— Packardson's English Dictionary. �4 Reason and the Bible. inculcating the belief or observance of certain dogmas or ceremonies, as the fundamental and indispensable condition of merit, privilege, and welfare, here or hereafter. The language of the consistent priest is never— ‘ Come, up hither. Open your eyes, look around, and behold and judge for yourselves, as I judge for myself, the goodness, the truth, and the reality, or the wickedness, the falsehood, and the delusion of those things to which I shall direct your attention, and which I shall endeavour to make you understand.’ But his language is, ‘ Stand down. If you wish to be regarded as a brother, and as a worthy member of the church or of the community, you must not place any reliance on the guidance of your own reason in those matters which I instruct you to regard as settled by the supreme authority; nor must you take the liberty to investigate for yourself the evidences of correctness and reality; but you must be content to receive, with faithful and entire submission of the intellect, the doctrines, the ceremonies, or the book, which I hold out to you authoritatively as the revealed Will or Word of God; and you must, in like manner, faithfully accept and adhere to that interpretation or application of what God has revealed, which has been sanctioned by the traditions of the institution, or by the institution itself, whose officer I am, as the only true interpretation or application thereof, and therefore as the rule and guide of your belief, wor­ ship, and life.’ * Reason is never invited by the priest to criticize, test, and candidly weigh the evidence for and against the authority to which he appeals. That authority * “ The whole order of the clergy are appointed by God to pray for others, to be ministers of his priesthood, to be followers of his advocation, to stand between God and the people, and to present to God all their needs, and all their desires. Bishop Taylor, Sermon 6. �Reason and the Bible. 5 is assumed to be supreme, and therefore above reason, and beyond the reach of argument, commanding absolutely the believing assent, with or without the rational verdict, of all men to whom it comes, and in some cases not even hesitating to doom, for their unbelief, those who never heard of it. * The one fundamental argument of the priest, on which his entire system of belief is based, is—Thus saith the Oracle, or, Thus it is written. The truthful­ ness of the oracle or of the writing, as well as of the priestly or traditional interpretation, is postulated, not proved. The priest does not profess to have, but professes not to require, for himself or for others, such evidence and arguments in support of what he inculcates, as to secure the ratifying and approving verdict of the unprejudiced inquiring mind. His appeal is not primarily to the reason and conscience of men, but to their prejudices and emotions, such as those which arise from the influ­ ence of traditions and customs, or from habitual veneration and attachment to some external symbol or standard of authority, such as a Church, a Pope, an oracle, an image, or a book. He may, indeed, welcome with approval, and may even condescend to employ, a selection of evidences and arguments in sup­ port of the supreme authority to which he appeals j but such support is only regarded at the most as secondary and subsidiary, and is never represented by the consistent priest as the primary and essential basis, on which to found and establish the supremacy What are they that imbrace the gospell but sonnes of God ? AV hat are churches but his families ? Seeing there­ fore wee receive the adoption and state of sonnes by their ministrie whom God hath chosen out for that purpose, seeing also that when, we are the sonnes of God, our continuance is still vnder their care which were our progenitors, what better title could there bee given them than the reuerend name of presbyters, or fatherly guidesZfooto- Eccl. Pol., b. v., s. 78. �6 Reason and the Bible. of his authoritative standard or oracle. To find or exhibit any evidence or argument against the genuine­ ness of this assumed supremacy, is by the priest ac­ cordingly denounced as a moral delinquency, a sacri­ lege or blasphemy, not to be met with rational reply and confutation, but to be simply abhorred and condemned as treason against the Supreme. The assertion of some supreme external standard or symbol of authority, being thus the distinc­ tive and fundamental doctrine of every priest, it follows unavoidably that he practically assumes infal­ libility for himself, or for the institution whose views he expresses ; because he requires his assertion to be believed without being tested, by the submission, and not by the free action and verdict of reason, and be­ cause he ignores or denies the right of reason to investigate and to weigh impartially the evidence and arguments on all sides, and so to judge of the truth or falsehood—the certainty or uncertainty of the supreme authority asserted by him. It is mani­ fest that the supreme authority, thus dogmatically and authoritatively ascribed to a book or to anything external and apart from individual reason, not being based upon the free appreciation of its intrinsic and demonstrable merits and evidences, is practically and truly based upon some other assumed authority, to which reason is required to bow. It is impos­ sible to get out of the dilemma, however much sophistry may be employed to disguise it. The man who declares to other men that a book or other external thing is a revelation, and that its autho­ rity is above reason, practically claims for himself infallibility and supreme authority on that point, and, by necessary logical implication, on all points. If the supreme authority of the book, or other ex­ ternal thing, is based on the manifest or provable truthfulness and harmony of all that it attests, or upon the clearness and completeness of all the evi­ �Reason and the Bible. 7 dence regarding it, then reason must be invited and employed to scrutinize its purport and its claims, in order that these qualities may be ascertained and re­ cognised. But if all such rational tests be rejected, there is only one other ground that can possibly be taken, and that is an appeal to another external autho­ rity for support to the first. The claims of the high­ est authority must either rest upon the manifestation to reason of its evidence and merits, or else upon an­ other authority behind it; and, in either case, that which is appealed to must be at least equal in dignity to that which it has to sustain. Perfection cannot be rationally inferred where imperfection is discerned; neither can infallibility be sufficiently attested by aught that is fallible, nor supreme authority by aught that is not itself supreme. I conceive that thus far these remarks and reflec­ tions have been so framed as to be fairly applicable to the priests of many and widely different religions, ancient and modern, as well as to those of popular Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant. But my readers will, of course, have understood that I have kept the priests of Protestantism especially in view. The modern Protestant Christian Churches, though in many speculative inferences and doctrines widely differing from each other, are generally understood and represented as, all alike, asserting, appealing to, and resting on, the infallibility or supreme authority of the Bible, while renouncing all pretensions to infalli­ bility of their own, as Churches or as men. None of them, so far as I can learn, has ever ventured formally to declare that the authority of the Church or of tradi­ tion, as embodied in the “ Articles of Religion,” the “Confession of Faith,” or any other “Ecclesiastical Standard,” is sufficient to establish, and to impose upon the human conscience, the duty of believing the infallibility or supreme authority of the Bible, or indeed the duty of believing any doctrine �8 Reason and the Bible. whatever. On the contrary, it is expressly declared by every Protestant Church, that no Church is infallible,—that Synods and Councils have erred, and are Hable to err, from which the inference is direct and inevitable, that any doctrine, resting merely on such authority, ought to be held subject to the free investigation, reconsideration, and inde­ pendent judgment, not only of all succeeding synods and councils, but of every individual who has light enough to discern the vast difference, which dis­ tinguishes faith in God and in truth from faith in the faith of other men. And yet, with gross inconsis­ tency and self-contradiction, partly in the several ecclesiastical “ Standards,” but much more glaringly in the ministrations of very many priests, the idea is constantly inculcated, and therefore of course it is widely entertained, that the traditional dogmas of the Churches are indisputable and infallible, at least on those points which are considered funda­ mental and essential, and especially on this point, viz. the supreme authority of the Bible; and that it is blasphemous presumption for any inquirer to subject their assertion on this point to rational investigation, and to the free judgment of his individual reason. * They who are fallible are continually asserting that the Bible is the holy, authoritative, infallible, Word of God; and that no man is at liberty to form a dif* “Orthodoxy, finding itself unsafe in the domains of argument, flies towards those of moral sentiments ; and just at the moment when it might be expected to surrender, it turns sharply round, and boldly charges reason with sin. This is an alarming charge. Before this moral discovery, we exerted our reason to the utmost of our power, confident that we had no spiritual danger to fear : now, most unfortu­ nately, we are made to suspect that our sin may be great in proportion to the power of our arguments. What indeed, in common language, we call pride, is usually connected with power, and the existence of the latter is for most people, a pretty strong presumption of the presence of the former. It must therefore happen, that, when reason is accused of �Reason and the Bible. 9 ferent opinion, nor has a right to investigate, nor freely to discuss the evidence for and against their assertion-, but that every man is bound to submit his reason to that supreme authority above reason, which they assert that the Bible rightfully claims and pos­ sesses. Those who do so are driven to employ any amount of sophistry to conceal from others and per­ haps even from themselves the plain logical fact, that to assert in this absolute way the infallibility or supremacy of the Bible, and the imperative duty of human reason bowing to its teaching, is really and practically to assert the infallibility or supreme au­ thority of the Church, or of the man, by whom such assertion is made. This absurd and self-condemned position appears to be at present held, in some degree, by every Pro­ testant Church. But far beyond the comparatively mild and half-concealed absurdity of any Protestant Confession, very many of those clergymen and clerical men, who delight to be called “ orthodox,” habitually state and vindicate this “ Gospel of Unreason ” in all its barefaced breadth of boldness and inconsistency. The attempt has indeed been often made, by rea­ soning against reason, to reconcile freedom of thought with intellectual submission to the Bible; “to re­ concile Reason and the Bible,” by so displaying and enhancing all available internal and external evi­ dence in support of the Bible, and by so ignoring pride, the charge will appear .already more than half sub­ stantiated, if reason has been too hard for the opponents. Power of any kind, unless it can reward and punish to a cer­ tain degree, is not an enviable possession. I have no doubt that if a sin, to be called pride of sight, had been as neces­ sary to some influential class, as the pride of reason is to the orthodox parties all over the world; every long and sharp-sighted man, who wished to live in peace, and avoid the scandal of discovering things which his neighbours either could or would not see, would now be obliged to wear spectacles.”—Observations on Heresy and Orthodoxy, by the Rev. Jos. Blanco White. �IO Reason and the Bible. and disparaging, or endeavouring to explain away, all internal and external evidence of an opposite kind, as to make it appear to many superficial thinkers, or too willing believers, that the whole is in harmony with every part, that all its doctrines and statements are in perfect accordance with the evidence and with each other, and that all the relative evidence will bear the strictest investigation, being such as, when justly weighed, will carry complete conviction to every honest candid mind, appealing to the serious, upright exercise of unprejudiced human reason, and thus meriting and commanding the approving and ratifying verdict of all but those who are too stupid or too wicked to give it proper attention. So long as the belief in the Bible was an honest and sincere belief, such was the reasoning, variously illustrated, by which that belief was sustained and propagated. Such is the language of the- “ Articles,” and especially of the “ Confession of Faith” :— Confession i. 5. “ We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the- doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God.” Such was the language of the Reformers in the six­ teenth century, and of the great Protestant divines in the seventeenth. Listen to Richard Hooker, one of the most learned and gifted theological writers of the post-Reformation period :— “ Judge you of that which I speak, saith the apostle. In vain it were to speak anything of God, but that by reason, men are able somewhat to judge of what they hear, and by discourse to- discern how consonant it is to truth. Scripture, indeed, teacheth things above nature, things �Reason and the Bible. 11 which our reason, by itself, could not reach unto. Yet those also we believe, knowing by reason that the Scrip­ ture is the Word of God............. A number there are who think they cannot admire as they ought the power and authority of the Word of God, if in things divine they should attribute any force to man’s reason ; for which cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace reason............... By these and the like disputes, an opinion hath spread itself very far in the world, as if the way to be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment; as if reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity the mother of ghostly and divine wisdom.” Or let us consult, upon this subject, William Chil­ lingworth, author of the famous work entitled “ The Beligion of the Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation,” published in 1637, and of the still more famous say­ ing which is so often quoted: “ The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants ” :— “ But you that would not have men follow their reason, what would you have them follow ? their passions, or pluck out their eyes and go blindfold ? No, you say ; you would have them follow authority. In God’s name, let them : we also would have them follow authority; for it is upon the authority of universal tradition that we would have them believe Scripture. But then, as for the authority which you would have them follow, you will let them see reason why they should follow it. And is not this to go a little about—to leave reason for a short turn, and then to come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in others ? It being, indeed, A plain impossibility for any MAN TO ■ SUBMIT HIS REASON BUT TO REASON ; for he that doth it to authority must of necessity think himself to have greater reason to believe that authority.” It is not likely to be denied that these specimens fairly and fitly represent the distinctive views and teachings of the Beformers and early Protestant divines, on reason as the basis of all religious belief, and on the complete harmony which they conceived to exist between reason and the Bible. Assuming, as we well may, that their language is honest and �12 Reason and the Bible. sincere, and that they meant exactly what they have said, it is clear that, as held by them, theirs was a reasonable faith, and that they did not feel called upon to settle any visible conflict between the claims of reason and those of the Bible, nor experience any difficulty in harmonizing these with each other, and putting faith in both. Their religious belief was by them identified with their intellectual conclusion re­ garding the authority of the Bible; so that their utterances on the subject express both the conviction of their hearts and the rational judgment of their minds. The same kind of reasoning may even now be heard from some believers, in whose experience these two things still go together, and from some others who wish to make it appear that they find it so. But the conflict which then slumbered, being apparently unsuspected by religious men in those days, has been since then steadily growing in urgency and importance, exactly in proportion to the increas­ ing diffusion of knowledge and general progress of intelligence, until it has now become difficult to find an intelligent thinking man who believes, as the Reformers did, in both Reason and the Bible, as harmonizing together, and mutually supporting each other. The conflict has, in recent times, and especially of late, become so manifest and notorious, that a profession of faith, in the old alliance or com­ promise of the two rival claims, now suggests ignor­ ance, imbecility, or wilful deception; and the ordinary experience of an inquirer is accordingly very different from what it formerly was, for he finds that the question fronting him no longer admits of any but an alternative and one-sided solution ; so that, if he does not shirk it altogether, and remain indifferent or in suspense, he must decide for himself whether his reason shall be subjected to the Bible, or whether the Bible shall be subjected to his reason. The reconciliation of the two is a task very seldom �Reason and the Bible. 13 now undertaken for the public, or accomplished by individuals for themselves, except by the uninformed, the shallow-minded/ or the unthinking. Easy-going, peace-loving clergymen may sometimes still be heard trying it in the pulpit; but it has almost ceased to appear in print, the advocates on both sides appear­ ing to be nearly unanimous on this one point, that such an undertaking is now hopelessly difficult, and that a genuine reconciliation is henceforth impossible, on any conditions short of the subjection of one claimant to the supremacy of the other. It is, therefore, not my purpose to enter here upon an examination of the various methods of reconcilia­ tion which have been suggested. Some of them are utterly absurd, and even ridiculous; and it is safe to say that none of them can have any plausibility be­ yond what may be purchased by the free employment of sophistry and assumption, tricks which, until recent times, were comparatively safe from detection and exposure, though it is gradually becoming more difficult and more hazardous to employ them. One of the latest and ablest attempts of this kind, that of the late Dean Alford, in his “New Testament for English Readers,” which may fairly be regarded as embodying the best and most plausible features of all previous attempts to effect the desired reconciliation, has been most skilfully and completely sifted and exploded in previous pamphlets of this series, which probably most of my readers have seen, and which any of them may easily procure. * My intention is to deal here only with the plead­ ings and pretensions of those more numerous (at least in Scotland), and in their own way more con­ sistent, advocates of the Bible, who apparently do not believe, as the old Protestant divines and the * “Commentators and Hierophants,” Parts I. and II. price Sixpence each. See list on the last page of this pamphlet. �14 Reason and the Bible. Westminster Assembly did, in the possibility and duty of the reconciliation, and who do not even seem to desire it, preferring to insist, .as honest true Pro­ testants never did, upon the absolute surrender and submission of Reason to the Bible. Those who hold the views which these advocates express have, apparently without knowing it, as completely departed in one direction from the stand­ point of the men of the Reformation, as those who require the submission of the Bible to Reason have departed from it in another and opposite direction. Both parties alike have felt compelled to settle the question one way or another. Neither party has found it possible to harmonize the conflicting claims, nor to find any satisfaction in compromising them. The one party has decided one way, and the other another way, that question which the Reformers did not take up, and did not feel called upon to settle. Let neither of these parties be deluded with the idea that they are maintaining the standpoint of the Re­ formers with regard to the Bible. That standpoint was, as they clearly tell us, the then generally admitted harmony and agreement of Reason and the Bible. If we only try seriously to imagine such men as the old Protestant Reformers compelled, as both of the parties in question have been compelled, to abandon that standpoint, to acknowledge the irreconcilable anta­ gonism of the two, and to take the one side or the other, by deciding for themselves whether their reason should submit to be judged by the Bible, or the Bible to be judged by their reason ; we can scarcely fail to understand which side ought to be taken by true Protestants now, and which side savours more of the old Popish superstition. It has of late been remarked by many, that, instead of grappling with, and undertaking to refute, in the pulpit or in the press, any or all of the really formid­ �Reason and the Bible. 15 able and increasing arguments of objectors,—those who maintain the traditional dogma, that the Bible is the Word of God, have for some time past, almost without exception, been timidly affecting to treat the arguments with silent contempt, while at the same time treating the persons, by whom these argu­ ments are urged, with wrathful condemnation instead of any reply. It is usual for them to say that none of these arguments or objections are new, which, nevertheless, some of them are, though surely age alone is no dis­ honour ; and that they have all been, long ago, hun­ dreds of times, satisfactorily answered. The ex­ planation of which appears to be, that when the minds of men were more easily satisfied with such answers as might still be given, there was no lack of satisfactory answers. Whether this sufficiently ex­ plains it or not, the phenomenon is notorious, that the arguments of the objectors are from day to day becoming more general, more formidable, and more convincing than ever; while the arguments in reply, as distinguished from the mere denunciations by the maintainers, are becoming more and more obsolete, impotent, and worthless; so much so, that they seem to have very much escaped the notice or memory of both parties alike. Unquestionably, however, there have been, and must have been, plenty of “ sound orthodox” arguments and replies, which may have done good service to their employers in their own day and generation, though these might now have an effect quite opposed to that which they were formerly understood to have; because the question now agi­ tating men’s minds is comparatively A new question, to which the old arguments and replies cannot be easily adapted, having been originally addressed to the reason; whereas men would now employ them to reason against reason—a peculiarly delicate task ! There was a time when a very distinguished �16 Reason and the Bible. Father of the Church, the earliest distinct witness for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, could argue with acceptance that there must be four Gos­ pels, and only four, because—there were four winds, and four elements, and four beasts in the vision of Ezekiel! Such an argument is of no use now. There was a time, not so long ago, when it was generally considered satisfactory to argue that, as God’s ancient people were commanded to extirpate heretics, and to destroy them utterly, so it was clearly the duty of God’s people still to do the same thing; and the stake, or the dungeon, or some suffi­ cient penalty, was deemed by Catholics and Protes­ tants alike, as it had been deemed by the Jews of old, the most appropriate answer to all sorts of ob­ jections. Such arguments are now out of date, at least in this part of the world. There has been a time, not yet gone by, though we may hope that it is now gradually passing away, when, beyond “ the three mechanical P’s,” the whole idea of ordinary education has been, to furnish the mind of the pupil with a complete panoply of stereo­ typed ideas and ready-made conclusions, handed down by tradition, regarding every branch of know­ ledge, as well as regarding religion and the Bible. It is only now, or of late years, that the idea has begun to prevail, and no doubt is very rapidly spreading, that, instead of merely cramming the mind with assertions and dogmas, the far nobler aim of education ought to be, the instruction and training of each individual in the separate personal use of his own mental faculties, by calling these faculties constantly into exercise upon his own ex­ perience and observation, as well as upon all his lessons and studies, which for children ought to be selected and directed by teachers or guardians, having the principle of intellectual liberty rooted in their hearts, and keeping that principle steadily in view. �Reason and the Bible. 17 The foremost educationists are now striving to1 discover the most effectual methods of accustoming the young mind to think, to reflect, to investigate, to compare, and to test everything for itself, search­ ing everywhere, and always, for truthfulness and reality, so that it may learn to know and understand the certainty, or the certain doubtfulness, of every­ thing in which it is instructed; and, above all, that it may, as it ripens, become acquainted with its own natural inherent right to judge for itself of the good or evil, the truth or falsehood, the certainty or un­ certainty of everything to which its attention may be directed; of which right, at least in several of its most important applications, the vast majority of minds have hitherto been trained in profound prac­ tical ignorance, thinly veiled, if veiled at all, by a few fine-sounding phrases about the reverence or respect due to this or that authority. There cannot be a doubt about it, that a great change in this direction, is coming gradually over the whole united nation. There is at present a very distinct prospect and intention of improvement. We really do seem to be making a fresh start onwards towards liberty and light. It is indeed both a grand and a true thing to say, in the prophetic words of our greatest orator,. John Bright,—“ I think I see,, as it were, above the hill-tops of time, the glimmer­ ing of the dawn of a better day, for the people and the country that I love so well! ” It may seem rather sanguine, but no longer seems chimerical, to hope that even a middle-aged man may live to see the' children of the people trained, each in the knowledge and use of his or her birthright as one of God’s chil­ dren,—the birthright of liberty,—complete freedom of reason tod of conscience,—the very liberty which the “Sons of God ” and “ enlightened ones ” have in all ages striven, and often sacrificed themselves in the attempt, to make mankind understand and use B �18 Reason and the Bible. as their own. This is at once the scientific and the truly Protestant, because truly Christian idea of edu­ cation,—the education of the future,—a religious, moral, and intellectual education. Surely it would be an evidence of blind delusion, or else of gross presumption and falsehood, were any man to say that this aspiration is evil, or to condemn it with opprobrious epithets as scepticism and infi­ delity. It is the result and expression of Faith,— religious faith in God, in Goodness, and in Truth, as revealed to the inquiring mind, chiefly through the contrasts drawn and discerned, between these intel­ lectual conceptions on the one hand, and atheism, idolatry, falsehood, or evil, on the other, by the free and serious exercise of Reason—God’s gift for man’s guidance, the conscientious verdict of which may well be called, figuratively, “the Word of God” to each individual. As to the duty or advantage of faith in the faith of other men, whether these men be the ancient authors of the Bible, or their more un­ reasonable modern expounders, call me sceptic, or infidel if you will:—only let the distinction which is here drawn be clearly understood. We may read the 145th Psalm, for example, with intense appreciation of the sublime religious thought which its stanzas express, and our minds may well be filled with admiration and delight, especially when due emphasis is laid upon the word “ ALL,” which frequently recurs and appears to be the key-note of the piece. If there be anything in the Psalm, such as the phrase at the close of the 19th verse,—“ All. the wicked will he destroy,”—which may seem to jar against or contradict the rest, surely we may freely try to interpret for ourselves the mind of the poet, so as to harmonize the apparent discord, as by reflecting that he has just before expressed his faith in God, as good to ALL, upholding ALL that fall, and raising up ALL those that be bowed down, and that therefore the meaning �Reason and the Bible. 19 of what is said about the wicked must be, that God will destroy or bring to an end all their wicked­ ness, and thus raise up all those whom even their own wickedness has caused to fall or to be bowed down, so that there shall be no more any wicked. Such liberties are taken by all commentators on the Bible, under the guise of interpretation; but in reality it is putting one set of words in place of another ; and we may just as consistently altogether reject the jarring note, either because we may not be able to harmonize it with the rest, or because we may find that its acceptance would upset all our ideas of intellectual and moral perfection of character, as at­ tributed to the “ Father of the spirits of all flesh/’ and that it is therefore incredible or unintelligible to us. This Psalm in a high degree, like every other lesson in its own degree, becomes a revelation to our minds, just in proportion to the clearness and force of the free judicial verdict, which our reason and conscience may be thereby stimulated and assisted to arrive at regarding those matters which, to our minds, it illus­ trates, or brings before our view. Let us never forget, what it is mere priestcraft to deny, that it is every man’s inalienable right, and his duty, so far as it may be opportunely in his power, as a man, as a Christian, and as a Protestant, to in­ vestigate, examine, and judge every portion of the Bible, as well as every other item of his information and experience, and to arrive at his own individual conclusions, with entire fulness of mental freedom. The serious, honest, and deliberate exercise of this freedom, is at least one true and real meaning of the figurative phrase,—“ Faith in the Word of God,”__ which is a quite intelligible way of expressing a re­ ligious. man’s experience of it ■ as are also the less figurative phrases, true wisdom,” “good under­ standing, liberation of the intellect,” “ rational belief.” �20 Reason and the Bible. It is not improbable that some may condemn these views, or protest against them, as seeming “ to exalt reason to the place of God;" but the position here maintained is merely that Reason is the faculty or instrument with which God has endowed us, by the proper personal use of which, alone, it is possible for any of us to convert information and experience into sound knowledge about anything whatever. Those who may say that it is “ spiritual pride” and “presumption” thus to test everything by the verdict of Reason, ought to be reminded that, in so far as Reason may be set aside, the only other test which can possibly be substituted for it is that of our own sentiments or emotions, such as veneration, esteem, attachment, or fear; and this ought to make them pause and reflect, before venturing to affirm that such things as these ought to control our Reason, instead of being regulated and controlled thereby; because, in the clear and strong words of Archbishop Whately, the humiliation of Reason which they require “ is a prostration, not of ourselves before God, but of one part of ourselves before another part; and there is surely at least as much presumption in measuring everything by our own feelings, fancies, and preju­ dices, as by our own reasonings.” * It is beyond a question, that there has of late been a vast increase of open and avowed opposition to the dogma, that the Bible, in all its parts and in all its words, is the Word of God; and, though it is of course less manifest, it is nearly as certain, that doubt, unbelief, and silent opposition have increased to an immeasurably greater extent. It is also perfectly well known, and quite indisput­ able, that the argumentative strength of the opposition has of late been displayed with very much greater vigour, fulness, and effect than it ever was in this * Whately’s Notes to Bacon’s Essay on Truth. �Reason and the Bible. 21 country before ; partly by the production of new evi­ dence, criticism, and arguments ; but chiefly by the more frequent and more extended publication, read­ ing, hearing, and especially understanding, of the old. With regard to the extent of publication, reading, and hearing, however, it must be admitted that the advocates of the dogma have hitherto had, and still have, an immense advantage over their opponents. Indeed, they may be said to have had, until recent years, almost the entire influence of the pulpit, the press, and the school, on their side ; and the rule is clearly still the same, although the exceptions are becoming more numerous. It is only in the matter of understanding that the strength of the opposition will bear any comparison; and were it not for this, the Bible party would have no cause for their present uneasiness and alarm. The assailants of the dogma are constantly producing evidence and arguments, which men can understand and feel the force of; whereas the very few so-called replies, and the very many assertions and so-called reasonings, of the de­ fenders, are either not understood, or else understood to be powerless. It would be cumbrous, and it is not my plan, to introduce here any quotations or reproductions of the abundant evidence and arguments, which go to prove that the dogma is false. Most of my readers are, probably, in some measure acquainted with them; and I cannot, for the present, do better than refer the inquirer on this head to Mr Thomas Scott’s series of publications, a list of which will be found at the end of this pamphlet, nearly all bearing directly on the point. I prefer here to invite attention to the startling effect, which the recent attacks of the comparatively few assailants have had upon the attitude of the vastly more numerous defenders of the dogma, and to a few brief illustrations of the mode in which these �22 Reason and the Bible. attacks are being met, by some of the most zealous champions of what is called “ orthodoxy.” I have already observed how remarkably rare has become the inclination of these champions to deal with rational argument, and how chary they generally are about grappling with the arguments of their op­ ponents. Among those who are altogether innocent of reasoning about the matter, are to be found the most unrestrained shouters of anathema against the objectors, whose objections they studiously evade. They bewail the manifest increase of free thought among their people, attributing all sorts of evil motives to those who openly profess it, and proclaim­ ing that “ God will surely punish" those who deny the supreme authority of the Scriptures, but neverattempt­ ing a word of rational reply or refutation. Does any one doubt it, or think this exaggeration 1 There is abundance of evidence at hand, from which only a few selections can here be made. Doubtless, many of my readers are familiar with it. There is even a strong probability, though the experiment has not yet been tried, that, in Scotland at least, and I suppose not in Scotland alone, the specimens, which I am to quote, would be pronounced “ sound” and “ orthodox” by the majority of clergymen of all deno­ minations. Not a few might perhaps say that they exemplify “ a somewhat indiscreet advocacy of the truth,” or that they are decidedly “rather too orthodox;” but it is very doubtful, whether any considerable num­ ber of those who are included under the name Priest, as defined in the beginning of this tract, would choose to characterize these things as they deserve, viz.,, as arrogant Popish assertions and malignant unchristian calumnies, irreconcilable with reason, truth, and evidence. A lecture, addressed to the Students of Divinity, at the opening of the Free Church College, Glasgow, �Reason and the Bible. in November 1870, by the Rev. Dr Gibson, Professor of Divinity and Church History, on “ Some Present Aspects of Religious Opinion,” supplies the following * illustrations. “ The more conscience is enlightened by the religion of Christ as the Great Prophet of His Church—in other words, by the Bible, the revelation of His Holy Spirit—the more do the principles of Christianity find in it an approving response. Hence Paul says, 2 Cor. iv. 2 : ‘ By manifesta­ tion of the truth commending ourselves to every man's con­ science in the sight of God;' not to every man’s conscience or reason as the supreme authority to judge, or—as heralded by a candidate for notoriety in our city—the absolute and divine authority of reason, conscience, and love as ‘the only ground of faith,’ but the absolute authority of God in what He reveals and commands, and to which reason and con­ science are bound to submit. ( If they do not, it is at the peril of the poor mortal who refuses, and puts his poor reason and conscience and love, small and variable as his love is, on a level with the authority of the God of truth and holiness and love. This manifestation of truth to every man’s conscience as in the sight of God, so as to leave him without excuse, can be shown of every one of the doctrines and precepts of Scripture.” It is not a little surprising that Dr Gibson should quote these words of Paul, in support of the dogma that “ reason and conscience are bound to submit ” to the doctrines and precepts of Scripture, as to “ the abso­ lute authority of God in what He reveals and com­ mands.” Why ? Because it is that very dogma against which Paul is there contending, having just before called the law of Moses “ the ministration of death,” which, he says, “ is done away.” In contrast to the deadness of that law, he proposes, by manifes­ tation of the truth, to commend his own doctrine to every man’s conscience. This sounds wonderfully like appealing to “the authority of reason, conscience, and love, as the only ground of faith.” But does not * Published in the “Watchword,” a Free Church Magazine, for December 1870, and for January 1871. �24 Reason and the Bible. the Professor himself virtually make the same appeal, when he affirms that the truth of every one of the doctrines and precepts of Scripture can be manifested to every man's conscience in the sight of God ? It becomes merely a question of experimental fact, as to whether or not the assertion will stand the test of application. Let it be applied, for example, to the following passages, selected almost at random:— Exod. xxxii. 27—“ 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 com­ panion, and every man his neighbour.” Exod. xx. 13—“ Thou shalt not kill.” Mai. iii. 6—“ I am the Lord ; I CHANGE NOT." Gen. vi. 6—“ And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Exod. xxix. 36—“Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering for atonement.” Levit. i. 9—“ And the priest shall burn it all on the altar to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Jer. vii. 21, 22—“Thus saith the Lord. - I spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices.” Heb. x. 6—“ In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.” Acts x. 34—“ God is no respecter of persons.” Mai. i. 2, 3—-“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.” (“ The children being not yet born.”—Rom. ix. 11-13.) Gal. v. 22—“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith.” Jud. xv. 14, 15—“And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he slew a thousand men.” Deut. vii. 16—“Thou shalt consume all the people �Reason and the Bible. ^5 which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. 1 Sam. xv. 3—“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suclclin/j.” Isa. i. 18—“Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord.” Rom. ix. 18-21—“ Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against God 1” &c. Mat. xxiii. 2, 3—■“ The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.” If Dr Gibson really understands how “ the mani­ festation of truth to every man’s conscience, as in the sight of God, so as to leave him without excuse, CAN BE shown ” of the many such doctrines, precepts, and contradictions of Scripture as these, it is surely most desirable, that he should verify his assertion by showing the manifestation, because few men are likely to discover it for themselves. “ Conscience is a creature, therefore a subject, and not a sovereign, and is under law. What law, and whence does it proceed? It must rest in, and proceed from Him who is its Lord. How, then, does He, or has He expressed it? “Without entering into abstract discussion, I think I may affirm that it cannot be in natural conscience as man now exists in the earth. Why so? Because you cannot survey it in the light of history, of facts, ancient or modern, either in the most limited or in the widest range either of time or place, without coming to the conclusion that its decisions have been so contradictory as to put ‘ darkness for light and light for darkness, evil for good and good for evil, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.’ What, then, is the expression of His Lordship? and where is it to be found ? All Christian men must at once say, in the Law of the Lord revealed in the Bible. It is plain that conscience, as a subj ect, cannot have a right to rule above its Creator and Lord. Equally plain is it that this law, if it can be found, it must obey; in other words, there must be an au­ �q.6 Reason and the Bible. thority. But that authority must be God himself. As­ suming that there is a judgment-day, and that man is responsible for his belief, one can hardly imagine each mortal man daring to plead, at the great day, his conscience to determine the judgment of the Most High. The autho­ rity, then, must be the authority of God himself. It can­ not be anything short of its Lord. “ It is to this authority I refer when I affirm that a dread, and consequently a hatred of authority is one present aspect of religious opinion.” The argument, here employed against “natural conscience,” is perfectly good against those who assert human infallibility or the supreme authority of any man’s mind, or of any man’s writings, over the minds of other men. It is, therefore, perfectly good against the authority claimed for the Bible. Why so? Be­ cause we cannot survey the Bible in the light of his­ tory and facts, without coming to the conclusion that its laws, doctrines, and statements are often so con­ tradictory as to put darkness for light and light for darkness, evil for good and good for evil; as witness the numberless irreconcilable contradictions, which abound in many parts of it, and even in the Gospels. * Natural conscience or reason, when reasonably exer­ cised, enables us to discern errors and contradic­ tions, and tn draw lessons of wisdom both from those of other men and from our own, as well as from those of the Bible. That which is “affirmed’' about “ dread, and conse­ * For countless contradictions, both, historical and doctrinal, in the Old Testament, I may refer the inquiring reader to Mr. F. W. Newman’s “History of the Hebrew Monarchy,” (published by Triibner and Co., London); and I take this opportunity of acknowledging that the train of argument, pursued in my own essay on “ The Finding of the Book,” was suggested and greatly aided by Mr Newman’s most admirable and instructive work.. For similar criticism of the New Testament, I would refer especially to “ The Evangelist and the Divine.”—See list on last page. �Reason and the Bible. o.7 quently hatred of authority,” if not purely imaginary, would require to be supported by evidence showing to what class of men it applies; because, as regards such men as Bishop Colenso, Mr Voysey, the authors of “Essays and Reviews,” or the large class who sympathise with them, it would be a quite unfounded calumny to affirm, that they are influenced by “ dread, and consequently hatred of authority.” It would surely be both more charitable and more correct to say, that discovery and rejection offalse authority, proceeding from the love of truth and the hatred of falsehood, is one present aspect of religious opinion. “ Protestantism is not the right in the sight of God to hold any opinion which each individual pleases, but the right and duty of every human being to regulate his belief by the unerring standard of the Holy Scriptures ; and that God being Lord, and the alone Lord of the conscience, no man, or set, or combination of men, may resist his authority. . . . . God’s Word is a law, distinct, intelligible, and immediate; whereas any other, under whatever guise or form—the Church, the Pope, the Reason—is a usurpation of the rights both of God and man.” When Dr. Gibson says that, if Church, Pope, or Reason be set up as a law over the individual conscience, they usurp the rights both of God and man, he utters a truth which every free man and noble nature would die to maintain. But then, Reason in this connection cannot mean a man’s own reason; for it must be something external to him, as Church and Pope are. Not to dwell upon the commonplace absurdity of imagining that it is in the power of any individual to believe what he pleases! the question forcibly suggests itself,—Shall any man, such as Dr Gibson, or shall any combination of men, such as a Protestant Church, presume to come between other men and God, by holding up before them a book, with the assertion that all are bound to accept it as the Word of God, �28 Reason and the Bible. without any evidence, or without any right on their part to investigate and weigh all available evidence, —and that if they allow their reason to decide for themselves individually, whether such assertion is truthful, credible, uncertain, or false, they are guilty of “ a usurpation of the rights both of God and man ?” It would be well for Dr Gibson to ponder over the following apostolic words :■—“Hast thou faith? Have IT Tq thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth!” (Rom. xiv. 22.) “Is it bigotry, fanaticism, ecclesiasticism ? Are these what we wish to defend and establish, as is asserted by great men and small men? If such things can be justly applied to the authority of Holy Scripture, we at once say that they are what we wish to defend and establish. But the asser­ tion, by whomsoever made, is a calumny on us, and a blas­ phemy against Holy Scripture.” (!) “ The antidote, we have seen, is the revealed Word of God—the Holy Scrip­ tures, to be received and believed, not on the authority of any man or Church, but on the authority of God himself, because it is the Word of God" (/) “speaking to us directly and immediately as a man speaking to his friend. This is the sure foundation of all belief. If God does speak in His works, in the conscience, and, above all, in His written. Word, which is invariable and ‘ endureth for ever,’—all with His own mouth, or, which is the same thing, by His own Spirit in His Word, man must listen and obey ; and it is impious and at man’s peril if he disobey, reason or prate about inner light or inner consciousness, or spirit of the age, or public opinion, as he may. Of all the delusions into which the weak and inexperienced are so apt to fall, none is greater than that of imagining that running with the tide is a proof of deep thought, of deep learning, or high courage and independence. It is the very reverse—a proof of a weak and slavish spirit that is afraid to stand by the truth and abide the frown or sneer of men of no higher authority than itself. Think for yourselves, gentlemen, as against man ; but beware of thinking for yourselves as against God.” In reply to Dr Gibson’s questions, it is sufficient to �Reason and the Bible. 29 observe that bigotry signifies stubborn adherence to an unreasonable opinion, and that what he says about “ blasphemy ” sounds wonderfully like fanaticism, or excessive and indiscreet zeal. It would be a grand good thing if all who heard, and all who may read, the last quoted sentence, would act upon the advice there given, by thinking for themselves as against Dr Gibson, or as against any man who may, like him, dictate dogma in their hear­ ing. Scarcely even Dr Gibson will venture to say that those who do so are therein guilty of thinking forthemselves “as against God!” On the contrary it will be, and has been, in many cases, found by in­ quirers, that for them to acknowledge all the words of the Bible to possess the authority of God, would in­ volve on their part the quenching or resisting of that “ Word of God,” which constantly addresses itself to their reason and conscience in the Books of Creation and Providence, as well as in the Books of Experience and History, both past and present, including, of course, the experience and history of which the Bible is the vehicle. Just in so far as all these “ Books ” are observed and studied, will the “Word of God” which men are often compelled to hear and to obey even when not listening for it, which can be heard nowhere but in the reason and conscience of the indi­ vidual, and which Dr Gibson also professes to recog­ nise, be understood, and its authority be recognised and acknowledged by Reason. “ Running with the tide,” as the Professor phrases it, is, in itself, neither a proof of deep thought and high courage, nor of the reverse; but is a propensity of our nature, so strong that good men, and even great men, have often been led astray by it. In fact it is much more than probable that this very propensity restrains many at the present time from thinking freely, and from saying what they think, about the Bible. The frown, and sneer, and social intolerance �3° Reason and the Bible. of orthodox people are still powerful enough to be really dreaded by dependent or timid “ freethinkers;” for there is no lack of evidence, to prove, that those bolder ones who do venture to think and to speak freely, against the unreasonable assertions of the advocates for the supremacy of the Bible over Rea­ son, are not yet “ running with the, tide." It cannot be denied, however, that there are some signs of the approaching turning time. Throughout the whole lecture, there is not the slightest allusion to evidence, either for or against the dogma. It would, indeed, appear that, according to Dr Gibson, all evidence is quite superfluous and useless or worse; for there is not one single argument employed by him in support of his dogma, which does not openly and avowedly rest upon that dogma itself, as in the passages quoted, and these are the strongest and most argumentative which I have been able to select. It would be amazing, and almost incredible, if it were not elsewhere so common, to find that an expe­ rienced Professor of Church History, and a leading minister of the Free Church of Scotland, should have, on such an important occasion, nothing better to say in support or defence of the dogma which he calls “ the foundation of all belief," than a mere set of varia­ tions upon the words—It is, and it is, and it is, and you must believe and say that it is, and must never allow yourself to think that it is not, because it is ! only because it is ! The fair inference from Dr Gibson’s language is, that he identifies his own opinion with . Revelation. To dictate dogma, without appealing to evidence, and without condescending to rational argument upon the evidence, is to assume infallibility. Dr Gibson mani­ festly assumes either that he himself is infallible, or that he is expressing the opinion of some other (assumed) infallible man or men, when, regardless of �Reason and the Bible, 31 evidence and in defiance of reason, he merely asserts that the Bible is the Word of God. He seems to be quite unconscious of the absurdity of a Protestant Divine making his whole system of doctrine rest upon an assumption of infallibility. It appears too clearly that the faith professed and taught by Dr Gibson, and by that very large class of clerical men whom he may be taken as representing, is of a radically different kind from that which Jesus taught his disciples, when he opened, as it is written, the eyes of their understandings by arousing, instruct­ ing, and stimulating them to the consciousness, the exercise, and the enjoyment of their own duty, right, and power to judge and to decide by Reason what they ought to believe, and what they ought not to believe. Having learned of Jesus, they could no longer submit their Reason, as they had for many generations been taught to do, to the traditions and superstitions of their forefathers and of their priests; but burst away from the mental yoke of bondage to these traditions, to these priests, and to the supreme authority of their old written creed or law, with all its sacrifices of blood and burnt flesh, to pacify the wrath and propitiate the favour of a jealous and ter­ rible God, whom the law represented as requiring such sacrifices and delighting in them. We read that the words of Jesus were quick and powerful, and that men were astonished at his doctrine, for that he taught as one having authority, appealing with all the force of Truth to the hearts and to the minds of those who understood what he said; and not as the scribes, who appealed only to chapter, and verse, and word of their sacred books. Let it be remembered that the Scribes and Pharisees were not ignorant nor wicked men, but were the educated, the respectable, the orthodox, and the synagogue-attending class of their day, who stood up for the authority of “ God’s Word ” as opposed to Reason. But the spirit of Jesus �^2 Reason and the Bible. they could neither bind nor subdue, though they could put himself to death; and accordingly we read that those who became disciples of Jesus were made, free by the power of the Truth—that they passed from darkness to marvellous light—from bondage to liberty—spiritual liberty—mental liberty—the glori­ ous liberty of the children of God, whom they ad­ dressed, after the example of their elder brother, as “ Our Father,” worshipping Him only, not with the signs and symbols of slavish fear and dread, such as the shedding and sprinkling of blood; but in spirit and in truth, in confidence and love, as became the “ Sons of God." There is reason to fear the disciples of men like Dr Gibson can have little of that exper­ ience, which the disciples of Jesus appear so fully to have enjoyed. I have already shown that the unreasonable faith of modern popular Christianity is essentially different from the orthodox Christian faith of the true prophets of Protestantism, which was based upon their convic­ tion of the entire harmony and agreement of the Word of God and reason, so that the one voice could not contradict the other, and so that conflict between the two, or subjection of the one to the other, was for them entirely out of the question, liberation and not submission being then, as always, the experience of those who listened to the “ still small voice,” and obeyed the Word of God. Most of us can now understand that the Reformers made a critical mistake, in assuming or fancying, as they manifestly did, that the Bible quite harmonized with Reason, and that there could be no real conflict between them, any more than there could be a real conflict between Reason and the “ Light of Nature," which they also recognised as another Word of God. But we can also understand that they did not err cul­ pably, as we judge their opponents to have erred. They certainly cannot be charged with wilful blindness, �Reason and the Bible. 33 nor did they ever proclaim the duty of believing the Bible without investigation, which, on the contrary, they thought it safe to challenge and invite, by for­ mally stating the rational grounds on which their own belief was based. That to which their reason sub­ mitted was tried, judged, and approved by their reason. Their reason submitted to itself, that is to its own in­ terpretation of every Word of God; and all other submission of Reason those noble men and true pro­ phets cast behind them with scorn, as the genuine disciples and followers of “ the Prophet of Nazareth ” always have done; for, “ where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” The grand distinction, between them and the advo­ cates of the Roman Catholic creed, was this very point. The one party insisted upon the submission of Reason to that which Reason was forbidden to test and could not approve. The other party maintained that:— Confession of Faith, xx. 2—God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such com­ mandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.'" Strange, indeed, it is to find, that the old Popish, Jewish, and heathen error, the root of all errors and superstitions,—that Reason is bound to submit to authority not approved by Reason, has grown up again, in a new shape, in the churches which call themselves Protestant. While such theology is taught and published by doctors and professors, reputed highly orthodox, in high places of the Church, it is perfectly notorious that, from very many pulpits throughout the land, C �24 Reason and the Bible. the same kind of doctrine is preached, which has been well called, “ the, Gospel of Unreason." . My own observation and experience of this preaching are of course local and limited; but, judging from what I read and hear, I infer that it is exceedingly common, and by no means confined to one Church, nor to one part of Great Britain. It is probable, therefore, that many of my readers may have often heard such specimens as the following, which are supplied by pencil-jottings of sermons, recently taken in the pews by myself and friends in whom I have confidence. They are all genuine and unadorned. “ Every word of this blessed book, brethren, is God’s message to us. It is to us individually that Jehovah there speaks.” . . . “ If we would profit by the Word of God, we must mix faith with the hearing and the reading of it. We must believe that every word of it is true, simply on God’s own authority.” . . . “ God requires of us a child-like unquestion­ ing submission to the divine authority of the Bible, and a willingness to hear the voice of God in all that the Bible says to us.” . . . “ A sense of God’s authority in the Bible, and unquestioning submission to that authority, is the best evidence of true. Chris­ tianity.” . . . “ An atheist is one who denies the existence of God; an infidel is one who does not believe that the Bible is the Word of God; and there is not much difference between the two, for he who does not believe that the Bible is God’s Word, does not believe in the God of the Bible.” . . . 11 Beware of hardening your hearts against the Word of God, which speaks to us in every sentence of the Bible.” . . “ Before a man can resist the authority of God speaking to us in the Bible, there must be a process of hardening the heart, quenching conviction, and self-deception, by false expectations of safety in some other way than that which the Bible reveals.” �Reason and the Bible. 35 ... “I believe that opposition and hatred to the justice of God as revealed in the Bible, the desire to quiet the accusations of a guilty conscience, and to get rid of the fear of punishment which the Bible tells them their sins deserve, are the true reasons why men begin to question the authority of the Bible.” . . . “ Those who deny this authority would not be convinced, even although the most convincing arguments were presented to them. All their objec­ tions and outrageous views have been again and again refuted. It is in the heart and not in the head that their opposition has its seat.” ... “If scenes such as the miraculous deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were to occur in our own day, would they not make some of us tremble ! Many an awful sight would be seen at our communion tables, if those who come there, and eat and drink damnation, were to be struck down, as Ananias and Sapphira were. Theirs was a miraculous death ; and it may appear to some unreasonable, that Peter should thus have had the power to deal so terribly with them. But, my brethren, beware of limiting the power and the sovereignty of the Most High. Though it may be unreasonable, it is none the less true—none the less a miracle. Woe unto the man that disputeth with his Maker—Almighty God ! ” I refrain from any particular criticism of these rash assertions and uncharitable thoughts, to which the thinking reader will easily apply most of my remarks on Dr Gibson’s lecture • but that in­ quirers may be enabled to judge of the true name by which to designate the teaching of these too zealous advocates of the Bible, I subjoin the follow­ ing sentences from very high authorities in the Roman Catholic Church. * * All quoted, with Latin originals and particular references, in “ The Moral Theology of Liguori,” by Pascal the Younger, London, 1856, pp. 43, 140, 196, 47. �26 Reason and the Bible. St Ignatius, the founder of the J esuits, says in his “Epistle on the Virtue of Obedience,” A.D. 1553, “ If you would immolate your whole self wholly unto God, you must offer to Him not the bare will merely, but the Understanding also.” . . . “The noble simplicity of Blind Obedience is gone, if in our secret breast we call in question whether that which is commanded be right OR WRONG. This is what makes it perfect and acceptable to the Lord, that the most excellent and most precious part of man is consecrated to Him, and nothing whatsoever of him kept back for himself.” To show how this principle is applied, Cardinal Wiseman says, in his preface to “ The Exercises of St Ignatius —“In the Catholic Church no one is ever allowed to trust himself in spiritual matters. The Sovereign Pontiff is obliged to submit himself to the direction of another in whatever concerns his own soul.” To this may be added from the “Exercises — “ That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it as a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black, if the hierarchical Church so define it.” It may be instructive, as I am quoting, to take a specimen of what these outspoken priests have said about liberty of conscience. Pope Gregory XVI., in an encyclical letter, dated August 1832, says:—“It is from that most fetid fountain, indifferentism, springs the absurd and mistaken notion, or rather raving of madness, that liberty of conscience is to be recog­ nised and vindicated. What has prepared the way for this most pestilential error is, that ample and immoderate liberty of opinion which is spreading far and wide, to the ruin of Church and State, though there are some men who, out of most con­ summate impudence, maintain it is an advantage to religion. This is the aim of that worst of all liberties, �Reason and the Bible. 37 that never-enough-to-be-execrated and detestable liberty of the press (Awe spectat det&rrima ilia ac nunguam satis execranda et detestabilis libertas artis librarian ad scripta gucelibet edenda in vulgus), which some dare so loudly to demand, and even promote. We are most horribly affrighted {Perhorrescimus'), venerable brethren, when we see with what monsters of doctrine, with what portents of evil we are over­ whelmed (pbruamur)." Nearly everything that can be said or thought against this truly horrible presumption, which ignores and hushes up, and utterly disregards or sternly con­ demns all but its own one-sided kind of evidence or argument, will be found, on reflection, easily and equally applicable to such lectures and sermons as those of which I have given specimens. Is it not clear that this very same old SPIRIT OF Popery, with only a slight alteration of form and expression, has again got possession of our Protestant pulpits and schools, and that much of the Reforma­ tion work will have to be done over again, before we can expect to get rid of its present unwholesome superstitious influence in many branches of the Church 1 The root and essence of Popery, and of all false religion, the foundation of all superstitious belief, is the submission of man’s Reason to some external standard or symbol of “ Authority above Reason.” The root and essence of true Christianity, of true Protestantism, and of all true religion, the founda­ tion of all rational belief, is the free exercise of Rea­ son, liberation of the intellect, liberty of conscience, private judgment. These two kinds of religion or belief are as dis­ tinctly opposed to each other, as are the two prin­ ciples or foundations on which they respectively rest; and there is no possibility of reconciling them, nor of finding any tenable middle way or halting place �28 Reason and the Bible. between the two ; for all things are full of progress, and the increase, as a general rule, is according to the kind. The distinction, moreover, is not merely such as there is between two opposite positions, but rather such as there is between two opposite direc­ tions; and no man can be travelling simultaneously towards both the rising and the setting of the equi­ noctial sun. “All worship is idolatry,” says the great thinker, Thomas Carlyle, the meaning of which appears to be that every man who worships the Infinite or the Unseen, worships his own symbol or conception of the Infinite or the Unseen, which can in no case be what the Infinite and Unseen is, so that the likeness or unlikeness of the symbol-—the truth or the false­ hood of the conception—can only be relative and comparative terms, no possible symbol or conception being absolutely, perfectly appropriate or true. But he adds,—“Blameable idolatry is insincere idolatry,” the meaning of which evidently is that, when doubts have to be stifled, because the only possible solution of them is unbelief,—when the voice of Reason is disregarded, that another voice may be obeyed, which Reason may not test, and therefore cannot approve, —then begins false worship or blameable idolatry. So long as there is no conflict between Reason and Authority,—between the conscience and the Idol, the worship may be reasonable and sincere, the idolatry is not blameable, for “ where there is no law there can be no transgression of the law.” But, so soon as the conflict arises,—so soon as the antagonism is known and felt by any individual, all true worship of the old symbol or conception is at an end for him. Carelesslessness, indifference, and mental sloth may, for a time, swell the ranks of neutrality; but every serious, thoughtful mind is, in such circumstances, unable to rest until it has made the choice, by deciding between the rival claims of Reason and Conscience on the one �Reason and the Bible. 39 hand, and of Authority, Tradition, or the Idol, on the other. Such is the time in which it is our lot to live. The conflict has arisen, and has come to such a height, that it is, now and henceforth, difficult for any think­ ing man not to know and feel the antagonism between the rival claims for supremacy of Reason and the Bible. Every serious mind is now again being chal­ lenged and compelled to make a choice, by determ ining whether the supreme authority of the Bible shall be maintained by the submission of Reason, or whether the supreme authority of Reason shall this time again triumph over the worship of an Idol, con­ demned by Reason, over the asserted and assumed divinity and authority of a book, said to be the Word of God, but with which Reason does not and cannot harmonise, as Reason can and does harmonise with every true Word of God. The startling fact, to which men are day by day awakening, is, that this question between Reason and the Bible, which is at present challenging the verdict of every inquiring religious mind, is just the very same old question in a new form, as that which men were invited, and many constrained, to settle for themselves individually, at the time when the first clear light of Christianity shone upon the supersti­ tious gloom of J ewish and heathen traditional beliefs, and again at the time when the dawn of the Protes­ tant Reformation broke forth amidst the darkness of Popish unreasonableness and intellectual submission to authority. The love of truth and of humanity is now again constraining men here and there to stand forth, as of old, against dogmatism and superstition, and against the antiquated and obstructive idea, that those who ought to be the leaders and guides of the people in ascertaining whatever is truest and best, should be bound by oaths and bribed by emoluments to maintain the existing fabric of opinion and custom. �40 Reason and the Bible. Not from Christianity, nor from Protestantism, have we received “ the spirit of bondage again to fear.’ Why should not our religious teachers be, as our scientific teachers are, free to follow evidence, truth, a,nd fact, wherever these may lead, no matter what existing theory or practice may thus be imperilled or overthrown ? Why should they not stir up the gift of God which is in them, as the Apostle Paul says to the young preacher, “ for God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind ? ” Fear cannot enlighten the mind, nor enlarge and strengthen the understanding—cannot elevate the emotions, nor purify the affections—can­ not subdue the will, even when it forces compliance or assent—cannot convince the reason, although it may stifle inquiry and discussion. There may be much internal rebellion, even where there is so much external submission and conformity as may be thought necessary for safety or for comfort. Every one knows that this is a common fact of daily observation, not only in religion, but also in politics and in family affairs. But surely it is the very height of folly to imagine that we can propitiate or please the Father of our spirits by being afraid to think. Surely it is gross superstition to be deterred, by dread of .His displeasure, from the freest, fullest, upright, serious exercise of reason. “ If anything is clear,” says an American writer, “ it is, that faith is large in pro­ portion as it dares to put things to the proof. Fear and laziness can accept beliefs ; only trust and cour­ age will question them. To reject consecrated opi­ nions demands a consecrated mind; at all events, the moving impulse to such rejection is faith—faith in reason ; faith in the mind’s ability to attain truth ; faith in the power of thought—in the priceless worth of knowledge. The great sceptic must be a great believer. None have so magnificently affirmed as those who have audaciously denied ; none so devoutly trusted as they who have sturdily protested.” �Reason and the Bible. 4i It is not unusual for Bible advocates to declare that they cannot reason at all with those who deny the infallibility and supreme authority of the Bible, because they cannot reason, say they, about that to which reason is bound to submit, and on which all reasoning must be based. To dispute or to deny the supremacy of the Bible is, according to these men, the same thing as to dispute or to deny the supremacy of God. They apparently do not see the obvious fact, that such a declaration is equivalent to a claim of infallibility for themselves or for their own opinion that the Bible is infallible : or else they would never presume to say, that to contend against their opinion about a book is to contend against God. Can they not understand that, even though their assertion about the Bible were clearly and unmistakably set forth in the Bible itself, which, however, it assuredly is fiot, it would still be inexcusably absurd to main­ tain, that doubt or distrust of God is shown by those who express their doubt or distrust of any of the matter recorded in the Bible by the hands of men 1 It seems almost incredible that any intelligent mind should fail to perceive the obvious, wide, and essential distinction between these two kinds of doubt or distrust; but yet it is too well known to need proof, that many of our teachers think, or at least say, that these two different things are the same, and both alike criminal. Who has not heard or read thenstupid declarations, that to trace and exhibit the various marks of human ignorance, error, and im­ perfection, which abound in the Bible as in other ancient books, is God-dishonouring blasphemy, which He will surely punish ! No less weak and absurd would it be for any free-thinking man to be cowed into submission, or even into deference, by such un­ reasonable and presumptuous assertions as these, than it would be for an educated European to be similarly influenced by the candid and common �42 Reason and the Bible. assertion of an orthodox Chinese, expressing his en­ tire confidence in the certainty and truth of his traditional belief, that the people, customs, and opinions of the “ Celestial Empire ” are incomparably superior to all others, and that all men of the Euro­ pean persuasion are “ outside barbarians and devils.” What, then, it is asked, is the use of the Bible 1 Why should it not be utterly abolished 1 If it is not infallible, it is not to be trusted ; and if it is not to be trusted, it can hardly fail to mislead ; therefore, it ought to be destroyed. Freethinkers are often told that, if they would be consistent, they should argue thus, and should set the example by throwing their own Bibles in the fire. I myself have been thus addressed by “ orthodox ” clergymen, and have been misrepresented by others as if I argued thus. It might suffice to reply that the same argument, if sound, would condemn all the treasures of litera­ ture to the flames. The Bible is not infallible; therefore, it ought to be destroyed. No other book is infallible; therefore, all other books ought to be burnt. From Homer to Tennyson, from Herodotus to Froude, from Plato to Mill, from Aristotle to Hux­ ley, from Zoroaster to Dr Cumming,—poets, histo­ rians, philosophers, men of science, and divines have all been fallible, and often in error, whatever pre­ tensions to the contrary may have been set up by themselves or by their admirers ; therefore, destroy the works of them all, so that none may henceforth be misled thereby ! Obliterate all the records of the past, so that we and our children may .be free from the dangerous influence of past delusions and mis­ takes; because in none of these records can be found perfection or infallibility. The argument thus refutes itself, and the refutation applies especially to the Bible. Books, old or new, are valuable and useful just in proportion as they �Reason and the Bible. 43 enable the student to profit by the varied experience, culture, and progress, and even by the errors and failures of other men. Modern thought and educa­ tion, from the village school to the highest walks of learning, are the still progressive fruits of accumu­ lated ages •, and books have, ever since their first employment, been the safest and most effectual vehicle for the transmission and propagation thereof from one age to another. But let authority set the seal of assumed infallibi­ lity upon any one book, and its usefulness will be at once greatly impaired, if not entirely destroyed. In­ stead of a help, it will soon become a hindrance, and so it is now with the Bible. By the dogmatic ascrip­ tion of infallibility and supreme authority, equally and indiscriminately, to the whole of its contents, it has come to be regarded through a mystic veil or cloud of superstition. The intrinsic, direct, and selfevident inspiration of some portions has been de­ graded and obscured, by placing these on the same level with those of an entirely different and even opposite character; the inspiration of the latter being assumed and asserted to be no less an authoritative fact, though neither self-evident, intrinsic, nor direct, as judged by the free-thinking mind. The undeniable majesty, truth, and beauty of very many passages are, by this arbitrary interposition of traditional dogma, confounded by reduction to equality with the weak­ ness, meanness, or repulsiveness of others, which, but for such interposition, reason would now universally judge to be evil or incredible. The intellect and moral conscience of men are stunted, distorted, and hindered in their growth, by external authority train­ ing and constraining one faculty of the mind to usurp the province of another—by subjecting reason to the religious sentiment—or, in other words, by cultivating superstition. The great value, interest, and use of the Bible, far �44 Reason and the Bible. from "being negatived or even impaired, are, in fact, only discovered or vastly enlarged, when it is ap­ proached as a venerable record of human thought, experience, trial, and progress—the divinely appointed education of mankind. The study of past errors, faults, and failures is not less useful nor less instruc­ tive than that of past wisdom, worth, and success. Both alike are “ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness __ « for WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORE­ TIME were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” of better times to come for us and for humanity. TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. � 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 &amp; 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 Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon) Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ramsgate Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from KVK. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1871] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5516 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Protestantism 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 (Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism), 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 Bible-Evidences Christianity Conway Tracts Faith and Reason Protestantism Reason https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b74fae36a8eee2f16ac99f0a44853f84.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=tTG6SAQyY0VZ4QgzXoa9VHxyA%7ED6Jfe96jilzzrRcHU-0Nk5ArifMeZBNZRC6We3WtrrPTGbQANoUPk1P2TVRMSu8ZC8CrNbSii7Z69Pq8G8dgM2u%7E8gkBNa4T-iiBCdQJpQQvsiweM96jY3GxMIh-Zy2ZjMPP8i49VsDees6V0fsnl8HvwlVJuvF298WLlakmHMnnbvwiJ0qn84twm1YeGi385oW9iUU-abpqqKPBJE1paC-soS0WiPYVkG0SNXgehNgsg45VkJEsnWdotUePPa6IRXP7U8a79jhbPVtGT2VRhlBLXdvl0mjPGPpYyN7s6QNhB3s4ZrE0XEN-3xtw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3e9a4a1771f8058cb46b36e315b88b47 PDF Text Text Christianity and Reform. fail seasonably to heed and to an­ swer their appeals. What a benefi­ cent work might we accomplish for the elevation and welfare of human­ ity were we but unanimous on this one great principle—the recognition of all human rights, and to all classes. We need, above all else, to have this radical element of human­ ity and its claims so inherent in our social ethics, so installed in our daily intercourse that we shall recognize in every laboring man and woman 73 an equal, and, as it were, a brother and a sister, having constant claim on our good-will. “He who loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen ?” Here, surely, is a direct re­ cognition of a true philanthropy as the only genuine indication and defi­ nition of true piety and religion. Let us see to it that we have such a religion by the fulfillment of its con­ ditions. CHRISTIANITY AND REFORM. BY MRS. JULIA WARD HOWE. ADDRESS IN APOLLO HALL, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE NEW-YORK REFORM LEAGUE. I have gone to church in the streets to-day, and whereas I came here to New-York to preach, NewYork has preached to me. Not that what I have seen has caused me to dismiss a single conviction ; but that, standing and looking at the multi­ form current of life that rushes by, I have been compelled to acknow­ ledge the insufficiency of foregone conclusions to deal with an element so uncertain, so difficult of govern­ ment. The material distance be­ tween New-York and New-Eng­ land is but about eight hours by railroad, but the moral distance has the whole breadth of the AtlanT tic in it. Europe is visibly here. The power with which your city draws to itself this vast arterial current of life illustrates to me the two-fold character of human nature. Rascality hovers here like the moth about the candle. Villainy is no­ where more desperate, more unscru­ pulous. On the other hand, thought­ ful souls also must come to you. Hidden under your rank and florid prosperity are elements so precious, sympathies so sincere, that the house­ hold of faith itself would be incom­ plete without the New-York rela­ tions. So we who hear accounts of disorder and misrule, who read Mr. Parton’s record of the City Hall, and Mr. Adams’s account of Erie, know that you have better things than these with which to meet and stem the tide of unrepublican ten­ dency which ever threatens you. Woe to you and to us if you had not 1 The time that each of us can oc­ cupy this evening is necessarily so short, and the subject given to us to �74 Christianity and Reform. deal with so momentous, that even I, who come first, can afford to waste no time in preliminaries. Religion in its relation to reform is a theme whose proper entertainment would fill volumes. First let me say that, to the human race in general, to re­ form is as constantly necessary as to form. Nature only half makes us; she leaves us much to finish, and something at every step to undo. So reform is always a word of good so­ ciety ; for if we do not constantly re­ form and transform, the enemy de­ forms. Religion is, I need not say, the true, only reformatory power. She sometimes .wears one garment, sometimes another. The crown of art, the vail of philosophy, the hard and shining armor of the law—all of these by turns disguise her; but when these various forms effect any thing, we find that religion was at the bot­ tom of what was done. Our appli­ cations of religion are often defec­ tive, often at fault. Men build stone cathedrals in place of living temples, and invent stony creeds in place of discovering vital doctrines. In view of this, I would repeat one of the prayers familiar to my youth. I was taught long before I knew any thing of spiritual or other anatomy, that God would take away my heart of stone and give me a heart of flesh. So now I will pray that God would take away our church of stone and give us a church of flesh, with the living blood of the body politic cir­ culating through it. Religion has necessarily a certain opposite to re­ move that society naturally develops. It is not the less occupied with ex­ plaining and recognizing the right of what exists. This two-fold task results in conservatism and radical­ ism, from whose opposition a certain reconciling chord in time develops itself, whose thoughtful experiment shows that radicalism is true con­ servatism. It is most blessed to hold these two poles in our con­ sciousness, and thus to see the jus­ tification of God and man. True Christianity eminently effects this reconciliation, and its ascendency in individuals may be measured by their combined power of appreciat­ ing what is, and of apprehending what should be. Reform, how­ ever, takes its stand on the former of these, and reaches out toward the latter. Let me try to feel a little after the most pressing reforms de­ manded by the time and the place in which we find ourselves. It first strikes me in looking at New-York, that our real New-Yorkers do not know how much work they have to do. In their thoughtful moments they despair of extending through all grades of society the influences which they have most reason to prize. In this they are wrong. “What a man sows that shall he also reap,” is a true promise. He who sows immorality shall reap im­ morality with all the increase of scriptural promise. I know there are here enormous provisions for in­ struction and beneficence ; but if you knew how much divine work is yet here for every man and woman to do, there would be less dressing, danc­ ing, and fashionable visiting, and also less ignorance, misery, and crime. Simplicity, my dear friends, is waiting to be cultivated here, simplicity of life, leaving time for study—human life is so short, it is usual for the world to waste it in consuming what is costly instead of in producing �Christianity and Reform. what is valuable. I know the dis­ tinctions of the market; but in morals, all should be producers. Sim­ plicity of dress, in order that the human being as such may not be effectually disguised in the inhuman Surrounding, in order that soul may have1 a little loop-hole to look out of, must recognize its sister soul. There is a sort of dress which ab­ sorbs the woman utterly ; she is nothing but her toilet. You see this : looking into her face, you see there that she is curious of looks, silks, folds, ribbons, and false hair, a hat which is the crowning treasure of the whole, which, false to its ideal, neither covers nor shelters. How preachers aim through all this out­ wardness and unreality at a vital point, is more than I can imagine. To find the head under its many disguises is hard enough, but to find the heart must be a very discourag­ ing search. Europe imposes these follies upon us; but we caricature Europe in this regard. . Surely, in the bringing up' of us women there must have been a large element of millinery. We had better let it go, I think. Taste can only improve by greater sobriety. Art will gain by the devotion of human talent to worthy objects. Do you not know how people who lead thoughtful, va­ luable lives please us with their rare splendors, and who grace some heart-festival, some world’s rejoic­ ing ? As much does the perpetual self-announcement of trivial and overweening dress weary and dis­ please us. Those notices which we receive of milliners’ openings are followed and seconded by perpetual little notices to this effect: “ I shall put on my spring suit to-morrow. I 75 have bought Mme. So-and-so’s best hat. This Cashmere is from the es­ tablishment of A. T. Stewart & Co.” Really, a discount on purchases ought to be allowed to people who will give the articles such conspi­ cuous display. No other advertise­ ment is needed. Our friends the Quakers did a good work when they made their attire protest against the overweening display of their time. I feel great joy in certain symptoms which point toward a revival of the spirit of Quakerism without its ob­ solete forms. I find that there is a Friends’ college here, and I am glad that that sect is not to leave itself without a witness in the higher walks of learning. I don’t know whether President Grant counseled this in­ cursion of the Friends of the Empire City; but I think their ministration here will be as salutary as among the Indians. I shall always be glad of their influence in the department of education. For while I do hold them to have been illiberal as to aesthetics, I am sure that they have received and handed down the true germ and gospel of ethics as no other religious body has done. This leads me to another aspect of sim­ plicity—simplicity of religion. It seems to me that the simple Gospel, as usually taught, very little deserves the name. This term is oftenest ap­ plied to a very complex system of metaphysical statement, of which the head points are transmitted by authority, learned by rote, and be­ lieved by habit. But this is not the simplicity of the- Gospel. Try to bring back Christianity to the true doctrines of Christianity, and Chris­ tendom howls at your impiety. The process of education is a simplifying �Our Indian Relations. one. The world is all complex to the child, to the savage. Science simplifies by formulating laws and grouping results. Religion needs to be simplified in like manner. The Gospel as an abstraction is as perplexed as other abstractions. Ap­ ply it in life, and you will find that it simplifies itself more and more. Peo­ ple may talk as much as they will of the subtleties which it delights man­ kind both to invent and to refute. This may be a harmless, even a useful mental gymnastic. But let us seek more and more for this applied Gospel, and for such purity of prescription and stringency of ex­ ample as may help us more and more to its application. And one word more about simplicity. There are two opposite views of God, which, like other oppositions, should illusstrate instead of excluding each other. God may be considered in his three-fold aspect, for every true unity is capable of a three-fold in­ terpretation. But the unity of God remains for Christianity the cardinal doctrine, the simplest, most scien­ tific and practical. So pray let us hold to this divine unity, which does not exclude the study of trinity, but which must preclude any such divi­ sion. I think you ought to have more Unitarian churches in NewYork—more, and other. The want of centrality makes itself felt in this. Much thought which orthodoxy fails to crystallize does not enter into the faithful combination which forms a church; and this is the last place in the world in which such a concourse of consciences can be dis­ pensed with. Here the faithful should constantly meet, and uphold each other in the constant, peaceable warfare against the wrongs that un dermine society. nz OUR INDIAN RELATIONS. BY COLONEL S. F. TAPPAN. “ A sound of war is on the western wind; The sun, with fiery flame, sweeps down the sky ; Athwart his breast the crimson shadows fly Of fearless forms no fetters e’er can bind. * “ The eagle plunges from his mountain nest, And screaming, soars above the distant plain, ' Plucking his plumes without a pang of pain, Though stained with blood from his own beating breast.” Again is the country startled by reports of an impending conflict, the hurrying of troops to the plains, and active preparations for an armed contest with the Sioux Indians. The excitement is temporarily allayed by an occasional telegram from Wash- ington, that the general of the army is confident that there is to be no serious trouble after all. He is alarmed, and foolishly imagines that, having raised the storm, he can control it. He very well knew—for he is not an idiot—that when he, with his � 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 &amp; 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 Christianity and reform Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Howe, Julia Ward [1819-1910] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [Chicago] Collation: 73-76 p. 25 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From The Standard. Vol. 1, no. 2, June 1870. Address in Apollo Hall under the auspices of the New-York Reform League. Julia Ward Howe was an American poet and author, best known for writing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." She was also an advocate for abolitionism and was a social activist, particularly for women's suffrage. Printed in double columns. 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 [1870] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5441 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity 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 (Christianity and reform), 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 Christianity Conway Tracts Reform https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5033ed62752449c385d308a24adfa664.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=Aa1pXUsdlgsJkzw5-6F0dT4H25iVLv7Ljbh9DmLnTs5-9wVPG2cYBRqF86xIgBY89PCT3LrIHR3SxYoaZLJx%7ElJJl88C86EKdCINbXTag6rJVgxZ8AG%7ErTcBC10gmm8uAdwxa7pwAxxJHie4MGUBfcqEMlHzwEqTaJEoWv6WxAj3FRjXSIqczNaE1pc0OKnY-5O-GKTiNr3Q5YQw0d%7E6D9ICvmgiabdrU6%7Ez8jPAsayou4Z%7E5gij0dtFxRKYJ9JuftHpdYDPu4gOL7vl2cAzmsSLPQdJYWRPzc9UO9c4-Gqu1Nj7N%7ELj4Ema0o2MtJFZfhw5%7E%7E1ofvZwVUNABUos-A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 2cabb58acf59683d809f2d9c08d0afd2 PDF Text Text CHRISTIANITY A FORM OF THE GREAT SOLAR MYTH. FROM THE FRENCH OF DUPUIS. “ Light and Life to all he brings, Risen with healing in his wings.’’ PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, NO. 1.1, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. Price Ninepence. �7 �PREFACE. Ei’kwp tov Geov tov aoparou. —PAUL AD Ool. I. 15. ^THE Roman Empire embraced within its extensive J- boundaries almost every religion of the ancient world; and compelled each one of them to meet face to face all the rival beliefs. The natural result was to discredit them all. Mutual contact produced at first an exceeding fermentation, and then a rapid decom­ position. One nation only preserved its faith; and being more in earnest (from its political condition) than the rest of the Roman world, managed—as the fanatics generally do—to establish for itself a sect in almost every city of the Empire. But Judaism, as it ■existed in its purity, was quite unfit to conquer and overrun the world. It was designed indeed by its great legislators to keep the people of the Jews separate and distinct from all other peoples; and its laws and customs were adapted only to a small nation living in a ■compact territory. But when the Jewish people were conquered, in the first instance, by Antiochus and ■Greek civilization, Greek ideas gradually began to �IV Preface. influence a portion of the Jewish people. And this was especially the case in that part of Palestine which was called Galilee of the Gentiles. In this country it was that Jesus was "bred,—a man destined to he the founder of a new and nearly universal religion,— although, as proved eventually, it came to be quite of a different character from the simple theism which he had endeavoured to impress upon his first disciples. Jewish fanaticism, in view of the coming struggle with Rome, inspired some fervid patriot poet or pro­ phet to compose that singular Politico -Astrological Drama which is known to us as the Apocalypse. This book struck the popular mind at once. It was taken up also by the followers of Jesus, who turned it to account in a way suitable to their own ideas. It was everywhere read in their secret assemblies; and the fierce spirit which inspired it soon filled every congre­ gation with a fire of intense enthusiasm, and the ex­ pectation of the immediate advent of a conqueror and saviour, who should be their Messiah. All the religions of the world (as we said) were at this time in a state of decay and decomposition. All were being reduced to fragments or resolved back again into their elements. A new faith was required for the world, and, being needed, it was gradually evolved. Paul, “the apostle of Jesus Christ,” as he styles himself, gave the first impulse to the new faith by extricating the belief in Jesus from the narrowness of Judaism; and he very soon had his sect of disciples, �Preface. V —now separated from the Jewish congregations,—in •every city of the empire. Paul’s companion and friend, Apollos, introduced the first mixture of Alex­ andrian Theosophy into the new faith (in the Epistle to the Hebrews, of which he is almost certainly the author;) and in a generation or two later this element received an immense development by the publication ■of the Eourth Gospel, which “ transfigured ” Jesus of Nazareth into the Logos of God. The Apocalypse gradually fell into disuse, from the failure of its prophetic announcements; and the religion ■of Jesus was floated by means of this new development. But in order that this growing refigion should become popular with the vulgar it needed that there should be infused into it some popular elements of mystery, and some festival occasions. And many such there were everywhere around,—ready to hand,—mysteries and festivals, which belonged in common to all the decayed religions, and were held and celebrated in every •country of the world. These constituent, elements were gradually adopted into the New Faith ; and all the legends and dogmas of Christianity, as we now know it, have been in this way superadded to the original simpler teaching of Jesus—and were trans­ ferred to it from the hidden myths and allegories of the old nature-worship. It is the glory of the French astronomer, Dupuis, that he has been at the pains of drawing forth to our view in a wonderful manner the curious mythology of the Chaldean astro- �vi nomy, and of explaining to us the meaning of thesemost ancient and interesting allegories. It is from theninth chapter of Dupuis’ abridged work that we have made the following translation, which we now leave totell its own story to our readers. �INTERPRETATION OF THE FABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SUN WORSHIPPED UNDER THE NAME OF CHRIST. F there be any religion which ought, one would think, to be proof against the analysis to which, with the aid of natural philosophy and astronomy, we have undertaken to submit the religious poems and sacred legends of antiquity, it is assuredly that of Christ, or the legend which has the sun for its object under this name. The followers of this religion, in their zeal for pre-eminence, have a sworn enmity against the worshippers of Nature-power, the sun, moon, and stars, against the Greek and Roman divinities, whose temples and altars they have overthrown. This might give rise to the idea that their religion was no part of the universal religion. But a mistaken notion of the object of a people’s worship proves nothing more than the ignorance of that people. The worship of Hercules, Bacchus, and Isis, is none the less worship of the sun and moon, because the Greeks held Hercules and Bacchus to be mortals deified, and the Egyptians thought Isis was a gentle princess, who had reigned over Egypt in olden time. The Romans mocked at the deities worshipped on the Nile banks. They denounced Anubis, Isis, and Serapis, and honoured Mercury, Diana, Ceres, and Pluto. These are the same deities under other names; but such I �8 The Sun Worshipped is the influence of names over the ignorant. Plato said that the Greeks were worshippers of the sun, moon, and stars from the earliest ages ; but Plato failed to see that they still kept to the same deities in his own day, under the names of Hercules, Bacchus, Apollo, Diana, Aesculapius, &c. In full conviction that the opinion of a nation as to the character of its religion proves no more than its own belief, without changing the nature of the religion itself, we shall pursue our researches even into the sanctuaries of modern Borne. The Lamb-God there worshipped is the Boman Jupiter, who often took the form of the Bam or Lamb of Spring, with the title of Ammon. The vanquisher of the Prince of Darkness at Easter, is the same God who in the Bacchic legends triumphs over Typhon at this season, undoing the evil brought by him into the world under the form of a serpent. Here also we recognise, under the name of Peter, old Janus, with his keys and his skiff, at the head of the twelve deities of the twelve months with their altars at his feet. There are prejudices to be overcome; many persons will readily allow that Bacchus and Hercules are nothing but the sun, yet by no means admit that the worship of Christ is nothing else than sun-worship. Let such persons bear in mind that the Greeks and Bomans would have readily con­ ceded this point to us, on the evidence we have to pro­ duce ; whereas they would not so easily have given up their conception of Hercules and Bacchus, as heroic princes deified for their mighty deeds. Every one is on the alert against all attacks upon prejudice, strengthened by education, habit, and example. Not­ withstanding all the luminous proofs, with which we shall maintain our statement, we do not expect any disciples, except such wise and sincere friend's of truth, as are willing to sacrifice prejudice to conviction. Eor such alone we write; the masses are victims of ignor­ ance, led away like sheep by the priests, that fatten upon their credulity. �Under the name of Christ. g We shall not enter upon the question, whether the Christian religion is a revealed religion, or not. Philo­ sophy has1 made too great advance in our day to re­ quire us to argue about any other communications from God to man, than such as are provided by the light of reason, and the contemplation of nature. We shall not even at present examine into the question of the actual existence of a philosopher, or impostor, named Christ, the founder of the religion known by the name of Christianity. For even if we were to concede this point, Christians would not be satisfied unless we were to acknowledge Christ to be an inspired man, a son of God, nay, himself a God, crucified for our sins. They require a God, who once took food upon earth, and is now the food of his people. Now we are far from granting so much as ^liis, but we invite all who are content to regard him as a human philosopher, to enter upon this question, when we have analysed the religion of Christians, independently of its possible founder or founders. Whether it owes its institution to one man or to many ; whether its origin dates from the time of Augustus or Tiberius according to the commonly re­ ceived legend, or goes back to a much more remote antiquity, deriving its source from the worship of Mithra established in Persia, Armenia, Cappadocia, and even in Pome, as we ourselves believe, the chief point is thoroughly to investigate the nature of Christian worship, whoever its author may have been. We shall be able to show that it is the worship of nature and of the sun; and that the hero of the legends known by the name of gospels, is the same who has been celebrated with far more genius in the poems written in honour of Bacchus, Osiris, Hercules, Adonis, and others. We have here the pretended story of a God born of a virgin at the winter solstice, and rising again at Easter or the vernal equinox, after a descent into hell; a God who takes about with him a retinue of twelve �io “The Sun Worshipped apostles, whose leader has the attributes of Janus; a God who vanquishes the Prince of Darkness, introduces mankind into the realnls of light, and remedies the ills of nature. When we shall have shown that this isnothing more than a solar myth like the rest, it will be almost as unnecessary to enquire, whether a man named Christ ever lived, as whether there was a real chieftain called Hercules. Only let the proof hold good that the Being worshipped under the name Christ is the sun, and that the miraculous part of the legend refers to this heavenly body. Then it will be seen that Christians are only sun-worshippers, and their priests hold the same religion as the Peruvians whom they massacred. Let us proceed to examine the dogmatic basis of this religion. The first point is the introduction of great disorder into the world by means of a serpent inviting a woman to pluck forbidden fruit. The result of this fault was the knowledge of evil, to which man had been so far a stranger ; it could only be undone by the victory, of a God over death and the Prince of Darkness. Such is the fundamental dogma of the Christian religion; Christ’s incarnation became necessary to remedy theevil brought into the world by the serpent that seduced the first woman and the first man. These two dogmas cannot be separated one from the other; were there no­ sin there need be no salvation; were there no sinner there need be no saviour. Now this fall of the first man involves the supposition of a twofold state; he was created originally by the good principle in the full enjoyment of all the blessings he bestows upon the world; then he passed under the dominion of the evil principle, into a state of misery and degradation, out of which he could only be delivered by the principle of goodness and light. This is a cosmogonical fable of the same kind as those of the Magians about Ormuzd and Ahriman, or rather a copy from them. Their books say that the Magians represented the world. �Under the name of Christ. 11 under the emblem of an egg divided into twelve parts,, six of which belonged to Ormuzd, the divine author of good and light, and six to Ahriman, the author of evil and darkness. The good and evil of nature result from the twofold action of these principles. The six parts under the sway of the good principle comprised the six months from the vernal to the autumnal equinox; the six parts under the rule of the evil principle em­ braced the six months of autumn and winter. In thisway the circle of the year was divided between these two powers, of whom the one organised life and ripened the fruits of the ground; while the other destroyed the works of his predecessor, and marred the harmony dis­ played in earth and heaven during the six months of spring and summer. This cosmogonical idea has been presented again in another form by the Magians. They suppose that out of infinite time or eternity is born a finite period which perpetually renews itself. Thisperiod they divide into twelve thousand small parts which in allegorical phraseology they call years. Six thousand of these parts belong to the good principle, and the other six to the evil one. To- prevent mis­ understanding they associate each of these millennial divisions, with one of the signs traversed by the sun .. successively in the twelve months. The first thousand, they say, corresponds to the Lamb, the second to the Bull, the third to the Twins, &c. Under these first six signs, or under the signs of the first six months of the year divided by the equinoxes, they place the genial rule of the principle of light, under the other six signs the sphere of the evil principle. With the seventh sign, corresponding to the Scales, the first autumnal constella­ tion, they make the reign of darkness and evil begin. This reign lasts until the sun’s return to the sign of the Lamb, corresponding with March and Easter. Such is the foundation of their theological system, as regards the distribution of the opposing forces of the two principles, by which man is affected in each solar �12 ‘The Sun Worshipped revolution. This is the tree of good and evil under which nature has placed him. To quote their own language, “ Time,” says the author of the Boundesch, “ comprises twelve thousand years. The thousands of God contain the Lamb, the Bull, the Twins, the Crab, the Lion, and the Ear of Corn, or Virgin; in all six thousand years. Substitute for the word years, periods of time, and for the names of the signs those of the months, and you will have April, May, June, July, August, and September, the months of periodical vegetation. After the thousands of God came the Scales, when Ahriman broke loose in the world, afterwards Sagittarius, when Afrasiab shed his evil influence. Substitute respectively for the signs of Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, and Pisces, the names of the months October, November, December, January, February, and March, and you will get the six periods appropriated to the evil principle and his works, frost, snow, wind, and excessive rain. It is worthy of note that in October, or the apple season, the evil principle begins to spread his fatal influences in the world, viz., cold and decom­ position of vegetable life. Then man realises the evils he did not feel in spring and summer, the fair season of the northern hemisphere. This is the idea to which the author of Genesis has sought to give expres­ sion in the fable of a woman seduced by a serpent to pluck the fatal apple, which, like Pandora’s box, proved a source of evil for all mankind.” “ The Supreme God,” says the author of Modimel el Tawarik, “ in the beginning created Man and the Bull in some place above the earth, where they remained three thousand years free from evil. These three thousand years comprise the Lamb, the Bull, and the Twins. Then they dwelt on the earth three thousand years more, without labour or sorrow. These three thousand years correspond to the Crab, the Lion, and the Ear of Corn, or the Virgin.” These are the six thousand years men­ �Under the name of Christ. 13 tioned above under the title of Thousands of God, and the signs appropriated to the dominion of the good principle. “ After this in the seventh thousand, answer­ ing to the Scales, f.e., in Vendemiaire, according to the French revolutionary calendar, evil made its appearance, and man began to till the ground.” Elsewhere in this same cosmogony we read, “ that the duration of the world, from the beginning to the end, has been fixed at twelve thousand years. Man re­ mained without evil three thousand years in the higher region, i.e., in the northern hemisphere. He was also exempt from evil for a second period of three thousand years. Then appeared Ahriman, the author of evil and strife, in the seventh thousand, i.e., under the Scales, over which the celestial serpent presides.” This was the beginning of the intermixture of good and evil. Here in fact the boundaries of the domains of the two principles approach each other. This is the point of contact between good and evil; or, in the allegorical language of Genesis, there was planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which man could not touch without passing under the dominion of the evil principle, the lord of the signs of autumn and winter. Till then he had been favoured of Heaven; Ormuzd had loaded him with every blessing. But Ahriman his rival and foe was fated to poison his best gifts;-man fell a prey to him at the moment of the retreat of the Day-God to southern climes. Night assumed its kingdom; and the deadly breath of Ahriman in the form or else under the ascendant of the serpent of the con­ stellations blasted the fair garden, where Ormuzd bad placed mankind. Such is the theological idea, which the author of Genesis has taken from the Persian cosmogony and presented in his own style. Zoroaster, author of the Magian Genesis, describes the successive action of the two principles in the world, as follows:— Ormuzd, the Light God, and good principle, is ex­ plaining to Zoroaster that he has given to man a place �14 The Sun Worshipped of delight. 11 If I had not bestowed upon him this place, no other being could have done so. This place is Eiren, which in the beginning was fairer than all the world created by me; the beauty of it is beyond com­ parison. I acted first, and after me Petiareh (i.e., Ahriman, or the evil principle). This Petiareh, fraught with death, set in the river the mighty snake, mother of winter, to diffuse cold over sea and land.” Accord­ ing to the phrases of this cosmogony, winter is the evil which was brought into the world. The restorer is the God of Spring, or the Sun on his entrance into the sign of the Lamb ; whence the Christ of the Christians takes his forms: for he is the Lamb that takes away the evils of the world, and he is represented under this emblem in early Christian monuments. Evidently nothing more is here meant than physical and periodical evil, of which the earth feels the shock every year on the retreat of the sun, the source of life and light to all the inhabitants of our globe. So this cosmogony contains only an allegorical picture of natu­ ral phenomena, and of the influence of zodiacal signs. The serpent which brings in the winter is, like the Scales, one of the constellations set over the boundary line betwixt the two principles, z.e., in this case the -autumnal equinox. This is the real serpent, whose form is assumed by Ahriman in the Magian and Jewish legends, for the purpose of bringing evil into the world. Accordingly, the Persians call this maleficent power the constellation serpent, the celestial serpent, Eve’s serpent. They set the track of Ahriman in the heavens under the likeness of a serpent. The Boundesch, or Persian Genesis, says—“Ahriman, or the evil principle, by whom evil comes into the world, made his way into the heavens in the form of a snake, accompanied by the Dews or evil genii, who seek only to destroyand elsewhere, “ when the evil genii were wasting the world, and the constellation serpent was making himself a pathway between heaven and earth, �Under the name of Christ. 15 i.e., was rising above the horizon.” Now the serpent of the heavens rises above the horizon in conjunction with the sun when the sun enters Libra, over which the constellation of the serpent extends : this is the seventh sign, in sequence from the Lamb, in which the Magians have been shown to fix the commencement of the reign of the evil principle, and the introduction of -evil into the world. Genesis, the cosmogony of the Jews, brings the ser­ pent on the scene with the man and the woman, and endues him with power of speech. This is evidently in keeping with Oriental idiosyncrasy and the character of allegory. The foundation of the theological idea is absolutely the same. True, the Jewish legend does not say that the serpent brought in winter to destroy the good gifts of nature ; but it does say that man felt the need of' clothing, and was reduced to till the ground; and this points to the autumnal season. This change in man’s state is not said to have taken place in the seventh thousand, or under the seventh sign; but the good principle is said to have worked for six periods, and to have rested in the seventh : so also the fall of man and the introduction of evil by the devil, or evil principle in the form of a serpent, took place in the season of fruit. The scene of the legend is laid in the very regions known under the name of Eiren, or Iran, and towards the sources of the great rivers Euphrates, Tigris, Pison, or Araxes; only instead of Eiren the Hebrew copyists have written Eden; the two letters r, and d, “I, being much alike in this language. The Hebrew Genesis does not introduce the millennial phraseology of the Persian. But the Genesis of the ancient Tuscans, which is couched in the same terms in other respects as that of the Hebrews, has kept this allegorical denomination of the divisions of time, during which the all powerful action of the Sun, the soul of nature, is in full force. “ The divine architect of the universe has consecrated twelve thousand years to the �16 The Sun Worshipped work of creation. He has divided, them into twelve periods, distributed in the twelve signs or houses of the sun. In the first thousand he created the heaven and the earth: In the second the firmament, which he called heaven: In the third the sea and the waters which flow in the earth: In the fourth the two great lights of nature : In the fifth the soul of birds, reptiles, beasts, and of every living creature in earth, air, and water : In the sixth thousand he created man.” The author adds—“ It seems that as there were six thousand years before the creation of man, the human race must last for six more thousand ; so that the con­ summation of this great work may be accomplished in twelve thousand years.” We have seen that this period was a fundamental dogma in Persian theology, and was equally divided between the two principles. The thousands have been replaced by days in the Hebrew Genesis; but the number six has been retained, as in the Tuscan and Persian. Thus the ancient Per­ sians, according to Chardin, took the months of the year instead of the six days of the week, during which God worked. Hence it follows that in allegorical and mystical phraseology, the expressions thousand years, days, ghaambars, mean simply months ; since they are taken to correspond with the signs of the zodiac, the natural measurement of months. Moreover, the Hebrew Genesis uses identically the same expressions as the Tuscan, and besides retains the distinction of the two principles, and of the serpent, so conspicuous in the Per­ sian Genesis, under the name of Ahriman and Constel­ lation Serpent. The Persian cosmogony seems to be the original, inasmuch as it unites the common features of the other two, and gives us the key to them. So we shall see in the sequel that the Christian religion owes its origin especially to the Magians. We shall look for nothing more in the Hebrew Genesis than in the Magian. In its wondrous tales we shall not see the history of the first men, but the �Under the name of Christ. 17 Persian, allegory upon, the state of man here below under the rule of the two principles. This great mystery of the government of the universe has been held sacred in the theology of every people, repro­ duced under ever-varying forms in ancient rites, and taught by legislators, philosophers, poets, and sacred writers, as Plutarch has shown. Sancthoniathon would have us believe that allegory was in those days a veil thrown over sacred truths to increase the reverence of the initiated. Hebrew Rabbis and Christian divines are agreed that the books attributed to Moses are written in the alle­ gorical style. They often have an esoteric meaning quite different from the letter. We should be receiv­ ing false and foolish conceptions of the Deity unless we penetrated the outer rind of sacred teaching. The first and second chapters of Genesis, especially, are acknowledged to conceal an allegorical meaning, which ought not to be rashly confided to the common people. Maimonides, that most learned of the rabbis, said— “The Book of the Creation is not to be understood liter­ ally according to common acceptation; otherwise our ancient sages would not have charged us with so much care to conceal its meaning, and respect the veil of allegory which covers its truths. Taken literally this work gives most absurd and extravagant notions of the Deity. Whoever divines the true meaning must take good heed not to divulge the same. This is a maxim inculcated by all our sages, especially as regards the inter­ pretation of the six days’ work. Possibly by his own lights, or another’s, a man may come to a true conception of the meaning; in that case, let him hold his peace, or speak obscurely, as I do, leaving the rest to be divined by such as may understand me.” Maimonides adds that this enigmatical style was not peculiar to Moses and Jewish rabbis, but common to all the sages of antiquity; and he is right, at all events, in the case of Orientals. Philo, the Jewish writer, held the same view with B �18 The Sun Worshipped regard to the character of the sacred books of the He­ brews. He has written two separate treatises on allegories, and attaches an allegorical meaning to the tree of life, the rivers of Paradise, and other fictions of Genesis. Though not happy in his interpretations, he has none the less discovered the folly of taking these stories literally. Origen says, It is acknowledged by all who have any acquaintance with Scripture, that every truth there is veiled under enigma and parable. This teacher and all his disciples treated the whole history of Adam and Eve, and the fable of Paradise on earth in particular, as allegory. Augustine, in his 11 City of God,” allows that the accounts of Eve and the serpent, and the earthly para­ dise, were often held to be allegorical. After quoting several explanations based upon the morality then in vogue, he goes on to say, that better interpretations might be found, and he had nothing to say against them, pro­ vided that their historical reality were conceded also. It is hard for Augustine to reconcile fable with history, allegorical fiction with real fact. If he clings to this reality at the risk of being inconsistent, it must be because he has fallen into a still greater contradiction, in acknowledging the reality of Christ’s mission as repairer of the first man’s sin, while at the same time recognising in the first two chapters of Genesis nothing more than simple allegory. As he would have the atonement made-by Christ for sin to be a historical fact, he was bound to maintain the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent as equally historical, for they are essen­ tially connected one with the other. But, on the other hand, the improbability of this story draws from him an important avowal of the necessity of recourse to allegorical interpretation in order to defend such a mass of absurdity. Beausobre said with some truth, that Augustine gives up the Old Testament to the Manicheans, who pleaded that the first three chapters of Genesis were untrue, owning himself unable to main­ �Under the name of Christ. 19 tain their literal meaning without offending religious feeling by ascribing improper conduct to God. So that an allegorical interpretation becomes absolutely neces­ sary for the credit of Moses and his history. “For what man of sense,” says Origen, “ will ever persuade himself that there was a first, and second, and third day, with ■evening and morning, but without sun, or moon, or stars 1 Who is so simple as to believe that God, in the character of a gardener, planted a garden eastward ? Or that the tree of life was a real palpable tree, bear­ ing fruit able to prolong life for ever ? ” This teacher goes on to compare the fable of Adam’s temptation with that of the birth of Love, whose father was Porus, or plenty, and his mother Poverty. He main­ tains that there are many narratives in the Old Testa­ ment which could not have taken place as the sacred authors record, and are only fictions conveying some hidden truth. The Fathers of the Christian Church, who were any­ thing but philosophers, in spite of their unconquerable tendency to believe anything, were unable to digest these difficulties, and required the key of allegory to unlock these sacred mysteries. So we, who live in an age more ready to reason than believe, may be allowed to apply to these marvellous records the character which all antiquity has assigned to religious dogmas, and lift the veil of allegory thrown over them. Every part of this narrative must be a shock to those who are resolved to receive it as a history of events which really, took place in the dawn of the world. The eternal God ■and Supreme Cause assumes a body for the pleasure of walking in a garden. A woman holds converse with a serpent, listening to him and taking his advice. A man and woman, destined to immortality, and organ­ ised to produce to infinity other beings immortal as themselves, organised likewise for reproduction, are placed in a garden which is to hold them all and feed them all throughout eternity. An apple is plucked, �20 The Sun Worshipped which, causes death, and fixes the hereditary taint of sin in all generations of mankind, though they had no share in the theft. This is a crime which is not to be for­ given until another has been committed, one immeasur­ ably greater, a Deicide, if it were possible there should be such a crime. The woman ever after is condemned to bring forth with pain; as though the pangs of child-birth were not a result of her organisation, and common to other animals who never tasted the deadly fruit. The serpent is bidden to crawl, as though a reptile without feet could move in any other way. Such a mass of foolish and strange ideas, as are found in one or two chapters of this marvellous book, cannot be taken for history by any one who has not quenched the light of reason in the mire of prejudice. Should there be any among our readers hardy enough to digest all this, we pray them to lay us aside, and go back to Jack the Giant-killer, Blue Beard, Hop o’ my thumb, the Lives of the Saints, and the Oracles of Balaam’s ass. Philosophy is for men, fairy tales for children. As tothose who agree to acknowledge in Christ an atoning God, but cannot make up their minds to receive thenarrative of Adam and Eve, and the serpent, and of the fall which necessitated the atonement, we must invitethem to clear themselves, if they can, of the reproach of inconsistency. Eor if the sin is not real, what becomes of the atonement ? Or if the facts occurred otherwise than is announced in the text of Genesis, what confidence can we place in an author who deceives us in his very first pages, and whose work, nevertheless, serves as the basis of the Christian religion? Toadvocate a hidden meaning is to acknowledge the necessity of recourse to an allegorical interpretation. This is what we are doing; and the next step is, toexamine whether the allegorical explanation we give is sound, and so to estimate our work fairly. This is all we askj for we are far from wishing that admission of' our opinions should be demanded as an act of faith. �* Under the name of Christ. 21 We quote original authorities, we furnish celestial con­ figurations ; let them be verified: we draw our con­ clusions from them; let them be appreciated : in short, •Ocr explanation is as follows :— The cosmogony of the Magians closely resembles that •of the Jews in principle. Both alike place man in a garden of delight, into which evil is brought by a serpent. Out of infinite time a finite period arises, and is divided into twelve parts. Of these six belong to light, and six to darkness ; six to creative operations, and six to destructive; six to good, and six to evil in mature. This period is the annual revolution of the dieaven or rather of the earth. It is represented among the Magians by a mystic egg, divided into twelve parts, six for the Lord of life and light, six for the power of evil and darkness j among the Jews, by the tree of knowledge of good and evil, with twelve kinds of fruit, as is shown in the gospel of Eve. Elsewhere it is represented by twelve thousand years, six of which -are called thousands of God, and six thousands of the Devil. All these are so many emblems of the year, during which man passes under the dominion of light and darkness in succession, according to the compar­ ative length of day and night. The blessings and the evils of nature advance and retire or intermingle in -dependence on the approach or retreat of the sun to or from our hemisphere. He either organizes sublunary matter by vegetation, or abandons it to its principle of inertia; hence results that disorganization of matter • and elemental disturbance, which winter causes in the world, till the spring time brings back the harmony of nature. At this season, under the equinoctial Lamb, the earth is fecundated by the warmth of the sun and the action of the atmosphere, and becomes an abode of •delight for man. But when the orb of day arrives at the Scales and the Serpent, he passes into the other hemisphere; and our regions are delivered up by his .retreat to the rigor of winter, to hhe storms and devas­ �22 The Sun Worshipped tations, which the evil principle of darkness brings upon the world. No hope is left for man, bnt in the return of the sun at spring-time to the constellation of the Lamb. This is the Saviour whom man expects. Let us enquire, in the next place, if the God of the Christians, whom John calls “ the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” really has the characteristics of the Sun-God, the object of worship in every nation with various names and attributes; also if the account given of him has the same founda­ tion as the other solar fables, which we have taken to pieces. Two seasons in the sun’s march have attracted general attention. The first is the winter solstice, when the sun, after seeming to abandon us, enters afresh upon his course towards our abode; from this time the day, now in its infancy, increases gradually. The second is the vernal equinox, when the mighty orb sheds his life-giving warmth over nature ; for then he crosses the equinoctial line, which separates the luminous empire of Ormuzd, from the darkness of Ahriman. The worshippers of the orb which dispenses life and light to the world, have always associated their principal festivals with these two seasons. The sun in reality has neither birth nor death; he always maintains the same majestic brilliancy ; but in the relative length of .days and nights there is a gradual process of increase and decrease, which has given occasion to fictions of sufficient ingenuity on the part of ancient theologians. They have likened this periodical process of diurnal increase and decrease to the case of man, who is born, grows to manhood, and then decreases and decays, until at length he comes to the end of his career. The god of day was personified in sacred allegories, and subjected to human destiny. He had his cradle and his tomb under the names of Hercules, Bacchus, Osiris, and Christ. He was an infant at the winter solstice, when the days begin to increase. Under this form, his image was displayed in �Under the name of Christ. 23 temples for the worship of his votaries. For then, says Macrobius, when the days are shortest, the god seems to be but a feeble infant. This is the infant of the mysteries, whose image the Egyptians used to pro­ duce from the recesses of I their sanctuaries on the appointed day every year. The goddess of Sais called herself the mother of this infant in that well-known inscription, “ The sun is the fruit of my womb.” This is the weak and feeble infant, born in the darkest mid­ night, of which the Virgin of Sais was delivered about the winter solstice according to Plutarch. This god had his mysteries, his altars, and his statues, which represented him in all the four ages of human life. The Egyptians are not the only nation who havecelebrated at the winter solstice the birth of the sun-god to renovate nature every year. The Bomans assigned to the same period their grand festival of the sun’s renewal, and the celebration of the solar games of the circus. They placed it on the eighth day before the Calends of January, the very day which corresponds to our 25th December, or the birthday of the sun, wor­ shipped under the name of Mithra or Christ. Proof of this may be found in a Calendar, printed in the Uranologia of Father Petau, where we read, “ On the eighth day before the Calends of January, Natalis Invicti.” This Invincible one was Mithra or the sun. a Some days before the new year, says Julian the philosopher, we celebrate magnificent games in honour of the sun under the name Invincible. May mine be the happiness long to celebrate them, oh thou sun, king of the universe, thou whom the primal god begat out of his own pure substance !” This ex­ pression is Platonic, for Plato used to call the sun the Son of God. The title Invincible is given on all the monuments of the Mithraic religion to Mithra or the Sun, the chief deity of the Persians, “ To the Sun-God, Mithra the Invincible.” So Mithra and .Christ were both born on the same day, and this day was the birth­ �24 The Sun Worshipped day of the sun. Of Mithra it was said that he was the same god as the sun, of Christ that he was the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. To Mithra a grotto was assigned as his birth-place, to Bacchus and Jupiter a cavern, to Christ a manger. Justin himself has drawn the same parallel. Christ was said to be laid in a manger, when the Magi came to worship him. But who were these Magi? Wor­ shippers of Mithra or the sun. What gifts did they bring to the new born god ? Three kinds of offering consecrated to the sun in the religion of the Arabs, Chaldeans, and other Orientals. How are they warned of this birth ? By means of astrology, their favourite science. What was their faith ? They believed, says Chardin, in the eternal existence of a primeval Being, identified with Light. What are they represented as doing in this narrative ? Fulfilling the first duty of their religion, which enjoined on them the worship of the rising sun. What name do the prophets give to Christ? He that shall rise, the Rising One, they say, is his name. They see his image in the eastern skies, not in the country ’’of the east. The planisphere of the Magians and Chaldeans, depicted in the heavens a new born infant called Christ and Jesus. He was placed in the arms of the celestial Virgin, the same to whom Eratosthenes gives the name of Isis, mother of Horus. To what point of the heavens did this virgin of the spheres and her infant correspond ? To the hour of midnight on the 25th December, the identical moment to which the birth of the year-god, the new sun or Christ has been assigned, on the eastern horizon, at the very point where the sun of the first day arose. It is a fact independent of all hypotheses and of all deductions, that at the precise hour of midnight, on the 25th December, when Christianity made its appearance, the celestial sign in ascendant on the horizon, to pre­ side over the opening of the new solar revolution, was the constellation Virgo. It is also a fact, that the �Under the name of Christ. 25 sun-god born at the winter solstice, is again in conjunc­ tion with her, folding her in his rays, at our feast of the Assumption, or reunion of the mother and child. It is yet again a fact, that she issues out of the solar rays heliacally, at the time when we celebrate her first appearance on earth, or nativity. We have nothing to do with the motive for placing these feasts at these times. Enough that we have three facts, which cannot be reasoned away. From these an attentive student of the ancient mystagogues may derive important results, unless, indeed, he ascribe them to mere chance ; which he will scarcely persuade those men to believe, who are on their guard against all which may mislead their reason, and strengthen their prejudice. At least it is ■certain that this virgin, who alone can become a mother, according to the allegory, without losing her virginity, fulfils the three chief functions of the Virgin mother of Christ, as regards her son’s birth, and her own, and her reunion with him in the skies. Her function as mother is the chief point before us. The ancients, when they personified the sun, made him pass through the several stages of human life, and invented for him marvellous adventures, the subjects of song and legend. It was usual, especially among the Chaldeans and Magians, to cast the horoscope of children at the pre­ cise moment of their birth ; so they would naturally cast the horoscope of the sun. The day of birth was kept as a festival, and called Dies Natalis. Now, the celestial virgin who dominated the birth of the day-god personified, was held to be his mother, in fulfilment of the prophecy, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; i.e. she shall bring forth the sun-god, like the virgin of ■Sais. This is the origin of the figures represented on the celestial globe by the Magians ; of which Abulmazar has given us a description, and of which Kirker, ■Selden, Pic, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Blaeu, Stotler, and many others have written. Abulmazar says, “ according to the earliest traditions of Persians, �26 The Sun Worshipped Chaldeans, Egyptians, Hermes and ^Esculapius, a young girl may be seen in the first decan, or ten first degrees of the sign of the Virgin. Her name in the Persian language is Seclenidos de Darzama, expressed in Arabic by Adrenedefa. She is a virgin, chaste, pure, spotless, of comely stature and pleasant countenance, with long hair and modest mien. She sits on a throne with two ears of corn in her hand, and suckles an infant, called Jesus by some writers and Christ by the Greeks.” The Persian planisphere, published by Scaliger at the end of his notes on Manilius, describes the celestial Virgin in nearly the same language. It places a man by her side, who can be no other than Bootes, the nursing father of Horus, the son of the Virgin Isis. There is an Arabic manuscript in the Bibliotheque nationale of Prance, containing an illuminated repre­ sentation of the twelve signs ; the virgin here has an infant at her side, and is depicted like our virgin and child, or the Egyptian Isis. Astrologers of old, with great semblance of truth, set the image of the new-born sun in the heavens, in that constellation which presided over his own birth and that of the year, at the winter solstice. This constellation was Virgo ; hence arose the legend that the Day-God was conceived in the virgin s womb. This idea is more natural than that of those who are determined to believe that a living virgin once became a mother, without losing her virginity, and that the child she bore was. the author and ruler of all creation. Thus the Greeks said that their ram-shaped god, Jupiter Ammon, was brought up by Themis, another name of the celestial virgin. She bears also the name of Ceres with the title Holy Virgin ; this was the mother of Bacchus or the sun, whose infant image was shown in the temples at the winter solstice according to Macrobius. His testimony is confirmed by the author of the “ Alexandrine Chronicle ’ in these terms, “The Egyptians down to this day, have held sacred the offspring of a virgin’s womb, and present the �Under the name of Christ. 27 child in a cradle for the people to worship. Ptolemy once asked the reason, and was told that it was a mystery, entrusted to their forefathers by a venerable prophet?’ A prophet in their country is well known to be a presiding officer at initiations. It is maintained, but I know not by what authority, that the ancient Druids also paid divine honours to a virgin, with this inscription, Virgini Pariturce, on her statue near Chartres. On the monuments of Mithra or the Sun, whose worship was established of yore in Great Britain, a woman is to be seen suckling an in­ fant ; and she must be the mother of the Day-God. The English author, who has written a dissertation on this monument, brings together the features necessary to establish the analogy between the festivals of the birth of Christ and of Mithra. But being more pious than philosophical, he thinks them prophetical antici­ pations of the Christ to come. He remarks with reason that the Mithraic worship was spread through­ out the Roman empire, especially in Gaul and Great Britain. He quotes the complaint of St Jerome, that Pagans celebrated the festival of the new-born sun, that is, of Adonis or Mithra, in the very locality at Beth­ lehem which was believed to be the birth-place of Christ. This religion we have shown to be the same under another name, in the legend of the death and resurrection of Adonis. Now that we have shown the astronomical basis of the legendary incarnation of the sun, under the name of Christ, in the virgin’s womb, we proceed to investigate the legend of his death and resurrection at the vernal equinox under the type of the Pascal Lamb. The Sun is the sole repairer of the evils of winter; sacerdotal fiction supposes him to be born at the winter solstice ; three months more he must remain in the lower signs appropriated to darkness and evil, and be subjected to the power of their lord, before he can advance at the vernal equinox to his triumph over night, and his �28 • The Sun Worshipped renovation of the world. Accordingly, he is supposed to suffer all this time under the infirmities of human life, until he reassumes in triumph the prerogatives of the Godhead. The allegorical genius of the mystagogues proceeds to construct a life for him, full of imaginary adventures all tending towards the purposes of the initiation. Just as JEsop, wishing to depict the oppression of the weak by the strong, puts upon his stage animals of different characters, with an imaginary action adapted to the moral of his fable, so in Egypt was constructed the fable of Osiris, or the beneficent sun traversing the universe to dispense the countless blessings of which he is the source ; to him is opposed Typhon, the prince of darkness, who resists his opera­ tions, and puts him to death. This simple idea is the basis of the fable of Osiris and Typhon, in which one is presented to us as legitimate monarch, the other as tyrant of Egypt. Over and above the fragments of these old priestly fictions, preserved to us by Isiodorus and Plutarch, we have a life of Osiris and Typhon, the work of Bishop Synesius; for in those days bishops fabricated legends. In this work the adventures, the character, and the delineation of the two principles of Egyptian theology were drawn from imagination, but yet in accordance with the leading idea of the part which each of them should play in the legend, the ob­ ject being to express in a fable the working of the contrary principles in nature. The Persians also had their account of Ormuzd • and Ahriman, and their warfare ; also of the victory of the good over the evil principle. The Greeks had a life of Hercules, and of Bacchus, with the history of their glorious exploits and the blessings which ensued; these tales were learned and clever poems. The history of Christ, on the con­ trary, is only a tiresome legend, of the same dry and melancholy character as the legends of the Indians, which are only concerned with devotees and penitents and Brahmins absorbed in contemplation. Their God �Under the name of Christ. 29. Vishnu, incarnate in Krishna, has many features in common with Christ. There are certain childish fancies with regard to Krishna, closely resembling what ( is said of Christ in the gospel of the infancy: when grown up like Christ, he brings the dead to life. The Magians, too, had their legend of the founder of their religion. His birth was announced by prodigies. He was exposed to danger from early childhood, and obliged to fly into Persia, like Christ into Egypt; like him he was persecuted by a hostile king, who wished to be rid of him; an angel carried him up to heaven, whence he brought back the book of his law. Like Christ, he was tempted by the devil, who made magnifi­ cent promises in order to attach him to himself. He suffered calumny and persecution from the priests, as Christ did from the Pharisees: he answered them by working miracles in confirmation of his divine mission, and doctrine. The author of the legend of Christ brought the Magi to his cradle under the guidance of the far famed star, which is said to have been foretold by Zoroaster, the founder of their religion. This parallelism leads us to believe that he would not shrink from introducing into the legend many features which belong to the author of the Persian religion. Christianity, indeed, is only a branch of this religion, and bears a great resemblance to it, as we shall have occasion to show in our discussion of the worship of Mithra, the chief deity of Persia. The authors of this legend had neither learning nor genius enough, to produce such poems as those about Hercules, Theseus, Jason, Bacchus, and others. More­ over, the clue of astronomical science had been lost, and the legends were necessarily constructed out of the debris of ancient fictions no longer understood. Be­ side all this, the object of the presiding masters of the Christian mysteries was purely moral. They did not wish to represent a conqueror of giants and of all the evils of nature. Eternal Light was the subject of their �30 The Sun Worshipped 4 mysteries, and their hero was a mild, long-suffering, beneficent being, -who came down on earth to preach by his example the practical virtues, which they sought to teach their neophytes. Accordingly he is made to live in this character, and to prescribe the ascetic practices of the Essenes, which are like those of the Indian Brahmins. He had his disciples like the, Sommonakodon of the Siamese, who was also a god born of a virgin by solar action. The number of his apostles re­ produced the grand duodecimal division, repeated again and again in all solar religions. But his legend is too miraculous to be interesting, and gives tokens of adapta­ tion to Jewish ignorance and credulity. As the author of the sacred story made him a Hebrew by birth, he had to subject him, and his mother likewise, to the religious rites of this people. Like all Jewish male-children, he was circumcised on the eighth day; and like other Jewish women, she had to present herself in the temple for purification. These results naturally follow from the original idea, that he was born and taught, and died, with a view to future resurrection; for without death there can be no rising from the dead. Having assumed humanity, he was made to pass through the stages of childhood and youth, and when twelve years old, he astonished the doctors with his understanding. The moral lessons which the authors wished to convey he was made to prescribe by precept in his discourses, and by example in his life. Miracles were alleged by way of confirmation, and fanatics were produced who said they had seen them; for miracles are always forthcoming, where people .are to be found ready to believe them. They have been seen, or thought to be seen, at the tomb of the sainted Paris, in an enlightened age like our own, and in the midst of a dense population, which might supply a few critics, but many more enthusiasts and impostors. They are attributed to the founders of all religions. Among the Chinese, Eo works miracles, and forty thousand disciples proclaim to the world that �Under the name of Christ. 31 they saw them. Odin, also among the Scandinavians raises the dead, goes down into hell, and bestows upon new-born children a kind of baptism. The marvellous is the main-spring of all religions ; nothing is so firmly believed as that which is incredible. Bishop Synesius, a good authority on this subject, used to say, that miracles were necessary for the masses at any cost, otherwise it would be impossible to kebp them in order. The whole life of Christ has been composed accordingly in this spirit. Its fabricators have associated its ficti­ tious events, not only with well-known places, as all ancient poets have done, in the fables upon Hercules, Bacchus, Osiris, &c., but also with the well-known names of a historical period, like that of Augustus, Tiberius, and Pontius Pilate. This does not prove the real existence of Christ, but only that the priestly fiction is of later date than this period; a fact we do not call in question. There have been many such fabrications; so many as fifty gospels or Lives of Christ have been enumerated. So many marvels were ascribed to him, that “ the world itself would not con­ tain the books that might be written,” as the author of one has said. Full swing has been given to the powers of the mystagogues, nevertheless all are agreed on two fundamental points, the Incarnation, and the Death, and Resurrection. The first point we have already shown to apply to the sun only ; we shall proceed to show the same thing with regard to the second. It is no more than the reproduction of a tragical event, repeated in all the mysteries, and described in all the poetic legends of sun-worshippers under a multitude of different names. We have shown already that Christ has all the characteristics of the Sun-God, in his birth or incarna­ tion in the virgin’s womb ; also that this birth is placed at the season when the ancients celebrated the birth of the sun, under the ascendant of a constellation which carries a young child called Jesus in her arms, according to the Magian planisphere. We have now �22 The Sun Worshipped to show that he has also the characteristics of the SunGod in his resurrection, both as regards the time when it is supposed to have taken place, and the aspect which he assumes in his triumph. Now the triumph of Christ and redress of the ills of mankind is placed exactly at the vernal equinox, in the sacerdotal legend of the Christians called the Life of Christ. They have associated with this season the annual festivals in commemoration of this great event; for the Christian passover, like the Jewish, is always kept at the full moon of the vernal equinox; this is the very time when the sun makes his transition from the domain of darkness to that of light, and reappears with life and light to all nature in our countries. Jews and Christians alike call this feast the Pass-over, for then the Sun-God, the Lord of Nature, passes over to our hemisphere, bringing back his good gifts of which man had been deprived all the winter by the autumnal serpent. Then bright Apollo triumphs over the serpent Python, in the fulness of youthful energy. Then is the Lord’s feast; this title of honour has been given to the sun '} Adonis or Adonai designates the Sun-God as Lord of the world, in the oriental fable which describes him like Christ, as lamented in death, and triumphant in resurrection. In the dedication of the seven days to the seven planets, the Sun-day js called the Lord’s Day. It precedes Monday or Moon’sday, and follows Saturday or Saturn’s day; these two planets are the first and last notes of the musical scale, in which the sun is the central note. Thus the title Lord is duly applicable to the sun under all aspects. This feast of the Lord’s Passover was originally fixed on the 25th March, three months to the day after the feast of his birth, which is also that of the Sun s birth. This orb then resuming its creative and fertilizing power, was thought to restore youth to nature' by beginning a new order of things. He creates, so to speak, a new world on the ruins of the �Under the name of Christ. 33 old; and makes men pass over into the light and joy of his presence, under the influence of the equinoctial Lamb. All these mystic ideas are found together in the fol­ lowing passage from Cedrenus. “ The first day of the * ■ first month/’ says this historian, “ is the first of the month Nisan : it answers to the 25th March of the Romans, and the Phamenot of the Egyptians. On this day Gabriel announces to Mary her conception of the Saviour.” It may be remarked here that in this same month Phamenot, Osiris impregnated the moon according to Egyptian theology. “ On this day,” adds Cedrenus, “ our divine Saviour having ended his life, rose again from the dead, and the early fathers have called it Pascha, or the Lord’s Passover. On the same day also early theologians have fixed his return, or second advent: the new age may be expected to begin at this epoch, for the universe was called into being on this day.” This agrees well with , the last chapter of the Apocalypse, which makes the throne of the Lamb the starting point of the new age, which is to govern the destinies of the world of light and friends of Ormuzd. The same author, Cedrenus, makes Christ die on the 23d March, and rise again on the 25th. Hence comes, he says, the Church custom of celebrating Easter on the 25th March, i.e., on the eighth day before the calends . of April, or three months after the eighth day before the calends of January, the season of the birth of the sun-god. These eighth days before the calends of January and April, were the days on which the Romans fixed the arrival of the sun at the winter solstice and the vernal equinox respectively. As the eighth day of the calends of January was a festival in the religion of the sun-worshippers, so the eighth of the calends of April, 25th March, would naturally be another. On this day the great mysteries were cele­ brated in commemoration of the sun’s triumph.at this season every year over the long nights of winter. c �The Sun Worshipped 34 The sun was personified in sacred legends : for some days he was lamented as dead; and then on the 25th March his resurrection was announced with songs of joy. Macrohius is our informant; the same who tells us that the sun-god is represented at the winter solstice as a new-born child, and in the spring as a lusty and vigorous youth. He adds that these commemorations of the passion, or the death and resurrection of the daygod, at the vernal equinox, are met with in every form of sun-worship. The Egyptians had the death and resur­ rection of Osiris, the Phoenicians the death and resur­ rection of Adonis, the Phrygians the tragical adventures of Atys. In all religions the sun-god suffers as Christ did, and triumphs over the grave, as he did, at the same season of the year. Let those persons who are deter­ mined to make out Christ to be a different being from the sun, furnish us with the reasons for this singular coincidence. As to ourselves, we do not believe in chance, and so maintain that the passion and resurrec­ tion of Christ, commemorated at Easter, are a part of the old solar mysteries, or universal nature-worship. In the religion of Mithra, or the sun-god worshipped under this name by the Magians, we find the nearest resemblance to the Christian mysteries of the death and resurrection of Christ. Mithra was horn on the 25 th December, like Christ; he died like him, and was buried, and his disciples came to weep at his tomb. His priests carried his image in the night to a sepulchre prepared for him : he was laid out on a litter, like the Phoenician Adonis. This procession, like our own on Good Friday, was accompanied with funeral chants and the wailing of priests. Some time was spent in feigned sorrow, then the sacred torch or paschal candle was lit, the image was anointed with cream or perfumes, and a priest uttered the solemn words, “ Be of good cheer, holy brotherhood, your God is risen, his sufferings have worked out your salvation.* “ Why,” says the Chris* Cf. “ The pain which he endured Our salvation hath procured.” �Under the name of Christ. 35 tian, writer from whom we take these details, 11 why do you exhort these unhappy persons to he of good cheer ? Why deceive them with false promises 1 The death of your God is known, his resurrection is unknown : there is no oracle to guarantee the fact: he has not shown himself to man after his death in proof of his godhead. This is an idol that you bury, an idol that you mourn over, an idol that you take from the tomb with sorrow changed into joy.” ... “ Tell me,” says Firmicus, “ who has ever seen this God with bull’s horns, whose death you lament ? ” Let Firmicus answer his own question ; “ you, too, who mourn over the death of the Lamb slain to wash away the sins of the world with his blood, who has ever seen your Lamb-God, whose triumphal resurrection you celebrate ? Do you not know that two thousand years before the Christian era, at the origin of the Persian religion and the worship of Mithra’s bull, the sun crossed the equinoctial line under the sign of the Bull ? It is only by reason of the pre­ cession of the equinoxes that he now crosses it in the sign of the Lamb. There is no change except in the zodiacal signs, and in names. The religion is absolutely the same.” In his assault upon the older faiths, Firmicus seems to have intentionally brought together all the points of analogy between their mysteries and those of Christians. He draws a fair parallel between the Mithraic religion especially and that of Christ, the cause of resemblance being that the latter religion is only a sect of the former. True, Firmicus explains all this re­ semblance between the two religions, by saying with Tertullian and Justin that long before the Christian era, the devil used to take delight in causing its still future mysteries and ceremonies to be travestied by his wor­ shippers. An excellent reason this for such Christians as may be found even now in abundance, but simply pitiful for men of sound sense. We do not believe in the devil, and are not in his secrets; so we shall only say that the Christian religion, being founded, like all �36 The Sun Worshipped tlie others, upon sun-worship, has retained the same dogmas, the same practices, the same mysteries, with little variation in form. These points are the same, because the God is the same; the accessories only admit of change, the foundations remain. The earliest apologists of Christianity allow that the Mithraic reli­ gion had its sacraments, its baptism, its penance, its eucharist, and mystic words of consecration. The cate­ chumens of this religion had to pass through preparatory tests severer than those of the Christians. The faithful or initiated used to mark their foreheads with a sacred sign ; they held the doctrine of resurrection, and won the crown of martyrdom. Their sovereign pontiff might not have been married more than once ; they had their virgins and their rule of chastity; in short, the same practices were found among them which afterwards became current among Christians. True, Tertullian calls up the devil again to account for such an exact resemblance. But without the devil, it is easy to see that the elder of two religions, which are so much alike, is the mother, and the younger the daughter. And the worship of Mithra is far more ancient than that of Christ, and his ceremonies long anterior to those of Christians; so we shall draw the conclusion that Chris­ tianity is undoubtedly either a sect or an imitatiqn of Magianism. The learned Hyde tells us, that the Persians had a theory about angels more complete than the Jewish or Christian; they admitted the distinction of angels of light, and angels of darkness; they were acquainted with the story of their battles, and with the names of the angels that have passed into our religion; they named their children at baptism ; they had the same fiction of paradise and hell, which is met with among Greeks, Romans, and many other nations. They had a hierarchical order, and all the ecclesiastical constitu­ tion of Christians ; which in their case may be traced back, according to Hyde, more than three thousand �Under the name of Christ. 37 years. We cannot, however, agree with him that this resemblance is the effect of a providential decree that the Persians should do by anticipation, and in a spirit of prophecy, what the Christians were to do afterwards. Hyde was born in an island, where superstition almost always ranges itself with philosophy in monstrous alli­ ance ; and unless he was restrained by the fear of shocking the prejudices of his time and country, in thus disguising the opinion to which so striking a re­ semblance must of necessity have given birth, it must be allowed that learning is not always the same as good sense, or of the same value. We agree with Hyde, that the two religions are like each other in almost every point; but our inference is, that the two are one,' or at any rate two sects of the ancient religion of Ori­ ental sun-worship, and that the institutions of both, with their cardinal doctrines, have, at least as regards their foundation, a common origin. The sun is always the god of this religion, whether he be called Christ or Mithra, Osiris, Bacchus, Adonis, Atys, &c. Let us now pass on to the examination of the principal forms which the sun-god of the Christians assumes in his triumph. These forms are naturally taken from the zodiacal sign, under which the sun passes, when he brings back warmth and length of days to our hemisphere. When Christianity made its appearance in the West, and for more than fifteen centuries before, this sign was the Pam, called the Lamb by the Persians in their cosmo­ gony. This was the sign of the sun’s ascendant in astrological systems, and ancient Sabseanism fixed its chief festival at this season. The sun’s return to the zodiacal Lamb brought fresh life to nature every year ; hence the form which he took in his triumph was, in mystical language,—the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. Just as Ahriman, lord of darkness, took the shape of the autumnal constellation which brought back the long nights’of winter ; the God of light, his conqueror, �28 The Sun Worshipped would duly assume in spring the form of the sign under which his triumph was achieved. This follows quite naturally from the principles adopted in our in­ terpretation of the mythical introduction of evil by the serpent. We know the sun-worshippers loved to re­ present this orb with the shape and the attributes of the zodiacal signs, with which he was in conjunction month after month. Hence the various metamorphoses of Jupiter among the Greeks, and Vishnu among the Indians. He was painted as a young man leading a ram, or carrying a ram on his shoulders, or armed with rams’ horns; this last was the form under which Jupiter Ammon revealed himself. Christ also took the name and form of a lamb ; and this animal became his symbolical expression. The name in use was not the sun of the lamb, but simply the lamb, just as the sun of the lion, or of Hercules, was usually called the lion. These are only different expressions of the same idea, and various representations of the same zodiacal crea­ ture in the person of the sun of spring. The special name of Lamb given to Christ as God of light at his equinoctial triumph, is found everywhere in the sacred books of Christians, but chiefly in their book of initiations called the Apocalypse. The faith­ ful are therein styled the disciples of the Lamb. The Lamb is represented as slain in the presence of four beasts, which are also amongst the constellations, at the four cardinal points of the heavens. The twenty-four hours, in the form of elders, fall down before the Lamb, saying, as we read, “ Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” The Lamb also opens the book of fate, described as a book sealed with seven seals. All nations of the earth stand before the throne, and before the Lamb ; they are clothed in white, with palm branches in their hands, and cry with a loud voice, “ Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the �Under the name of Christ. 39 throne.” We are reminded that the Lamb is the sign of the sun-god’s ascendancy, when his orb seems to be lifted up on high in triumph. The Lamb is surrounded with a retinue consisting of multiples of twelve, over whom he rules in the zodiacal signs. He appears stand­ ing upon a mountain; the twelve tribes surround him, ready to follow whithersoever he goeth. The conquer­ ors of the dragon sing the song of the Lamb. It would be superfluous to quote other passages: everywhere the God of light, under the name of the Lamb, was the great divinity to whom the neophyte consecrated himself in the initiatory rites of Christians. The mysteries of Christ are neither more nor less than the mysteries of the sun-god in his equinoctial triumph, under the aspect of the zodiacal lamb. So the figure of a lamb was the characteristic mark of the initiated, the tessera or symbol by which the brethren of this religious free­ masonry recognised each other. The Christians of that day used to make their children wear the symbolical figure of a lamb round their necks; every one has heard of the well-known Agnus Dei. The earliest representation of the God of the Chris­ tians was a lamb, sometimes shedding its blood into a vessel, sometimes stretched at the foot of a cross. This custom lasted until the year 680, down to the pontifi­ cate of Agathon, and the reign of Constantine Pogonatus. The sixth synod of Constantinople (canon 32) decreed that the old symbol of the lamb should be superseded by another of a man fastened to a cross. This was confirmed by Pope Adrian I. This symbol is seen to this day on the tabernacle or small chest in which the priests keep the circular image of their sun-god in gold or silver, and also upon the frontal of their altars. The lamb is often represented as lying down upon a cross or upon the book of fate with seven seals. The number seven is that of the seven spheres, of wrhich the sun is the soul, whose revolution is reckoned from Aries, or the equinoctial lamb. �40 The Sun Worshipped This, is the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world, according to the Christian saying; it furnishes antitheses for the Easter ritual, Victimoe Paschall, &c., Agnus redemit ores, Ac. All the chants of this joyous festival, corresponding with the Hilaria of the older sun­ worshippers celebrated at the same season, recite the victory of the Lamb over the Prince of Darkness. The paschal candle is lit to show the triumph of light. The priests are dressed in white, the colour of Ormuzd, the god of light. Fresh fire and lustral water are conse­ crated. Everything is made new in the churches as in nature. The ancient Romans had the same custom in March; they put up fresh laurels in the houses of their flamens and their places of assembly. In like manner the Persians, at their festival of Neurouz, or the entry of the sun into the vernal lamb, celebrate in song the renewal of all things, and the new day of the new month of the new year of the new age, which is to renew all that is born of time. They also have their commemoration of the cross a few days earlier, followed some days later by that of the victory. Perseus, the ancient demigod, set over the node of the vernal equinox, was believed to have drawn down from heaven the eternal fire, which the Magians keep up in their fire-shrines; the same which the Vestals watched at Rome, to re-light the temple-fires every year at spring-time. An ancient monument shows us that the same ceremony was in use in Egypt. It represents a funeral pile, made of three heaps of wood, each contain­ ing ten pieces, the numbers answering to those of the decans, and the division of the signs into parts of ten degrees each. Thus there are thirty pieces of wood corresponding with the number of degrees in a sign. On each of the three piles lies a lamb or ram, and above is a great image of the sun with rays reaching to the ground. The priests touch these rays with the tips of their fingers, thus receiving the sacred fire to kindle the funeral pile of the Lamb, and give light to the world.. �Under the name of Christ. ■ 4l This scene recalls the equinoctial feast kept in Egypt under Aries, in remembrance of the fire from heaven that lights the -world. In this festival red, the colour of fire, was used as a badge, as in the Jewish passover or feast of the Lamb. This resurrection of the sacred fire, which has its source in the sun, and returns every year at springtime, to restore life to nature in our hemisphere is the real resurrection of the sun-Christ,. With this idea in view the Bishop of Jerusalem shuts himself up every year in a vault, called the tomb of Christ. He has with him bundles of tapers; he strikes a light, and kindles them; then there is a sud­ den burst of light, such as we see at the opera, to make people believe that holy fire has fallen from Heaven to earth. Next the Bishop comes out of the vault crying aloud, “ the fire of heaven has fallen and the sacred taper is lit.” The people rush in crowds to buy these tapers, for they are everywhere the dupes of priests. • The Lamb has been given to Christ as his name and symbol, only because Christ is the sun, and the triumph of the sun takes place every year under the sign of the Lamb, which was then the first of the twelve, and the one in which the vernal equinox occurred. The Trojans consecrated the white Lamb to the sun and theircountry was famous for the mysteries of Atys, in which the equinoctial Lamb plays a leading part. Just as Christians suppose that their Sun-God Christ was fastened to the wood of the cross j the Phrygian sun­ worshippers under the name of Atys, represented him in his passion as a young man bound to a tree, which was cut down in their sacred rites. At the foot of the tree was the Lamb or Bam of the equinox. These mysteries of Atys lasted three days; there were three days of mourning followed immediatelyfby the joyous festival of the Hilaria, in commemoration of the return of the sun Atys to his dominion. This feast was that of the 25th March, the same day on which the Passover and triumph of Christ were �4^ The Sun Worshipped originally kept; then was sung Hallelujah, the true voice of the Hilaria, and How dies, “ This is the day the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.” The well known chant, 11 0 filii et filiaz,” was also sung. There is no difference between these two festivals, ex­ cept in the name of the hero of the tragedy, who is the same God in both. That famous book of initiation into the mysteries of the Lamb, called the Apocalypse, was written in Phrygia. The Emperor Julian examines the reasons for placing this solemnity at the vernal equinox. He says it is because the sun then crosses the line between him and us, and brings back long days to our hemisphere. This takes place, he adds, when the sun-king passes under the Earn or Lamb. “ At his approach we celebrate in the mysteries the presence of God our Saviour and Bedeemer.” The Earn or Lamb plays such an important part in Christianity, only because he fills the place which was held before by the Bull in the mysteries of Bacchus, and Mithra. Osiris and Bacchus, both represented under the form of the Bull, the equinoctial sign of the olden time, died and rose again like Christ. The mysteries of their passion are reproduced in their sanctuaries, like those of Atys among the Phrygians, and of Christ among the Christians. Bathers of the Church and Christian writers often allude to these feasts of Osiris, who died and rose again, drawing a parallel between them and the adventures of their God. Athanasius, Augustine, Athenagoras, Minutius Felix, Lactantius, Firmicus, as well as the ancient authors who have written about Osiris, the Sun-God of Egypt, all agree in their account of the universal mourning in Egypt, at the commemoration of his death every year, just as we commemorate the death of the Sun-Christ on Good Friday. They describe the ceremonies in use at his tomb, the mourning there for several days, and the joyful festival afterwards, when his [resurrection was proclaimed. He went down into hell, and thence �Under the name of Christ. 43 returned to unite himself with Horus, the God of Spring, and triumph over Typhon, the Prince of Dark­ ness, the enemy who had done him to death. The mysteries of his passion were called mysteries of night. Macrobius says these ceremonies were the same in meaning as those of Atys. They refer to the victory of the sun over darkness represented by the serpent; this was the shape which Typhon took in autumn, when the sun entered Scorpio. The story of Bacchus is the same—he was the Osiris of Egypt and the Sun-God whose image was offered every year at the winter solstice for the worship of the people ; ancient writers are agreed upon this. Bacchus died and went down to hell, and rose again; the mysteries of his passion were celebrated every year, under the name of Titanic feasts, or the Perfect night. He was supposed to be torn to pieces by the Titans; his mother Ceres reunited his limbs, and he came to life again in youth and vigour; a bull was killed in memory of his passion, and the flesh eaten raw, because Bacchus, or the Sun-God with bull’s horns, had been torn to pieces by the Titans. These mysteries do not present to view the Lamb that was slain, but the Bull that was torn to pieces. At Easter in Mingrelia the prince tears a roast lamb to pieces with his own hands, and distributes it amongst his courtiers. Julius Firmicus gives us the Cretan legend of the life and death of Bacchus : he will have him to be a man, as he will have Christ to be ; but he confesses, the Pagans regarded these stories as solar fables. True, he is deaf to his own arguments, as many other people are th ours : whether it be from ignorance or from love of calumniating what they do not understand, all the Fathers of the Church have criticised Paganism in the same style. Firmicus even undertakes the defence of the sun. He makes the day-god complain of the dis­ honour done him by such impertinent fables. He says he is drowned in the Nile, under the names of Osiris �44 The Sun Worshipped and Horus, torn to pieces as Atys and Adonis, boiled in a cauldron, or roasted on a spit as Bacchus. He might have added, he was crucified under the name of Christ. At any rate, it is clear from Firmicus that there was a tradition among the heathen that these in­ credible tragedies were mysterious fables about the sun, the very same thing that we are establishing here in our interpretation of the legend of Christ’s death and resurrection at the vernal equinox. The name of Saviour was given to Bacchus no less than to Christ; so also to Jupiter, the god with ram’s horns, whose statue stood in the temple of the virgin, Minerva Polias, at Athens. Moreover, the notion of a god coming down upon earth was neither new nor peculiar to Christians. The ancients believed the Supreme Being had sent out his sons or grandsons on several occasions for the .welfare of the human race. Amongst these were Hercules and Bacchus, or the sun­ god under two different names. Bacchus worked miracles like Christ; he healed the sick, and foretold things to come. He was threatened with death in early infancy, as Christ was by Herod. The miracle of the three pitchers, which filled them­ selves with wine in his temple, may be set against that of the marriage feast of Cana. The festival in com­ memoration of this Christian miracle takes place on the6th January : on the nones of the same month a similar miracle used to be worked in the temple of Bacchus in the isle of Andros. Every year a fountain was seen to flow, the water of which tasted like wine. It would seem as if the author of the Christian legend had collected sundry marvellous fictions, prevalent among sun-worshippers under other names. Bacchus, like Christ, was said to be himself God, the son of God, and the wisdom of God, associated with matter, and incarnate. Like Christ, Bacchus established mysterious rites, in which the serpent, so conspicuous in the fable of the Lamb, was brought upon the scene, as also the �Under the name of Christ. 45 -apples of the Hesperides. These rites pledged men. to a life of virtue. His disciples expected him to come again; they hoped that he would one day take to him­ self the government of the universe, and restore mankind to their original blessedness. They were often perse­ cuted, like the followers of Christ and Serapis, or rather -of the sun worshipped under these two names. Many crimes were imputed to those who came together for these mysteries, as to the early Christians, and in general to all the celebrants of unknown secret rites. Some legends make Ceres, the celestial virgin, his mother; but the most ancient say that Proserpine, daughter of Ceres, conceived him by the supreme Being in the shape of a serpent. This is the'far-famed serpent of (Esculapius, which healed all manner of diseases, like that of Moses in the wilderness, to which Christ compares himself. The offspring of their loves was the horned Bacchus; because in reality whenever the sun Was in conjunction with the autumnal serpent, then the Bull of the Spring rose on the horizon, the same that lent its forms to Bacchus, and bore his nurses, the Hyades, on his brow. In later ages he had to take the forms of the Lamb, and then Ceres, or the constellation Virgo, became his mother, in the sense of presiding at his birth. Por we have already seen that he was represented under the symbol of a new-born infant at the winter solstice, by way of expressing the infancy of the sun-god, who was worshipped under the name of Bacchus in Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, India, and Arabia, of Osiris in Egypt, of Mithra in Persia, and of Adonis in Phoenicia; for Adonis is the same as Osiris and Bacchus, by consent of ancient authors. But under this latter name his legend is different from that of Osiris and Bacchus, and less pretentious. He is no longer a king or conqueror, but a youth of rare beauty, like the sun in spring time. The Goddess of nature falls desperately in love with him. He is torn from her by death: an enormous wild boar in the hunting season wounds him in the generative organs. The ill-fated lover of Venus dies, �46 ‘The Sun Worshipped and goes down, into hell, and is mourned as dead upon the earth. The Goddess of hell, mother of Bacchus, and visited by Bacchus also in the infernal regions, keeps him with her for six months. At the end of six months he is restored to life, and to his mistress, who in turn delights in his presence for six months, only again to lose and again to recover him. The same suc­ cession of mourning and joy was repeated every year. All writers about this sacred fiction have agreed that ' Adonis is the sun : his death is his departure from our regions ; his sojourn in hell for six months is the time he passes in the lower hemisphere, when nights are long ; his return to light is his transition to the upper hemisphere, where he remains also for six months, and the earth clothes herself the while with all the beauties of vegetation and love. This is Macrobius’ interpretation of the legend. He judged rightly that this legend, like the similar tales of Osiris and Atys, had no other meaning than the sun’s advance through the zodiac, with the relative effects of his approach or departure upon the earth. These annual phenomena were the cause of joy and sorrow in succession, and gave rise to religious ceremonies in commemoration of the death and resurrection of the sun-god Adonis. A handsome bed was made ready for him, by the side of the Goddess of generation and spring time, mother of the Loves and Graces. Baskets of flowers, perfumes, cakes, and fruits were offered him, the first fruits of those blessings which the sun brings to life. He was called upon in song to hear the vows of mortals. There was a mournful celebration of his sufferings and death before the rejoicings over his return to life. His disciples first sharing the grief of Venus and then her joy. The festival of his resurrection, according to Corsini, was placed on the 25th March, the eighth day before the calends of April. The funeral rites of Adonis were kept with much ceremony at Alexandria, and also at Athens. In his life of Alcibiades and Nicias, Plutarch tells us that the �Under the name of Christ. 47 Athenian fleet set out on the ill-fated Sicilian expedi­ tion at the time of the commemoration of the death of Adonis. His image was being carried to the tomb, accompanied by women weeping and beating their breasts, as at a funeral. Sinister auguries were drawn from this which the result justified only too well. The women of Argos (for the women everywhere are the 'mainstay of superstition) went to weep, like Martha and Mary at the tomb of Adonis, in a shrine of the Saviour God, otherwise the Earn, or Jupiter, invoked by the name Saviour. Procopius and St Cyril also mention the mournful celebration of the death of Adonis, and the joyful festivals afterwards in honour of his resurrection. Lamentation was made for the lover of Venus ; and his gaping wound was shown like the spear-thrust in the side of Christ. These fictions and these ceremonies were meant to attest the truth of the legend. Men believe such tales when supported by such evidence. Nevertheless, in spite of all the prestige of ritual, the pagans, so called, refused to believe that Adonis was a real man, as our teachers would have us believe in the . case of the sun-christ. They always held Adonis to be a personification of the sun, and have explained the miraculous legend of the lover of Venus, by the natu­ ral phenomena of the sun’s revolution. The poems of Orpheus and Theocritus show plainly enough that Adonis is the god who governs.the seasons of the year. They call upon him to come with the new year, to make nature rejoice and earth bring forth her blessings. The hours and the seasons are charged to bring him back at the right time. Orpheus calls Adonis the god of a thousand names, the nursing father of nature, the god whose light is quenched and lit again by the revo­ lution of the hours, who goes down to hell and rises again to heaven, bringing life and warmth to nature. Under the name of Horus also, the seed of the virgin Isis, the sun underwent the same trials. He was per­ �.48 The Sun Worshipped secuted by Typhon in the form of a serpent, over whom he triumphs, but not until he has been first cut to pieces like Bacchus, and brought back to life by his goddess-mother, who bestows immortality upon him. We find the chief features of this legend in Christian writers, fathers of the church. They describe the sorrow of Isis at her son’s death, and the mourning that gave place to joy at his resurrection. But Horus, by consent of all early writers, is the same as Apollo, and Apollo is the sun-god. Hence it follows that the sun was the object of the festivals in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Horus. Thus it was a fundamental part of sun-worship, to make him die and rise again, and to commemorate either fact with reli­ gious rites and sacred legends. Hence the tombs erected everywhere for the sun-god under different names. There was one for Hercules at Cadiz, where his bones were shown; one for Jupiter in Greece, one for Bacchus, many for Osiris in Egypt. The tomb of Apollo is shown at Delphi, in which he was laid when slain by the serpent Python. Thither came three women to weep, like the three women who wept at the tomb of Christ. Apollo afterwards triumphed over his enemy Python ; and his triumph was celebrated every year in spring with solemn games. The Hyperboreans, whose chief deity was Apollo, celebrated the sun’s return to the sign of the Lamb, at the vernal equinox, and kept up their festival till the rising of the Pleiades. Apollo also took the name of Saviour, a name given him by the Ambraciots. Eestivals were held in his honour .at Athens and Sparta, at the full moon of spring, the paschal full moon of Jews and Christians. Many northern nations sacrificed to the sun at the beginning of spring; and in all the Greek islands feasts were*kept in honour of the genial god, conqueror •of winter and the serpent Python. It would be useless to bring forward other instances of festivals celebrated throughout our hemisphere, in thankful commemora- �49 Under the name of Christ. . > "lion, of the sun’s approach, and of the blessings which he brings. We have given proof enough that almost every­ where these joyful festivals were preceded by some days •€f mourning. The death of the sun personified was first commemorated, and then his allegorical resurrec­ tion and triumph over the prince of darkness. The Phrygians used to call them the festival of the sun’s awaking j for they pretended that he was asleep during the six months of autumn and winter. The Paphlagonians imagined him as bound in chains during the winter, and in the spring celebrated with songs the happy moment of his deliverance from captivity. The . prevailing usage was to bring him to life, after an ex­ hibition of the tragical circumstances of his supposed death. All these mystic fictions had no other object, as we have seen, than to represent the alternate victory of night over day, and day over night, together with the earth’s successive action and repose under solar influences. These annual phenomena were described in allegorical language, under the tragical metaphors of death, crucifixion, and dismemberment, always fol­ lowed by resurrection. So the legend of Christ’s birth nt the winter solstice, and his triumph at the vernal equinox, under the forms of the Lamb, has all the fea­ tures of the ancient solar fictions, with which it has been compared. The festivals of Christianity, as of all solar religions, are inseparably connected with the cardinal points of the sun’s orbit. Whence we con­ clude that Christ as man bears a strong resemblance to the personification of the sun. His mysteries have all the^ characteristics of sun-worship • or rather, to speak plainly, the single object of the Christian religion, in its legends and in its ceremonies, is the worship of eternal light, revealed to man by the sun. This idea with regard to the religion of Christians has been entertained by other writers before us. Tertullian allows that from the earliest appearance of this D �50 The Sun Worshipped religion in the Western world, enquirers of partially enlightened minds have maintained that it was only an offshoot of Mithraic worship, and that the sun was the deity of Christians, as well as of Persians. Many Christian customs have been thought to disclose such an origin. When praying, Christians always faced towards the east where the sun rises. All their churches, and the places of their religious meetings, were of old directed towards the rising sun. Their weekly festival answered to the sun’s day, called Sun­ day, or the day of the lord sun. The ancient Franks called Sunday the sun’s day. These customs were essentially connected with the very nature of their re­ ligion. The Manichseans, whose religion was made up of Christianity and Magianism, always in their prayers turned to the quarter where the sun was. Zoroaster had given the same precept to his disciples. The Manichseans had not altogether lost the thread of ancient Persian belief, with regard to the two principles and the sun-god Mithra, of whom Christ is an imita­ tion. Accordingly they maintained that Christ was the sun, or that he made his abode in the sun, as the ancients said of Apollo and Hercules. This fact is attested by Theodoret, Cyril, and Leo. In consequence of this opinion, the more orthodox, because more igno­ rant, Christians would not admit them to their com munion, unless they abjured their heretical dogma, that Christ was the same as the sun. There exist to the present day in the East two Christian sects of re­ puted sun-worshippers. The Gnostics and the Basilidians, the most learned and almost the most ancient sectaries of this religion, have preserved many features which betray the origin of this solar worship. They give their Christ the name of Iao, which the oracle of Claros in Macrobius gives to the sun. They had their three hundred and sixty-five ZEons or genii, in number equal to the 365 days, which the sun begets, and their �Under the name of Christ. » 5 1. ogdoad, representative of the spheres. In short, Chris­ tianity had so much in common with sun-worship, that the Emperor Adrian called the Christians worshippers of Serapis, that is to say, of the sun; for Serapis was the same as Osiris; and the antique coins which hear the impress of Serapis, have this legend, Sun Serapis. So we are neither the only writers, nor the first, that have classed Christians with sun-worshippers; and if our assertion seems to be a paradox, at all events it is not new. The result of our arguments is that Christianity, whose origin, at all events in the west, is of recent date, has borrowed everything from the ancient religions. The fiction of paradise on earth, and the introduction of evil by the serpent, which is the groundwQrk of the doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation, and his name Re­ deemer, is taken from the books of Zoroaster. It is no more than an allegory upon physical good and evil, which intermingle in equal proportions in the opera­ tions of nature every year. The Redeemer from evil and the conqueror of darkness is the sun of Easter. The legend of Christ’s death and resurrection resembles all the legends and ancient poems about the personifi­ cation of the sun : and their mysterious rites are the same as those of Osiris, Bacchus, Adonis, and above all of Mithra, or the sun worshipped under many differe-rft names. The doctrinal .system is far more ancient than Christianity. It is found in the Platonists, Plotinus in Macrobius, and other writers, who were strangers to Christianity and imbued with Platonism centuries before its existence; the same principles were held by their disciples in the days of the earliest Christian writers. In short the Christians have nothing which they can say is their own work, still less which is the work of God. Now that we have proved that the incarnation of Christ is a personification of the sun, that his death and resurrection are also to be referred to the sun, and �52 The Sun Worshipped that Christians are as really sun-worshippers, as the Peruvians whom they massacred, we come to the grand question, whether Christ ever existed or not. If the question be understood to be, whether Christ, the ob­ ject of Christian worship, is a real or ideal Being, he is evidently a real Being; since we have proved that he is the sun. Nothing can be more real than the orb that lighteth every man that cometh into the world ; he was, and is, and is to be. But if the ques­ tion is, whether there ever was a man, called Christ, impostor or not, who established, under the name of Christianity, the ancient mysteries of Mithra and Adonis ; it matters little to our work, whether he did or did not exist. Nevertheless we believe he did not; and we think that as the worshippers of Hercules were wrong in believing in the existence as man of the hero of the twelve labours, simply because he was the sun ; so the worshippers of Christ are wrong in ascribing existence as man to the personification of the sun in their legend. Bor what proof have we of the existence of such a man ? The general belief of Christendom, from the origin of the sect, or at any rate of its litera­ ture ! But it is evident they know no other Christ, than him who was born of the virgin’s womb, died, went down into hell, and rose again; whom they call the Lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world. Now we have proved that this is the sun, and no man at all, impostor or philosopher; and they themselves, in their ignorance, would be no more willing to allow that they worshipped a man as God, than that they worshipped the sun as Christ. If we look for evidence of the existence of Christ in heathen authors, we shall find that not one, of those at least whose works have come down to us, professes to give any account of the subject. For a century after the date of his birth, according to the legend, we scarcely find any historian who says a word about him; and even what they do say is less about him than the �Under the name of Christ. 53 Christians so-called. Tacitus mentions the name, only to give the etymology of the word Christian ; this, he says, was derived from the name of one Christ, who was put to death under Pilate ; in other words, Tacitus repeats what the legend says, and we have seen that this legend was a solar fiction. If Tacitus had men­ tioned the Brahmins, he would have said, that they derived their name from a certain Brahma, who lived in India; for so ran the legend. Nevertheless this would have been no proof of the existence of Brahma as man; for Brahma is only the name of one of the three attributes of the Godhead personified. Tacitus had to speak in his Annals of Nero and the Christian sect ; and gave the received etymology, without caring to enquire, whether Christ was a real man, or the hero of a sacred legend; such an enquiry was foreign to his purpose. Suetonius, also speaking of the Jews, supposes that they caused great disturbance at Pome, in the reign of Claudius, and that they were stirred up by one Christ, who was the cause of their banishment from Rome by this Emperor. Which of the two historians are we to believe, Tacitus or ’Suetonius, seeing that they are so much at variance as to the place and time in which this supposed Christ lived ? Christians will prefer Tacitus, as he seems to agree better with the solar legend. As to ourselves, we shall say, that these two historians only mentioned Christ on the faith of vague rumours, without attaching any importance to them; and their testimony is not sufficient evidence of Christ’s existence as man. If his existence had been an un­ questionable fact, writers of the age of Tertullian, who had seriously enquired into the origin of Christianity, would not have maintained, that the Christian religion was worship of the sun, and not worship of a man who had lived in bygone days. Let us honestly confess that- men make Christ to be a legis­ lator or impostor, only for want of faith to make him �54 The Sun Worshipped a God, or of knowledge enough of solar fictions, to recognise in him the hero of a priestly legend. Thus men who are unable to accept the exploits of Hercules as real facts, or to allow him to be a God, are reduced to make him a great prince, whose life has been em­ bellished with a colouring of the marvellous. This way of explaining things is very simple, but yields no true result; and Hercules is none the less a personification of the sun. The age assigned to Christ is nearer to our own, than that of Hercules. But when an error is once established, and enlightened criticism placed on the list of crimes; when authorities are fabricated, and some are tampered with, and others destroyed, there is no wray left to recover truth after a lapse of time. If there be some ages of light to the wise and free, all ages are dark to the many, above all in matters of religion. We may measure the credulity of the masses in those days by the impudence of the authors of the earliest legends. If they are to be believed, they do not speak from hearsay, but were eye witnesses of the facts they relate—facts so absurdly miraculous as to be impossible of belief to any one who understands the course of nature. The writers are said to have been simple persons, and the legend is in fact simple enough; but if men are so foolish as to believe everything, and to say that they have seen, when they cannot see at all, their testimony is no historical guarantee. Besides, the writers of the Gospels were far from being entirely without education and enlightenment, traces of impos­ ture may be found in them. One of them, after going through nearly the same story as the other three, declares that Jesus worked so many other miracles, that if they should be written, every one, “ even the world itself couldnot contain the books that should be written.” The metaphor is a little strong; but how is it that of all these miracles not one has come down to us, and that the four evangelists confine themselves to nearly �Under the name of Christ. 55 the same round of events ? Has there been no adroit­ ness on the part of those who have transmitted these writings to us ? no effort to secure harmony enough to establish the probability of accounts, supposed to be written independently of each other ? There are thou­ sands of remarkable events in the life of Christ, never­ theless the four writers of his life are agreed only to speak of the same facts. The rest are passed over in silence by all the disciples of Christ; tradition and sacred history have no word to say. The author of the legend known as St John’s Gospel doubtless reckoned upon having none but good believers to read him. To admit the testimony of these books as proof of the ex­ istence of Christ, is in fact to undertake to believe all they say. For if they are to be believed, when they say that Christ lived among them, what reason have we for refusing to believe that he lived as they say, and that his life was signalized by the miraculous works ascribed to him ? Good Christians do believe all this; and if they are credulous, at least they are consistent. It might be possible that they should deceive themselves and us as to the details of the life of Christ, and still 'their mistake might not tell fatally against the fact of his existence. But again, what reliance can be placed upon authors, even as regards his existence, who deceive themselves and others upon every other point, especially when there is a legend, of which the sun, under the name of Christ, is the object? Are we not naturally driven to believe that the worshippers of the Sun-Christ have created for him a historical existence, just as the worshippers of the same sun, under the names of Adonis, Bacchus, Hercules, and Osiris have done, although the principal teachers of these religions well knew that Bacchus, Osiris, Hercules, and Adonis never existed as men, and were nothing more than personifi­ cations of the Sun-God ? Moreover, there never could be persons so ignorant and so credulous as to be easily induced, like the early Christians, to adopt an oriental �56 The Sun Worshipped legend about Mithra or the sun, without any suspicion on the part of their teachers, who had received it them­ selves from other priests of an earlier age, that they were still worshipping the sun. The older fable was revived by men of defective education, whose intention was to associate with it the elements of morality, under, the name of the doctrine which Christ, the Son of God,, delivered to man. Its mysteries had been celebrated in the obscurity of sanctuaries for many ages, under the names of Mithra and Adonis. The moral lessons might have been put into the mouth of this latter personage, had not his love adventures been too well known. One of the less common mystic names of the sun was chosen, and the authors of the legend adapted to it the events of their own age, with no fear of criticism from a sect,, in which credulity is a sacred duty. It would be impossible to push the impudence of imposture further than was done by the first Christian, writers, men who were either fanatics themselves, or tried to make others so. A letter is quoted from. Dionysius the Areopagite, which testifies that he and the sophist Apollophanes were at Heliopolis, when the pretended solar eclipse occurred which, at full moon, in opposition to all the laws of nature, took place at the death of the sun, or Christ; a miracle of course.. He affirms that they distinctly saw the moon come and place herself before the sun, remain there for three hours, and then return to the point of opposition in the east, where she would not be due until fourteen days afterwards. Wherever there are forgers so shamelessas to make up such stories with any hope of acceptance, there must be foolish persons ready to believe anything, and anything may be ventured. Phlegon has collected a number of marvellous tales, which show the shame­ ful credulity of those ages. The history of Dion Cassius is no less fruitful in prodigies of every kind; which proves the readiness with which miracles were then received. The pretended miracles of Simon �Under the name of Christ. 57 Magus, ancl the ready credence apparently given to this tissue of imposture, show that the common people were ready to believe anything in those days; and Chris­ tianity first rose and spread among the common people. The careful reader of the martyrologies of the first three centuries, and of the history of Christianity, may well blush for shame at the dishonour done to human nature by imposture on the one hand and credulity on the other. Nevertheless, such is all the evidence given of the history, and even the existence, of a God or divine person, who is not so much as mentioned by any writer out of his own sect, at the very time when he might be expected to have startled the world with his miracles. The evidences of Christ’s existence arethe etymology of the word Christian, given by Tacitus, a century after his birth, and a passage interpolated by a pious fraud in Josephus. If this latter author had known of Christ, he would not have failed to expatiateupon the life of a man, who had played so great a part in his own country. Recourse to such means shows, the difficulty of persuading men who are resolved to have a reason for the faith that is in them. If there had been in Judaea a man, who had set his mark on his age, either as a great legislator and philosopher, or as a notable impostor, Tacitus would not have limited, himself to the simple statement, with regard to Christ, that he died in Judaea. The execution of such an extra­ ordinary man would have furnished such a philosophi­ cal historian with much matter for reflection. Tacitusevidently thought the name of Christ of no interest, except as giving the etymology of Christians, a sect recently known at Rome, and marked from the first with hatred and contempt. He related simply what he had heard, on the authority of credulous Christians, and nothing more. So here again we have the guar­ antee of Christian credulity, not of Tacitus or Suetonius.. Much weight will assuredly be claimed for the general belief of Christ’s worshippers, who from age to age �58 The Sun Worshipped have attested his existence and his miracles, just as they have attested those of many martyrs and saints, which no one now believes. But it has already been shown in the case of Hercules, that the belief of genera­ tions in matters of religion proves nothing more than the credulity of believers; Hercules is none the less the sun, whatever the Greeks may have said or thought. A great error is more easily propagated than a great truth because it is easier to believe than to reason, and because the marvels of romance are preferred to simple history. Were we to adopt this rule of criticism, we should oppose to Christianity the firm belief which every nation has had and still has in the miracles and oracles of its religion, by way of proof of their truth; a proof which Christians would scarcely allow; and we shall do no more when their religion is in question. They will say, no doubt, that they alone have the truth all to themselves. But other religions will say so too. Who shall decide between them ? Common sense, rather than received opinion, however general it may be. To disbelieve the existence of Christ, and the truthfulness of sacred historians, would be to destroy the very foundations of history. So they say. Cicero’s brother said also that it would destroy the foundations of history if the truth of the Delphic oracles were denied. Let Christians say whether they think they would be destroying the foundations of history by an assault upon these pretended oracles ; and whether the Roman orator would have thought he was destroying the foundations of history by denying the truth of their prophesies, supposing he had known anything about them. Each party stands up for its own chimaera, and not for historic truth. Astrology has met with wide spread and long con­ tinued acceptance; but its basis is futile, and its results false. It has set its mark upon almost all the monu­ ments of antiquity. It predicts everything except the truth; yet the whole world has believed in it, or believes �Under the name of Christ. 59 in it still. Cicero proves the reality of divination by a number of facts brought together in support of his assertion ; he alleges especially the universal acceptance and great antiquity of the science. There has never been a nation without oracles, divinersj augurs, prophets, without belief in dreams and in lots. This may be true ; but what inference must be drawn ? That cre­ dulity is an inveterate disease of the whole human, race; and that the world consists of two classes, knaves who lead, and fools who let themselves be led. The reality of ghosts could be equally well proved by anti­ quity and general consent, and the miracles of St Roch and JEsculapius by the votive offerings in their temples. Human reason has narrow limitations ; but credulity is a bottomless abyss, which swallows all that is thrown in, and refuses nothing. The science of augury is not substantiated, because A coins Nsevius is said to have fore­ told with truth that Tarquin could accomplish the wish in his mind, which was to cut a whetstone with a razor. A statue erected in the forum perpetuated the remem­ brance of this miracle, and was a proof to every Roman of the infallibility of augurs. The swaddling clothes ■of Christ and the wood of his cross no more prove his real existence, than the print of Hercules’ foot proves that he ever lived, or the columns in the plain of St Denys, that the saint walked there with his head in his hands. St Denys or Dionysius is only the Bacchus of Greece or Osiris of Egypt, whose head sailed every year from the Nile to Byblus, like the head of Orpheus on the river Hebrus. This is a good instance of the effects of imposture and ignorance, when the priest has established his supremacy over the human mind. The Greeks worshipped Bacchus under the name of Dionysius or Denys ; he was celebrated as the founder of their mysteries under the name of Eleutherius, translated into Liber by the Latins. Two principal festivals were kept in his honour, one in spring, and one in the vintage season. The latter was a rustic, �60 dbe Sun Worshipped the former an urban ceremony. A day was added in honour of Demetrius, king of Macedonia, who held his court at Pella on the Gulf of Thessalonica ; he was only another name of Bacchus. The feast of Bacchus was designated in the pagan calendar by these words, Festum Dionysii Eleutherii Rustici. Our good fore­ fathers made of these names three saints, Denys and •his companions, Eleutherius, and Rusticus. On the day before they read the feast of Demetrius; so on the eve of St Denys they placed the festival of St Deme­ trius, and made him a martyr of Thessalonica. He is also said to have been put to death by Maximine, in despair at the death of Lygeus : Lyeeus as well as Demetrius is a name of Bacchus. On the day before this they placed the festival of St Bacchus, and made him too to be an Eastern martyr. So in the Latin calendar, the priests’ guide for the commemoration of saints and the celebration of festivals, we find on the 7th October, feast of St Bacchus; on the Sth, feast of St Demetrius; on the 9th, feast of Saints Denys, Eleu­ therius, and Rusticus. Thus they have made saints of' several different names or epithets of the same god, and given them to him as so many companions. It has been shown in the explanation of the poem of R onnus, the Dionysiacs, that Bacchus married the Zephyr, or gentle breeze, under the name of the Nymph Aura. Well, two days before the feast of Denys or Bacchus is that of Aura Placida the Zephyr, under the names St Aura and St Placida. In like manner'the expression of good will, perpetua,' felicitas, gave rise to two female saints, Perpetua and Felicitas, whose names are taken together in the invo­ cation; and rogare and donare, to pray and to give, became St Rogation and St Donatian, whose names are also taken together. Another joint festival was that of St Flora and St Lucy, flowers and light. St Bibiana had her day at the season in which the Greeks kept their Pithoegia, or opening of the tuns : St Apollinaria �Under the name of Christ. 61 had hers some days after the dayoftheApollinariangam.es at Rome. Even the ides of the month were canonized by the name of St Ides. The real face or image of Christ, vera eicon or wonzca, became St Veronica. The beautiful star of the Corona, Margarita, over the serpent of Ophiuchus, was changed into St Margaret, repre­ sented with a serpent or dragon under her feet: her festival is kept a few days after this star sets. There is a feast, also of St Hippolytus dragged by horses, like the son of Theseus and favourite of Phoedra. His remains were said to have been brought from the island of Scyros to Athens by Cimon. Sacrifices were offered to these pretended relics, as if Theseus himself had re­ turned to the city. This solemnity was repeated every year, on the 8th of November. Our calendar appoints the same day for the Feast of the Holy Relics. It is evident that the pagan calendar, with its impersonations of nature and life, has entered largely into the Christian calendar without much hindrance. These reflections need not be carried further, because the object of this work is not to expose the blunders of ignorance, or the impudence of imposture. Our task is rather to trace back the Christian religion to its real origin, to point out its descent, to show its connection with all other religions, and to prove that it is embraced within the circle of the universal worship of nature and of the sun. The mass of mankind must be abandoned to the priests, but our object will have been attained if a few readers are convinced that Christ is only the sun; that light is the object of Christian mysteries, as well as of those of Mithra and Adonis and Osiris ; that this religion differs from all the other religions of antiquity in its names, and forms, and allegories, while the substance is the same; in short, that a good Christian is a sun-wor­ shipper. • For the future, if men determine to believe in the existence of a personage, who is neither the Christ of the legend nor the Christ of the mysteries, it matters little to us. There is no necessity for this �62 Sun Worshipped under the name of Christ. second Christ, since he would not be the central figure of the Christian religion, whose nature we are interested in defining. As to ourselves, we believe that this , second Christ has no existence; and we think that more than one judicious reader will agree with us that Christ was no more a real personage than Hercules. Undoubtedly there will be others who will admit our interpretation of the fundamental mysteries of Chris­ tianity, and yet persist in believing that Christ was either a legislator or impostor; because they had made up their minds beforehand, and it is not easy to change a fixed opinion. As this is the extent of their philo­ sophy, there is no need for us to labour at length to call their attention to the absence of historic evidence for Christ’s existence as man. � 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 &amp; 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 Christianity: a form of the great solar myth from the French of Dupuis Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dupuis, Charles Francois [1742-1809] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: vi, 62 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Translated from 'the ninth chapter of Dupuis' abridged work' (p. vi) - presumably Abrege de l'origine de tous les cultes (Paris : Lebigre Freres, 1836), by Charles Francois Dupuis, 1742-1809. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1873] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT204 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity 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 (Christianity: a form of the great solar myth from the French of Dupuis), 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 Christianity Conway Tracts Mythology Sun Worship https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d913cd9ebff095abb94061b3f5fc899.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=Dlpd9n8mcob5sF0tFYN3PSqsMcg-bmH3Gr8RzW9YeyJ3xysJ78Cjq-ijqUqkxkB6SjoFPtTvgDO9h%7EbcbP4hgufjJ4L9Js8O6b8PJHCDJc6Q5kZl3AXpw64T1rvXpKx-26h0kCzA7xuzxxIP%7EyL4WjAL1rMy4y0vNImmxWCDGkd9OVDEV1-oh0n4%7EiedUM5EDMt7tv9dNdOn434m2X7cuMT8pSzjQPvdisL8fer0HDDJX%7EYZyd-uCzSI5RIcBkWcskWtZ44R%7EHgZ4wUwX-3zS0Jkgg9EYqQveJAQ-fsZVfCVfyNkcVnf5TvnZ7xuPiYfwACi7OTAbPYToHSS1tZwiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM a9670b765126071aea0152887033a5a6 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY K K1 L THE | HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH { 8 4 < BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL Reprinted Verbatim from the “ North American Review,” August, 1888. Price Twopence, LONDON / PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. <■ 1888. i �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.. �B2-6J5 35? THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH. There is a continual effort in the mind of man to find the harmony that he knows must exist between all known facts. It is hard for the scientist to implicitly believe anything that he suspects to be inconsis­ tent with a known fact. He feels that every fact is a key "to many mysteries—that every fact is a detective, not only, but a perpetual witness. He knows that a fact has a countless number of sides, and that all these sides will match all other facts; and he also suspects that to understand one fact perfectly—like the fact of the attraction of gravitation—would involve a knowledge of the universe. It requires not only candor but courage to accept a fact. When a new fact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and calumniated by the conservatives until denial becomes absurd, and then they accept it with the statement that they always supposed it was true. The old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has pedigree and respectability ; it is filled with the spirit of caste ; it is associated with great events and with great names; it is intrenched, it has an income—it represents property. Besides, it has parasites, and the parasites always defend themselves. Long ago frightened wretches, who had by tyranny or piracy amassed great fortunes, were induced in the moment of death to compromise with God, and to let their inoney fall from their stiffening hands into the greedy palms of priests. In this way many theological seminaries were endowed, and in this way prejudices, mistakes, absurdities, known as religious truths, have been perpetuated. In this way the dead hypocrites have propagated and supported their kind. Most religions—no matter how honestly they originated—have been established by brute force. Kings and nobles have used them as a means to enslave, to degrade, and rob. The priest, consciously and unconsciously, has been the betrayer of his followers. Near Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows. Cattle—twenty or thirty at a time—are driven to the place of slaughter. This ox �4 The Household of Faith. leads the way—the others follow. When the place is reached, this Bishop Dupanloup turns and goes back for other victims. This is the worst side : There is a better. Honest men, believing that they have found the whole truth—the real and only faith—filled with enthusiasm, give all for the purpose of propagating the “ divine creed.” They found colleges and universities, and in perfect pious, ignorant, sincerity provide that the creed, and nothing but the creed, must be taught, and that if any pro­ fessor teaches anything contrary to that, he must be instantly dis­ missed—that is to say, the children must be beaten with the bones of the dead. These good religious souls erect guide-boards with a provision to the effect that the guide-boards must remain, whether the roads are changed or not, and with the further provision that the professors who keep and repair the guide-boards must always insist that the roads have not been changed. There is still another side. Professors do not wish to lose their salaries. ■ They love their families and have some regard for themselves. There is a compromise between their bread and their brain. On pay-day they believe—at other times they have their doubts. They settle with their own con­ sciences by giving old words new meanings. They take refuge in allegory, hide behind parables, and barricade themselves with oriental imagery. They give to the most frightful passages a spiritual meaning —and while they teach the old creed to their followers, they speak a uew philosophy to their equals. There is still another side. A vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly satisfied. They have no doubts. They believe as their fathers and mothers did. The “ scheme of salvation ” suits them because they are satisfied that they are embraced within its terms. They give themselves no troubleThey believe because they do not understand. They have no doubts b ecause they do not think. They regard doubt as a thorn in the pillow of orthodox slumber. Their souls are asleep, and they hate only those who disturb their dreams. These people keep their creeds for future use. They intend to have them ready at the moment of dissolution. They sustain about the same relation to daily life that the small boats earned by steamers do to ordinary navigation—they are for the moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like life-preservers, are to be used ’n disaster. �The Household of Faith. 5 We must remember that everything in nature—bad as well as good— has the instinct of self-preservation. All lies go armed, and all mis­ takes carry concealed weapons.. Driven to the last corner, even nonresistance appeals to the dagger. Vast interests—political, social, artistic, and individual—are inter­ woven with all craeds. Thousands of millions of dollars have been invested; many millions of people obtain their bread by the pro­ pagation and support of certain religious doctrines, and many milions have been educated for that purpose and for that alone. Nothing is more natural than that they should defend themselves—that they should cling to a creed that gives them roof and raiment. Only a few years ago Christianity was a complete system. It included and accounted for all phenomena; it was a philosophy satisfactory to the ignorant world; it had an astronomy and geology of jts own; it answered all questions with the same readiness and the same inaccuracy; it had within its sacred volumes the history of the past, and the prophecies of all the future ; it pretended to know all that was, is, or ever will be necessary for the well-being of the human race, here and hereafter. When a religion has been founded, the founder admitted the truth of everything that was generally believed that did not interfere with his system. Imposture always has a definite end in view, and for the sake of the accomplishment of that end, it will admit the truth of anything and everything that does not endanger its success. The writers of all sacred books—the inspired prophets—had no reason for disagreeing with the common people about the origin of things, the creation of the world, the rising and setting of the sun, and the uses of the stars, and consequently the sacred books of all ages have endorsed the belief general at the time. You will find in our sacred books the astronomy, the geology, the philosophy and the morality of the ancient barbarians. The religionist takes these general ideas as his foundation, and upon them builds the supernatural structure. For many centuries the astronomy, geology, philosophy and morality of our bible were accepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that the world was too ignorant to question. A few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A new world was discovered. There was a complete revolution in commerce. The arts were born again. The world was filled with adventure ; millions became self-reliant; old ideas were abandoned—old theories were put aside—and suddenly the old leaders of thought were found to be �6 The Household of Faith. ignorant, shallow and dishonest. The literature of the classic world was discovered and translated into modern languages. The world was circumnatigated; Copernicus discovered the true relation sustained by our earth to the solar system, and about the beginning of the seven­ teenth century many other wonderful discoveries were made. In 1609, a Hollander found that two lenses placed in a certain relation to each other magnified objects seen through them. This discovery was the foundation of astronomy. In a little while it came to the knowledge of Galileo; the result was a telescope, with which man has read the volume of the sides. On the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the greatest of his three laws. These were the first great blows struck for the enfranchise­ ment of the human mind. A few began to suspect that the ancient Hebrews were not astronomers. From that moment the Church became the enemy of Science. In every possible way the inspired ignorance was defended—the lash, the sword, the chain, the fagot and the dun­ geon were the arguments used by the infuriated Church. To such an extent was the Church prejudiced against the new philosophy, against the new facts, that priests refused to look through the telescope of Galileo. At last it became evident to the intelligent world that the inspired writings, literally translated, did not contain the truth—the Bible was in danger of being driven from the heavens. The Church also had its geology. The time when the earth was created had been definitely fixed and was certainly known. This fact had not only been stated by inspired writers, but their statement had been endorsed by priests, but bishops, cardinals, popes and ecumenical councils ; that was settled. But a few men had learned the art of seeing. There were some eyes not always closed in prayer. They looked at the things about them ; they observed channels that had been worn in solid rock by streams ; they saw the vast territories that had been deposited by rivers ; their attention was called to the slow inroads upon continents by seas—to the deposits by volcanoes—to the sedimentary rocks—to the vast reefs that had been built by the coral, and to the countless evidences of age, of the lapse of time—and finally it was demonstrated that this earth had been pursuing.its course about the sun for millions and millions of ages. The Church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every device that cunning could suggest or ingenuityjexecute, but the conflict �The Household oj Faith. 7 could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerend, was in danger of being driven from the earth. Beaten in the open field, the Church began to equivocate, to evade, and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having failed to harmonise the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of genius, the leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written to teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was not a scientific book, but that it was written in the language of the people, and that as to unimportant things it contained the general beliefs of its time. The ground was then taken that, while it was not inspired in its science, it was inspired in its morality, in its prophecy, in its account of the miraculous, in the scheme of salvation, and in all that it had to say on the subject of religion. The moment it was suggested that the Bible was not inspired in everything within it lids, the seeds of suspicion were sown. The priest became less arrogant. The Church was forced to explain. The pulpit had one language for the faithful and another for the philosophical i.e., it became dishonest -with both. The next question that arose was as to the origin of man. The Bible was being driven from the skies. The testimony of the stars was against the sacred volume. The Church had also been forced to admit that the world was not created at the time mentioned in the Bible—so that the very stones of the earth rose and united with the stars in giving testimony against the sacred volume. As to the creation of the world, the Church resorted to the artifice of saying that “ days ” in reality meant long periods of time ; so that no matter how old the earth was, the time could be spanned by six periods—in other words, that the years could not be too numerous to be divided by six. But when it came to the creation of man, this evasion or artifice was . impossible. The Bible gives the date of the creation of man, because jt gives the age at which the first man died, and then it gives the gene­ rations from Adam to the Flood, and from the Flood to the birth of Christ, and in many instances the actual age of the principal ancestor is given. So that, according to this account—according to the inspired figures—man has existed upon the earth only about six thousand years. There is no room left for any people beyond Adam. If the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man ; consequently, �8 The Household oj Faith. we know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long man has lived and labored and suffered on this earth. The Church cannot and dare not give up the account of the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the rib of the man. The Church cannot give up the story of the Garden of Eden— the Serpent, the Fall, and the Expulsion: these must be defended because they are vital. Without these absurdities the system known as Christianity cannot exist. Without the Fall, the Atonement is a non sequitur. Facts bearing upon these questions were discovered and discussed by the greatest and most thoughtful of men. Lamarck, Humboldt, Haeckel, and above all, Darwin, not only asserted, but demonstrated, that man is not a special creation. If anything can be established by observation, by reason, then the fact has been estab­ lished that man is related to all life below him —that he has been slowly produced through countless years ; that the story of Eden is a childish myth ; that the Fall of Man is an infinite absurdity. If anything can be established by analogy and reason, man has existed upon the earth for many millions of ages. We know now, if we know anything, that people not only existed before Adam, but that they existed in a highly civilised state ; that thousands of years before the Garden of Eden was planted men communicated to each other their ideas by language, and that artists clothed the marble with thoughts and passions. This is a demonstration that the origin of man given in the Old Testament is untrue ; that the account was written by the ignoranc e, the prejudice, and the egotism of the olden time. So, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we do know that civilisation is a growth ; that man did not commence a perfect being, and then degenerate, but that from small beginnings he has slowly risen to the intellectual height he now occupies. The Church, however, has not been willing to accept these truths, because they contradict the Sacred Word. Some of the most ig-< genious of the clergy have been endeavoring for years to show that there is no conflict—that the account in Genesis is in perfect harmony with the theories of Charles Darwin ; and these clergymen in some way manage to retain their creed and to accept a philosophy that utterly destroys it. But in a few years the Christian world will be forced to admit that the Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its geology, or in its anthropology—that is to say, that the inspired writers knew nothing of �The Household oj Faith. 9 the sciences, knew nothing of the origin of the earth, nothing of the origin of man—in other words, nothing of any particular value to the human race. It is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in its morality. Let us examine this question. We must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything, if con­ science is more than a word, if there is such a thing as right and such a thing as wrong beneath the dome of heaven—we must admit that slavery is immoral. If we are honest, we must also admit that the Old Testament upholds slavery. It will be cheerfully admitted that Jehovah was opposed to the enslavement of one Hebrew by another. Christians may quote the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” as being opposed to human slavery, but after that commandment was given Jehovah himself told his chosen people that they might “ buy their bondmen and bondwomen of the heathen round about, and that they should be their bondmen and their bondwomen for ever.” So all that Jehovah meant by the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” was that one Hebrew should not steal from another Hebrew, but that all Hebrews might steal from the people of any other race or creed. It is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were made only for the Jews, not for the world, because the author of these com­ mandments commanded the people to whom they were given to violate them nearly all as against the surrounding people. A few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world that slavery was wrong. It was upheld by the Church. Ministers bought and sold the very people for whom they declared that Christ had died. Clergy­ man of the English Church owned stock in slave ships, and the man whp denounced slavery was regarded as the enemy of morality, and thereupon was duly mobbed by the followers of Jesus Christ. Churches were built with the results of labor stolen from colored Christians. Babes were sold from mothers and a part of the money given to send missionaries from America to heathen lands with the tidings of great joy. Now, every intelligent man on the earth, every decent man, holds in abhorrence the institution of human slavery. ■ So with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the earth is im­ moral, that is. If there is anything calculated to destroy home, to do away with human love, to blot out the idea of family life, to'oover the hearthstone with serpents, it is the institution of polygamy. The Jehovah of the Old Testament was a believer in that institution. Can we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality ? Consider �10 The Household of Faith. for a moment the manner in which, under the direction of Jehovah, wars were waged. Remember the atrocities that were committed. Think of a war where everything was the food of the sword. Think for a moment of a deity capable of committing the crimes that are described and gloated over in the Old Testament. The civilised man has outgrown the sacred cruelties and absurdities. There is still another side to this question. A few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the unnatural. Miracles were as plentiful as actual events. In those blessed days, that which actually occurred was not regarded as of sufficient importance to be recorded. A religion without miracles would have excited derision. A creed that did not fill the horizon—that did not account for everything—that could not answer every question, would have been regarded as worthless. After the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted by the leaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church still had the power of working miracles. If the Catholic Church was still in partnership with God, what excuse could have been made for the Re­ formation ? The Protestants took the ground that the age of miracles had passed. This was to justify the new faith. But Protestants could not say that miracles had never been performed, because that would take the foundation not only from the Catholics but from themselves; consequently, they were compelled to admit that miracles were per­ formed in the Apostolic days, but to insist that, in their time, man must rely upon the facts in nature. Protestants were compelled to carry on two kinds of war: they had to contend -with those who insisted that miracles had never been performed; and in that argu­ ment they were forced to insist upon the necessity for miracles, on the probability that they were performed, and upon the truthfulness of the Apostles. A moment afterward, they had to answer those who con­ tended that miracles were performed at that time; then they brought forward against the Catholics the same arguments that their first opponents had brought against them. This has made every Protestant brain “a house divided against itself.” This planted in the Reformation the “ irrepressible conflict.” But we have learned more and more about what we call Nature— about what we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon the mind that force is indestructible—that we cannot imagine force as existing apart from matter—that we cannot even think of matter existing apart from force —that we cannot by any possibility conceive of a cause without an �The, Household of Faith. 11 effect, of an effect without a cause, of an effect that is not also a cause. We find no room between the links of cause and effect for a miracle. We now perceive that a miracle must be outside of Nature—that it can have no father, no mother—that is to say, that it is an impossibility The intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous. Most ministers are now ashamed to defend a miracle. Some try to explain miracles, and yet, if a miracle is explained, it ceases to exist. Few congrega­ tions could keep from smiling were the minister to seriously assert the truth of the Old Testament miracles. Miracles must be given up. That field must be abandoned by the religious world. The evidence accumulates every day, in every pos­ sible direction in which the human mind can investigate, that the miraculous is simply the impossible. Confidence in the eternal constancy ol Nature increases day by day The scientist has perfect confidence in the attraction of gravitation— in chemical affinities—rin the great fact of evolution, and feels abso­ lutely certain that the nature of things ■will remain for ever the same. We have at last ascertained that miracles can be perfectly under­ stood ; that there is nothing mysterious about them; that they are simply transparent falsehoods. The real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can explain the attraction of gravitation. No one knows why soil and rain and light become the womb of life. No one knows why grass grows, why water runs, or why the magnetic needle points to the north. The facts in nature are the eternal and the only mysteries. There is nothing strange about the miracles of superstition. They are nothing but the mistakes of ignorance and fear, or falsehoods framed by those who wished to live on the labor of others. In our time the champions of Christianity, for the most part, take the exact ground occupied by the deists. They dare not defend in the open field the mistakes, the cruelties, the immoralities and the absurdi­ ties of the Bible. They shun the Garden of Eden as though the serpent was still there. They have nothing to say about the Fall of Man. They are silent as to the laws upholding slavery and polygamy. They are ashamed to defend the miraculous. They talk about these things to Sunday-schools and to the elderly members of their congregations ; but when doing battle for the faith, they mis-state the position of their opponents and then insist that there must be a God, and that the soul is immortal. We may admit the existence of an infinite being; we may admit the �12 The Household of Faith. immortality of the soul, and yet deny the inspiration of the Scriptures and the divine origin of the Christian religion. These doctrines, or these dogmas, have nothing in common. The pagan world believed in God and taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas are far older than Christianity, and they have been almost universal. Christianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the inspiration of the Bible, on the Fall of Man, on the Atonement, on the dogma of the Trinity, on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on his resurrection from the dead, on his ascension into heaven. Christianity teaches not simply the immortality of the soul—not simply the immortality of joy—but it teaches the immortality of pain, the eternity of sorrow. It insists that evil, that wickedness, that im­ morality and that every form of vice are and must be perpetuated forever. It believes in immortal convicts, in eternal imprisonment and in a world of unending pain. It has a serpent for every breast and a curse for nearly every soul. This doctrine is called the dearest hope of the human heart, and he who attacks it is denounced as the most infamous of men. Let us see what the Church, within a few years, has been compelled substantially to abandon—that is to say, what it is now almost ashamed to defend. First, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures ; second, the geology ; third, the account given of the origin of man; fourth, the doctrine of original sin, the fall of the human race ; fifth, the mathematical con­ tradiction known as the Trinity ; sixth, the atonement—because it was only on the ground that man is accountable for the sin of another, that he could be justified by reason of the righteousness of another; seventh, that the miraculous is either the misunderstood or the impossible; eighth, that the Bible is not inspired in its morality, for the reason that slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that wars of extermina­ tion are not merciful, 'and that nothing can be more immoral than to punish the innocent on account of the sins of the guilty ; and, ninth, the divinity of Christ. All this must be given up by the really intelligent, by those not afraid to think, by those who have the courage of their convictions and the candor to express their thoughts. What then is left ? Let me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true is left; it still remains and is still of value. It cannot be said too often that the truth * needs no inspiration ; neither can it be said too often that inspiration cannot help falsehood. Every good and noble sentiment uttered in the �The Household oj Faith. 13 Bible is still good and noble. Every fact remains. All that is good in the Sermon on the Mount is retained. The Lord’s Prayer is not affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the nobility of forgiveness, and the ineffable splendor of mercy are with us still. And besides, there remains the great hope for all the human race. What is lost ? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all the absurdi­ ties, all the cruelties and all the curses contained in the Scriptures. We have almost lost the “ hope ” of eternal pain—the “ consolation,” of perdition; and in time we shall lose the frightful shadow that has fallen upon so many hearts, that has darkened so many lives. The great trouble for many years has been, and still is, that the clergy are not quite candid. They are disposed to defend the old creed. They have been educated in the Universities of the Sacred Mistake—Universities that Bruno would call “ the widows of true learning.” They have been taught to measure with a false standard they have weighed with inaccurate scales. In youth, they became convinced of the truth of the creed. This was impressed upon them by the solemnity of professors who spoke in tones of awe. The enthusiasm of life’s morning was misdirected. They went out into the world knowing nothing of value. They preached a creed outgrown. Having been for so many years entirely certain of their position, they met doubt with a spirit of irritation—afterwards with hatred. They are hardly courageous enough to admit that they are wrong. Once the pulpit was the leader—it spoke with authority. By its side was the sword of the State, with the hilt toward its hand. Now, it is apologised for—it carries a weight. It is now like a living man to whom has been chained a corpse. It cannot defend the old, and it has not accepted the new. In some strange way it imagines that morality cannot live except in partnership with the sanctified follies and false­ hoods of the past. The old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They are not -within the circumference of reason—they are not embraced in any of the facts within the experience of man. All the subterfuges have been exposed; all the excuses have been shown to be shallow, and at last the Church must meet, and fairly meet, the objections of ou time. Solemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no longer sacred. People are not willing to admit that mistakes are divine. Truth is - more important than belief—far better than creeds, vastly more useful than superstitions. The Church must accept the truths of the present. �14 The Household of Faith. must admit the demonstrations of science, or take its place in the mental museums with the fossils and monstrosities of the past. The time for personalities has passed; these questions cannot be determined by ascertaining the character of the disputants ; epithets are no longer regarded as arguments; the curse of the Church pro­ duces laughter; theological slander is no longer a weapon ; argument must be answered with argument, and the Church must appeal to reason, and by that standard it must stand or fall. The theories and discoveries of Darwin cannot be answered by the resolutions of synods, or by quotations from the Old Testament. The world has advanced. The Bible has remained the same. We must go back to the book—it cannot come to us—or we must leave it forever. In order to remain orthodox we must forget the discoveries, the inventions, the intellectual efforts of many centuries ; we must go back until our knowledge—or rather our ignorance—will harmonise with the barbaric creeds. It is not pretended that all the creeds have not been naturally pro­ duced. It is admitted that under the same circumstances the same religions would again ensnare the human rac£. It is also admitted that under the same circumstances the same efforts would be made by the great and intellectual of every age to break the chains of superstition. There is no necessity of attacking people—we should combat error. We should hate hypocrisy, but not the hypocrite—larceny, but not the thief—superstition, but not its victim. We should do all within our power to inform, to educate, and to benefit our fellow men. There is no elevating power in hatred. There is no reformation in punishment. The soul grows greater and grander in the air of kind­ ness, in the sunlight of intelligence. We must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the conclusions of our reason. For many centuries the Church has insisted that man is totally depraved, that he is naturally wicked, that all of his natural desires are contrary to the will of God. Only a few years ago it was solemnly asserted that our senses were originally honest, true and faithful, but having been debauched by original sin, were now cheats and liars; that they constantly deceived and misled the soul; that they were traps and snares; that no man could be safe who relied upon his senses, or upon his reason ;—he must simply rely upon faith; in other words that the only way for man to really see was to put out his eyes. There has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual world. The �The Household of Faith. 15 improvement has been slow in the realm of religion, for the reason that religion was hedged about, defended and barricaded by fear, by preju­ dice and by law. It was considered sacred. It was illegal to call its truth in question. Whoever disputed the priest became a criminal; whoever demanded a reason, or an explanation, became a blasphemer, a scoffer, a moral leper. The Church defended its mistakes by every means within its power. But in spite of all this there has been advancement, and there are enough of the orthodox clergy left to make it possible for us to measure the distance that has been travelled by sensible people. The world is beginning to see that a minister should be a teacher, and that “ he should not endeavor to inculcate a particular system of dogmas, but to prepare his hearers for exercising their own judgments.’’ As a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that they are not “ spiritual ”; that they are “ of the earth, earthy ” ; that they cannot perceive that which is spiritual. They insist that “ God is a spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit.” But let me ask, What is it to be spiritual ? In order to be really spiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the sake of another? Were the selfish hermits, who deserted their wives and children for the miserable purpose of saving their own little souls, spiritual ? Were those who put their fellow-men in dungeons, or burned them at the stake on account of a difference of opinion, all spiritual people? Did John Calvin give evidence of his spirituality by burning Servetus ? Were they spiritual people who invented and used instruments of tor­ ture, who denied the liberty of thought and expression, who waged wars for the propagation of the faith? Were they spiritual people who insisted that Infinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children for ever? Is it necessary to believe in eternal torment to understand the meaning of the word spiritual ? Is it necessary to hate those who disagree with you, and to calumniate those whose argument you cannot answer, in order to be spiritual ? Must you hold a demonstrated fact in contempt; must you deny or avoid what you know to be true, in order to substantiate the fact that you are spiritual ? What is it to be spiritual ? Is the man spiritual who searches for the truth ; who lives in accordance with his highest ideal; who loves his wife and children ; who discharges his obligations; who makes a happy fireside for the ones he loves; who succors the oppressed : who gives his honest opinions; who is guided by principle ; who is merciful and just ? �16 The Household of Faith. . Is the man spiritual who loves the beautiful; who is thrilled by­ music, and touched to tears in the presence of the sublime, the heroic, and the self-denying ? Is the man spiritual who endeavors by thought and deed to ennoble the hunian race ? The defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should know that the foundations are insecure* They should hav£the courage to defend, or the candor to abandon* If the Bible is an inspired book, it ought to be true. Its defenders must admit that Jehovah knew the facts not only about the earth, but about the stars, and that the Creator of the universe knew all about geology and astronomy even four thousand years ago' The champions'of Christianity must show that the Bible tells the truth about the Creation of Man, the Garden of Eden, the Tempta­ tion, the Fall, and the Flood. They must take the ground that the sacred book is historically correct; that the events related really hap­ pened ; that the miracles were actually performed,; that the laws pro­ mulgated from Sinai were and are wise and just, and that nothing ig upheld, commanded, endorsed, or in any way approved or sustained that is not absolutely right. In other words, if they insist that a being of infinite goodness and intelligence is the author,of the Bible, they must be ready to show that it is absolutely perfect. They must defend its astronomy, geology, history, miracle, and morality. If the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man is a special creation, millions of facts must have conspired, millions of ages ago, to deceive the scientific world of to-day. If the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should go back to the barbarism of the lash and chain. If the Bible is true, polygamy is the highest form of virtue. If the Bible is true, Nature has a master,, and the miraculous is independent of and superior to cause and effect. If the Bible is true, most of the children of men are destined to suffer eternal pain. If the Bible is true, the science known as astronomy is a collection of mistakes—the telescope is a false witness, and light is a luminous liar. If the Bible is true, the science known as geology is» false and every fossil is a petrified perjurer. The defenders of orthodox creeds should have the courage to candidly answer at least two questions: First, Is the Bible inspired?» Second, Is the Bible true? And when they answer these questions, they should remember that if the Bible is true, it meeds no inspiration,, and that if not true; inspiration can do it no good. 4 � 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 &amp; 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 household of faith 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. ; 19 cm. Notes: "Reprinted verbatim from the North American Review, August, 1888." No. 35a in Stein checklist. 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 1888 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N359 G5775 Subject The topic of the resource Faith Christianity 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 household of faith), 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 Christianity Faith NSS