1
10
23
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ba92ac61d491eb62b28486e13393feb6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gFEMKcEbnix5GEEt1%7ElMQiWFr760RxiE%7EwINqX-hpGTgGinfqfgx0qpweveXKpjMobpDG%7E05f7f9bkSYogK4bjQ6PUWwLf32VTkUBZf-yFvG302bJ793yKjrpYKc8QJDKcc4dvWX3qyT6epdvRk%7E7guyhC-W%7EV1VzqS6JHoun-NjuvHNBC1epwQQ4YXQM5j07PUiJhyCfiXv8L6rkO%7E4UolygggeKXeVFzLSf3%7EFPMyi%7EwAyG1LMjyOoO8jFs2%7EsVqIG57zxTVb515lO-jB7vAHpfa3M46YN%7E7UeZdCJvKgLwcwnQQaEHUw8SyPnV2RduahfcHwftkDD0IQSDxGApw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3f23529afa838e82eeb8b2eb3d2dce18
PDF Text
Text
B %V I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
G. W. FOOTE.
ITonbott:
X PROGRESSIVE
/
Y
Vi*
cm
'
PUBLISHING
COMPANY, .
28 STONECUTTER STREET, KO.
��B 2>7 (
ON
DARWIN
GOD
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1889.
�4
LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. 57. EOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
--------- •----------
Only a few feet from the tomb of Sir Isaac Newton,
in Westminster Abbey, lie the bones of Charles
Darwin. The two men are worthy compeers in the
scientific roll of fame. Newton’s discovery and estab
lishment of the law of Gravitation marked an epoch
in the history of science, and the same may be said
of Darwin’s discovery and establishment of the law
of Natural Selection. The Vrincipia and the Origin
of Species rank together as two of the most memorablemonuments of scientific genius.
In a certain sense, however, Darwin’s achievements
are the more remarkable, because they profoundly
affect our notions of man’s position and destiny in theuniverse.
The great English naturalist was of a.
modest and retiring disposition. He shrank from all
kinds of controversy. He remarked, in one of his
letters to Professor Huxley, that he felt it impossible
to understand how any man could get up and make an
impromptu speech in the heat of a public discussion.
Nevertheless he was demolishing the popular super
stition far more effectually than the most sinewy and
�4
DARWIN ON GOD.
dexterous athletes of debate. He was quietly revolu
tionising the world of thought. He was infusing into
the human mind the leaven of a new truth. And the
new truth was tremendous in its implications. No
wonder the clergy reviled and cursed it.
They did
not understand it any more than the Inquisitors who
burnt Bruno and tortured Galileo understood the
Copernican astronomy; but they felt, with a true
professional instinct, with that cunning of self-preser
vation which nature bestows on every species, including
priests, that the Darwinian theory was fatal to tlieir
deepest dogmas, and therefore to their power, their
privileges, and their profits. They had a sure intuition
that Darwinism was the writing on the wall, announc
ing the doom of their empire ; and they recognised
that their authority could only be prolonged by hiding
the scripture of destiny from the attention of the
multitude.
The popular triumph of Darwinism must be the
death-blow to theology. The Copernican astronomy
destroyed the geocentric 'theory, which made the earth
the centre of the universe, and all the celestial bodies
its humble satellites. From that moment the false
astronomy of the Bible was doomed, and its exposure
was hound to throw discredit on “ the Word of God/’
From that moment, also, the notion was doomed that
the Deity of this inconceivable universe was chiefly
occupied with the fortunes of the human insects on
this little planet, which is but a speck in the infinitude
of space. Similarly the Darwinian biology is a sen
tence of doom on the natural history of the Bible.
Evolution and special creation are antagonistic ideas.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
5
And if man himself has descended, or ascended, from
lower forms of life; if he has been developed through
thousands of generations from a branch of the Simian
family ; it necessarily follows that the Garden of Eden
is a fairy tale, that Adam and Eve were not the
parents of the human race, that the Fall is an oriental
legend, that Original Sin is a theological libel on
humanity, that the Atonement is an unintelligible
dogma, and the Incarnation a relic of ancient
mythology.
Let it not be forgotten, however, that Darwinism
would have been impossible if geology had not pre
pared its way. Natural Selection wants plenty of
elbow-room; Evolution requires immeasurable time.
But this could not be obtained until geology had made
a laughing-stock of Biblical chronology. The record
of the rocks reveals a chronology, not of six thousand,
but of millions of years ; and during a vast portion of
that time life has existed, slowly ascending to higher
stages, and mounting from the monad to man. It was
fitting, therefore, that Darwin should dedicate his
first volume to Sir Charles Lyell.
Darwin was not a polemical writer; on the contrary,
his views w7ere advanced with extreme caution.
He was gifted with magnificent patience. When the
Origin of Species was published he knew that Man
was not exempted from the laws of evolution. He
satisfied his conscience by remarking that “ Much
light will be thrown on the origin of man and his
history,” and then waited twelve years before ex
pounding his final conclusions in the Descent of Man.
This has, indeed, been made a subject of reproach.
�6
DARWIN ON GOD.
But Darwin was surely the best judge as to how and
when his theories should be published. He did his
own great work in his own great way. There is no
question of concealment. He gave his views to the
world when they were fully ripened; and if, in a
scientific treatise, he forbore to discuss the bearing of
his views on the principles of current philosophy and
the dogmas of popular theology, he let fall many
remarks in his text and footnotes which were sufficient
to show the penetrating reader that he was far from
indifferent to such matters and had very definite
opinions of his own. What could be more striking,
what could better indicate his attitude of mind, than
the fact that in the Origin of Species he never men
tioned the book of Genesis, while in the Descent of
Man he never alluded to Adam and Eve
Such con
temptuous silence was more eloquent than the most
pointed attack.
DARWIN’S GRANDFATHER.
Before Darwin was born his patronymic had been
made illustrious. It is a curious fact that both Darwin
and Newton came of old Lincolnshire families. Newton
wras born in the county, but the Darwins had removed
in the seventeenth century to the neighboring county
of Nottingham. William Darwin (born 1655) married
the heiress of Robert Waring, of Wilsford. This
lady also inherited the manor of Elston, which has
remained ever since in the family. It went to the
younger son of William Darwin. This Robert Darwin
was the father of four sons, the youngest of whom,
�DARWIN ON GOD.
7
Erasmus Darwin, was born on December 12, 1731, at
Elston Hall.
The life of Erasmus Darwin has been charmingly
written by his illustrious grandson.1 Prefixed to the
Memoir is a photographic portrait from a picture by
Wright of Derby.
It shows a strong, kind face,
dominated by a pair of deep-set, commanding eyes,
surmounted by a firm, broad brow and finely modelled
head. The whole man looks one in a million. Gazing
at the portrait, it is easy to understand his scientific
eminence, his great reputation as a successful physician,
his rectitude, generosity, and powers of sympathy and
imagination.
Dr. Erasmus Darwin practised medicine at Derby?
but his fame was widespread. While driving to and
from his patients he wrote verses of remarkable polish,
embodying the novel ideas with which his head fer
mented. They were not true poetry, although they
were highly praised by Edgeworth and Hayley, and
even by Cowper; but Byron was guilty of “ the false
hood of extremes ” in stigmatising their author as “ a
mighty master of unmeaning rhyme.” The rhyme
was certainly not unmeaning : on the contrary, there
was plenty of meaning, and fresh meaning too, but it
should have been expressed in prose.
Erasmus
Darwin had a surprising insight into the methods of
nature; he threw out a multitude of pregnant hints in
biology, and once or twice he nearly stumbled on the
law of Natural Selection. He saw the “ struggle for
existence ” with remarkable clearness. “ The stronger
1 Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. With a Preliminary
Notice by Charles Darwin. London : Murray, 1879.
�8
DARWIN ON GOD.
locomotive animals/’ lie wrote, ii devour the weaker
ones without mercy. Such is the condition of organic
nature I whose first law might be expressed in the
words, ‘ Eat or be eaten/ and which would seem to be
one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of
rapacity and injustice.’’ Mr. G. H. Eewes credits him
with “ a profounder insight into psychology than any
of his contemporaries and the majority of his successors
exhibit,” and says that he <c deserves a place in history
for that one admirable conception of psychology as
subordinate to the laws of life.” Dr. Maudsley bears
testimony to his sagacity in regard to mental disorders ;
Dr. Lauder Brunton shows that he anticipated Rosen
thal’s theory of “ catching cold ” ; and a dozen other
illustrations might be given of his scientific prescience
in chemistry, anatomy, and medicine. He was also a
very advanced reformer. He believed in exercise and
fresh air, and taught his sons and daughters to swim.
He saw the vast importance of educating girls. He
studied sanitation, pointed out how towns should be
supplied with pure water, and urged that sewage
should be turned to use in agriculture instead of being
allowed to pollute our rivers.
He also sketched out a
variety of useful inventions, which he was too busy to
complete himself. Nor did he confine himself to
practical reforms.
He sympathised warmly with
Howard, who was reforming our prison system; and
he denounced slavery at the time when the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel held slaves in the Barbadoes, and absolutely declined to give them Christian
instruction.2
2 Erasmus Darwin, p. 47.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
9
No one will be surprised to learn that Erasmus
Darwin was a sceptic. Indeed there seems to have
been a family tendency in that direction. His sister
Susannah, a young lady of eighteen, writing to him at
school in his boyhood, after some remarks on abstinence
during Lent, said “ As soon as we kill our hog I intend
to take a part thereof with the Family, for I’m in
formed by a learned Divine that Hog's Flesh is Fish,
and has been so ever since the Devil entered into them
and ran into the Sea.” Bright, witty Susannah 1 She
died unmarried, and became, as Darwin says, the
“ very pattern of an old lady, so nice looking, so gentle,
so kind, and passionately fond of flowers.”
Erasmus Darwin’s scepticism was of an early growth.
At the age of twenty-three, in a letter to Dr. Okes,
after announcing his father’s death he professes a firm
belief in “ a superior Ens EntiumJ’ but rejects the
notion of a special providence, and says that “ general
laws seem sufficient ” ; and while humbly hoping that
God will “re-create us ” after death, he plainly asserts
that “ the light of Nature affords us not a single argu
ment for a future state.” He has frequently been
called an Atheist, but this is a mistake ; he was a
Deist, believing in God, but rejecting Revelation.
Even Unitarianism was too orthodox for him, and he
wittily called it “ a feather-bed to catch a falling
Christian.”
His death occurred on April 10, 1802. He expired
in his arm-chair “ without pain or emotion of any
kind.” He had always hoped his end might be painless,
and it proved to be so. Otherwise he was not disturbed
by the thought of death. “ When I think of dying, ”
�10
PARWIN ON GOP.
lie wrote to liis friend Edgeworth, “ It is always without
pain or fear.”
Such a brief account of this extraordinary man
would be inadequate to any other purpose, but it
suffices to show that Darwin was himself a striking
illustration of the law of heredity. Scientific boldness
and religious scepticism ran in the blood of his race. ■
DABWIN’S FATHER.
Darwin’s father, Robert Waring Darwin, the third
son of Erasmus Darwin, settled down as a doctor at
Shrewsbury. He had a very large practice, and was a
very remarkable man. He stood six-feet two and
was broad in proportion. His shrewdness, rectitude
and benevolence gained him universal love and esteem.
He was reverenced by his great son, who always spoke
of him as “ the wisest man I ever knew.’’ His wife
was a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, and her sweet,
gentle, sympathetic nature was inherited by her
famous son.
She died in 1817, thirty-two years
before her husband, who died on November 13, 1848.
There is little, if anything, to be gleaned from any
published documents as to the opinions of Darwin’s
father. Upon this point Mr. Francis Darwin has been
too zealously discreet. Happily I have been furnished
with a few particulars by the Rev. Edward Myers,
minister of the Unitarian chapel at Shrewsbury.
Mrs. Darwin was herself a Unitarian, and she
attended with her family the Unitarian chapel in High
Street, Shrewsbury, of which the Rev. George Case
was then minister. The daughters were all baptised
�DARWIN ON GOD.
11
by Mr. Case and their names entered in the chapel
register; but the sons were for some reason baptised
in the parish church of St. Chad. Charles Darwin
attended Mr. Case’s school, and was by him prepared
for the Shrewsbury Grammar School.
Up to 1825,
when he went to the University of Edinburgh, he,
with the Darwin family, regularly attended the Uni
tarian place of worship. But in 1832, after the erec
tion of St. George’s Church, Frankwell, they left the
chapel and went to church.
“ Dr. Darwin,” says Mr. Myers, who succeeded Mr.
Case, “was never a regular attendant at the Unitarian
chapel, but he went occasionally. Indeed, he never
regularly attended any place of worship, and his
extreme view’s on theological and religious matters
were so well known that he used to be commonly
spoken of as ‘Dr. Darwin the unbeliever,’ and ‘Dr
Darwin the infidel.’ ”
The question naturally arises, how could Dr. Darwin
have seriously intended his son to become a clergy
man'? Mr. Myers offers, as I think, a sufficient
explanation. The Church at that time was looked
upon as simply a professional avenue, like the law or
medicine; and, as Mr. Gladstone remarks in his
Chapter of Autobiography, “ the richer benefices were
very commonly regarded as a suitable provision for
such members of the higher families as were least fit
to push their way in any other profession requiring
thought and labor.” But, the reader will exclaim, how
was it possible to include Charles Darwin in this
category of incapables 1
The answer is simple.
Darwin was not brilliant in his youth. !Iis great
�12
DARWIN ON GOD.
faculties required time to ripen. He failed as a medical
student because lie had an unconquerable antipathy to
the sight of blood, and was so afflicted by witnessing a
bad operation on a child that he actually ran away.
He was always regarded as “ a very ordinary boy/’ to
use his own words; and his father once said to him,
“ You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat
catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and
your family.’’3 It was a singularly infelicitous pro
phecy, but it shows Dr. Darwin’s mean opinion of his
son’s intellect, and enables us to understand how “ Dr.
Darwin the infidel” devoted his unpromising cub to
the great refuge of incapacity.
DABWIN’S EARLY PIETY.
Either the Rev. George Case belonged to the
more orthodox wing of Unitarianism, or the teach
ing at the Shrewsbury Grammar School must have
effaced any sceptical impressions he made on the mind
of Charles Darwin, whose early piety is evident
both from his Autobiography and from several of his
letters. And this fact is of the highest importance,
since it follows that his disbelief in later years was the
result of independent thought and the gradual pressure
of scientific truth.
“ I well remember,” he says, “ in the early part of
my school life that I often had to run very quickly to
be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally
successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to
3Life and. Letters of Charles Darwin. Edited by his son, Francis
Darwin. Vol. I., p. 32.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
13
God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed
my success to the prayers and not to my quick running,
and marvelled how generally I was aided.
Speaking of himself at the age of twenty or twentyone, he says, “ I did not then doubt the strict and
literal truth of every word in the Bible?’0 When a
little later he went on board the “ Beagle/'’ to take that
famous voyage which he has narrated so charmingly,
and which determined his subsequent career, he was
still “ quite orthodox.’-’ “ I remember/’ he says,
“ being laughed at by several of the officers (though
themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality/’0
Darwin charitably supposes “ it was the novelty of the
argument which amused them/'’ But why was the
argument novel ? Simply because the Bible is a kind
of fetish, to be worshipped and sworn by, anything but
read and followed. As Mill remarked, it furnishes
texts to fling at the heads of unbelievers ; but when the
Christian is expected to act upon it, he is found to
conform to other standards, including his own con
venience. There can be little doubt that the laughter
of his shipmates produced a powerful and lasting effect
on Darwin’s mind. His character was translucent and
invincibly sincere ; and the laughter of orthodox
persons at their own doctrines was calculated to set
him thinking about their truth.
ALMOST A CLERGYMAN.
Being a f allure as a medical student, Darwin received
i Life and Letters, vol. i.. p. 31.
5 Vol. I., p. 45.
' 6 Vol. I., p. 308
�14
DARWIN ON GOD.
a proposal from his father to become a clergyman, and
1 he rather liked the idea of settling down as a country
parson. Fancy Darwin in a pulpit!
The finest
scientific head since Newton distilling bucolic sermons I
What a tragi-comedy it would have been I
Darwin carefully read “ Pearson on the Creed,”
and other books on divinity. £< I soon persuaded my
self,” he says, “ that our Creed must be accepted.”
He went up to Cambridge and studied hard.
“ In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary
to get up'Paley’s Evidences of Christianity and his Moral Philo'
sophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced
that I could have written out the whole of the ‘ Evidences ’
with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language
of Paley. The logic of this book, and, as I may add, of his
Natural Theology, gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The
careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any
part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which,
as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me
in the education of my mind. I did not at that tirqe trouble
myself about Paley’s premises; and taking these on trust, I
was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.”
Darwin probably owed most to the Natural Theology
of Paley. Writing to Sir John Lubbock nearly thirty
years later, he said: “ I do not think I hardly ever
admired a book more.” Perhaps it was less the logic
of the great Archdeacon than his limpid style and in
teresting treatment of physical science which charmed
the young mind of Darwin. He had a constitutional
love of clearness, and his genius was then turning
towards the studies which occupied his life.
Scruples gradually entered Darwin’s mind. He
began to find the creed not so credible. One of his
�DARWIN ON GOD.
15
friends gives an interesting reminiscence of this period.
“We had an earnest conversation,” says Mr. Herbert,
4< about going into Holy Orders; and I remember his
asking me, with reference to the question put by the
Bishop in the ordination service, 4 Do you trust that
you are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit, etc./
whether I could answer in the affirmative, and on my
saying I could not, he said, 4 Neither can I, and there
fore I cannot take holy orders/ ” Still he did not
abandon the idea altogether; he drifted away from it
little by little until it fell out of sight. Fourteen or
fifteen years later, writing to Sir Charles Lyell, he had
gone so far as to speak of 44 that Corporate Animal,
the Clergy.”
Looking back over these experiences, only a few
years before his death, Darwin was able to regard them
with equanimity and amusement. There is a sly
twinkle of humor in the following passage.
“ Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the
orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a
clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father’s wish ever
formally given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving
Cambridge, I joined the 4 Beagle ’ as naturalist. If the
phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect
to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretary of a German
psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photo
graph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the
proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that
the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discus
sion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of
reverence,developed enough for ten priests.”7
The Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston, accounts for
7 Vol. I., p. 45.
�16
DARWIN ON GOD.
Matthew Arnold's scepticism by the flatness of the
top of his head. Mr. Arnold lacked the bump which
points to God. But how does Mr. Cook account for
the scepticism of Darwin, whose head was piouslyadorned with such a prodigious bump of veneration ?
ON BOARD THE “ BEAGLE.”
While at Cambridge, studying for the Church,
Darwin made the acquaintance of Professor Henslow
and Dr. Whewell. He read Humboldt “ with care and
profound interest/’ and Herschel’s Introduction to the
Study of Natural Philosophy. These writers excited
in him “ a burning zeal to add even the most humble
contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science.5'
Humboldt’s description of the glories of Teneriffe
made him desire to visit that region. He even “ got
an introduction to a merchant in London to inquire
about ships." Soon afterwards he became acquainted
with Professor Sedgwick, and his attention was turned
to geology. On returning from a geological tour in
North Wales with Sedgwick he found a letter from
Henslow offering him a share of Captain Fitzroy’s
cabin on board the “ Beagle," if he cared to go without
pay as naturalist. The offer was accepted, Dr. Darwin
behaved handsomely, and the young man sailed away
with a first-rate equipment and a pecuniary provision
for his five years' voyage round the world. This
voyage, says Darwin, “ has been by far the most im
portant event in my life, and has determined my whole
career."
Readers of Darwin’s fascinating A Naturalist’s
�DARWIN ON GOD.
17
Voyage8 know that his great powers were matured on
board the “ Beagled’ “ That my mind became deve
loped through my pursuits during the voyage,” he
himself says, “ is rendered probable by a remark made
by my father, who was the most acute observer whom
I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from
being a believer in phrenology ; for on first seeing me
after the voyage, he turned round to my sisters and
exclaimed, ‘ Why, the shape of his head is quite
altered.’ ”
During the voyage Darwin was brought into close
and frequent contact with “ that scandal to Christian
nations—-Slavery.”9 This was a matter on which he
felt keenly. His just and compassionate nature was
stirred to the depths by the oppression and sufferings
of the American negroes. The infamous scenes he
witnessed haunted his imagination. Nearly thirty
years afterwards, writing to Dr. Asa Gray, he wished,
“though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North
would proclaim a crusade against slavery.” His im
pressions at the earlier date were recorded in his
book, and it is best to quote the passage in full:
“On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil.
I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To
this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful
vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco,
I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect
that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was
8 A Naturalist's Voyage. Journal of Researches into the Natural
History and Geology of the Countries visited during the
Voyage of H. M. S. "Beagle” round the World. By Charles
Darwin.
9 Life and Letters,veA, i., p. 237.
�18
DARWIN ON GOD.
as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that
these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that
this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I
lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the
fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a
young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten,
and persecuted, enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal.
I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice
with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head
for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw
his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye.
These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish
colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better
treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European
nations. I have seen at Rio Janeiro a powerful negro’ afraid
to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was
present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating
for ever the men, women, and little children of a large number
of families who had longed lived together. I will not even
allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authen
tically heard of ; —nor would I have mentioned the above
revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded
by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery
as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the
houses of the upper classes,where the domestic slaves are
usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived
.amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about
their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull
who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching
his master’s ears.
It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty;
■as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are
far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of
their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested
against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by
the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to
palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our
�DARWIN ON GOD.
19
poorer countrymen; if the misery of our poor be caused
not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great
is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see ;
as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one
land, by showing that men in another land suffered from
some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave
owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put
themselves- into the position of the latter;—what a cheerless
prospect, with not even a hope of change 1 Picture to yourself
the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little
children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to
call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the
first bidder I And these deeds are done and palliated by men
who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who be
lieve in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth I”1
The sting of this passage is in its tail. Darwin
must have felt that there was something hypocritical
and sinister in the pretensions of Christianity. He
must have asked himself what was the practical value
of a creed which permitted such horrors.
SETTLING AT DOWN.
Darwin married on January 29, 1839. His wife
was singularly helpful, making his home happy, and
subordinating herself to the great ends of his life.
Children grew up around them, and their home was
one of the brightest and best in the world. Here is a
pretty touch in Darwin’s letter to his friend Fox, dated
from Upper Gower Street, London, July 1840 : “He,
(i.e., the baby) is so charming that I cannot pretend to
any modesty. I defy anybody to flatter us on our
baby, for 1 defy anyone to say anything in its praise of*
Pp. 499—500.
�20
DARWIN ON GOD.
which we are not fully conscious ... I hacl not the
smallest conception there was so much in a five-month
baby.'-’ Cunning nature I twining baby fingers about
the big man’s heart. Still the proud father studied
the cherub as a scientist; he watched its mental growth
with the greatest assiduity, and thus began those
observations which he ultimately published in the
Expression of the Emotions.
In September 1842 he went to live at Down, where
he continued to reside until his death. He helped to
found a Friendly Club there, and served as its treasurer
for thirty years.
He was also treasurer of a Coal
Club.
The Rev. Brodie Innes says “ His conduct
towards me and my family was one of nnvarying kind
ness.’"’ Darwin was a liberal contributor to the local
charities, and “ he held that where there was really no
important objection, his assistance should be given to
the clergyman, who ought to know the circumstances
best, and was chiefly responsible.”
He did not, however, go through the mockeyy of
attending church. I was informed by the late head
constable of Devonport, who was himself an open
Atheist, that he had once been on duty for a consider
able time at Down. He had often seen Darwin escort
his family to church, and enjoyed many a conversation
with the great man, who used to enjoy a walkthrough
the country lanes while the devotions were in progress
DEATH AND BURIAL.
Darwin’s life henceforth was that of a country
gentleman and a secluded scientist. His great works,
�DARWIN ON GOD.
21
more revolutionary than all the political and social
turmoil of his age, were planned and written in the
quiet study of an old house in a Kentish village. He
suffered terribly from ill health, but he labored on
gallantly to the end, and died in harness. “ For nearly
forty years,"’ writes Mr. Francis Darwin, “ he never
knew one day of the health ot ordinary men, and thus
his life was one long struggle against the weariness and
strain of sickness.” But no whimperings escaped him,
or petulant reproaches on those around him. Always
gentle, loving and beloved, he looked on the universe
with unswerving serenity. A nobler mixture of sweet
ness and strength never adorned the earth.
In 1876 he wrote some Recollections for his children,
with no thought of publication. “I have attempted,”
he said, “ to write the following account of myself, as
if I were a dead man in another world looking back at
my own life. Nor have I found this difficult, for life
is nearly over with me.”
He was ready for Death, but they did not meet for
six years. During February and March, 1882, he wa?
obviously breaking. The rest must be told by his son,
‘■No especial change occurred during the beginning of April,
but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while
sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to
reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my
temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experi
ment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 18th,
about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and passed
into a faint, from which he was brought back to consciousness
with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise the approach
of death, and said, ‘ I am not the least afraid to die.’ All the
next morning he suffered from terrible nausea, and hardly
�22
DARWIN ON GOD.
rallied, before the end came. He died at about four o’clock on
Wednesday, April 19tb, 1882”2
Thus the great scientist and sceptic went to his
everlasting rest. He had no belief in God, no expec
tation of a future life. But he had done his duty; he had
filled the world with new truth ; he had lived a life of
heroism, compared with which the hectic courage of
battle-fields is vulgar and insignificant; and he died in
soft tranquillity, surrounded by the beings he loved.
His last conscious words were I am not the least afraid
to die. No one who knew him, or his life and work,
could for a moment suspect him capable of fear.
Nevertheless it is well to have the words on record
from the lips of those who saw him die. The carrion
priests who batten on the reputation of dead Free
thinkers will find no repast in this death-chamber.
One sentence frees him from the contamination of
their approach.
Darwin’s family desired that he should be buried at
Down. But the fashion of burying -great men in
Westminster Abbey, even though unbelievers, had
been set by Dean Stanley, whom Carlyle irreverently
called “ the body-snatcher.”
Stanley’s successor,
Dean Bradley, readily consented to the great heretic’s
interment in his House of God, where it is to be
presumed the Church of England burial service was
duly read over the “ remains.” Men like Professor
Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, ind Sir Joseph Hooker
should not have assisted at such a blasphemous farce.
It was enough to make Darwin groan in his coffin.
Well, the Church has Darwin’s corpse, but that is all
2 Li/e and Letters, vol. iii., p. 358.
�DAIDVIN ON GOD.
23
she can boast; and as she paid the heavy price of
telling lies at his funeral, it may not in the long run
prove a profitable transaction.
She has not buried
Darwin’s ideas. They are still at work, sapping and
undermining her very foundations.
PURPOSE OF THIS PAMPHLET.
My object is to show the general reader what were
Darwin’s views on religion, and, as far as possible, to
trace the growth of those views in his mind. I desire
to point out, in particular, how he thought the leading
ideas of theology were affected by the doctrine of
evolution. Further, I wish to prove that there is no
essential difference between his Agnosticism and what
has always been taught as Atheism. Finally, I mean
to give my own notions on evolution and theism. In
doing so, I shall be obliged to consider some points
raised by anti-materialists, especially by Dr. A. B.
Wallace in his recent volume on Darwinism.
SOME OBJECTIONS.
Let me first, however, answer certain objections. It
is contended by those who would minimise the impor
tance of Darwin’s scepticism that he was a scientist
and not a theologian. When it is replied that this
objection is based upon a negation of private judgment,
and logically involves the handing over of society to
the tender mercies of interested specialists, the
objectors fall back upon the mitigated statement that
�24
D ARAVIN ON GOD.
Darwin was too much occupied with science to give
adequate attention to the problems of religion. Now,
in the first place, this is not really true. He certainly
disclaimed any special fitness to give an opinion on such
matters, but that was owing to his exceptional modesty;
and to take advantage of it by accepting it as equiva
lent to a confession of unfitness, is simply indecent on
the part of those who never tire of holding up the
testimony of Newton, Herschel, and Faraday to the
truth of their creed. Darwin gave sufficient attention
to religion to satisfy himself. He began to abandon
Christianity at the age of thirty. Writing of the
period between October, 1836 and January, 1839, he
says “ During those two years I was led to think much
about religion.”3 That the subject occupied his mind
at other times is evident from his works and letters.
He had clearly weighed every argument in favor of
Theism and Immortality, and his brief, precise way of
stating the objections to them shows that they were
perfectly familiar.
True, he says “I have never
systematically thought much on religion in relation to
science,” but this was in ansAver to a request that he
should write something for publication. In the same
sentence he says that he had not systematically thought
much on “ morals in relation to society.” But he had
thought enough to write that wonderful fourth chapter
in the first part of the Descent of Man, which Avas
published in that very year. Darwin was so modest,
so cautious, and so thorough, that “ systematic
thought” meant with him an infinitely greater stress
3 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
25
of mind than is devoted to religious problems by one
theologian in a million.
The next objection is more subtle, not to say fan
tastic. In his youth Darwin was fond of music. He
had no technical knowledge of it, nor even a good ear,
but it filled him with delight, and sometimes sent a
shiver down his backbone. He was also fond of
poetry, reading Shakespeare, Coleridge, Byron, and
Scott, and carrying about a pocket copy of Milton.
But in later life he lost all interest in such things, and
trying to read Shakespeare again after 18/0 he found
it “so intolerably dull” that it “nauseated” him.
His intense pre-occupation with science had led to a
partial atrophy of his aesthetic faculties. It was a loss
to him, but the world gained by the sacrifice.
Now upon this fact is based the objection I am
dealing with. In the days of Sir Isaac Newton or
Bishop Butler, when belief was supposed to rest on
evidence, the objection would have seemed pre
posterous; but it is gravely urged at present, when
religion is fast becoming a matter of candles, music,
and ornament, seasoned with cheap sentimentality.
Darwin’s absorption in intellectual pursuits, and the
consequent neglect of the artistic elements in his
nature, is actually held as a sufficient explanation of
his scepticism. His highly-developed and constantlysustained moral nature is regarded as having no
relation to the problem. Religion, it seems, is neither
morality nor logic; it is spirituality. And what is
spirituality ? Why, a yearning aftei' the vague, the
unutterable; a consciousness of the sinfulness of sin;
a perpetual study of one’s blessed self ; a debauch of
�26
DARWIN ON GOD.
egotistic emotion and chaotic fancy; in short, a highlyrefined development of the feelings of a cow in a
thunderstorm, and the practices of a savage before his
inscrutible fetish.
Spirituality is an emoti mal offshoot of religion ; but
religion itself grows out of belief; and belief, even
among the lowest savages, is grounded on evidence.
The Church has always had the sense to begin with
doctrines; it enjoins upon its children to say first of
all “ I believed’ Let the doctrines go, and the senti
ments will go also. It is only a question of time.
Darwin tested.the doctrines. Miracles, special provi
dence, the fall, the incarnation, the resurrection, the
existence of an all-wise and all-good God; all seemed
to him statements which should be proved. He there
fore put them into the crucible of reason, and they
turned out to be nothing but dross. According to the
“ spiritual ” critics this was a mistake, religion being a
matter of imagination. Quite so ; here Darwin is in
agreement with them; and thus again the proverb is
verified that “ extremes meet.”
The last objection is almost too peurile to notice. It
has been asserted that Darwin was an unconscious
believer, after all; and this astonishing remark is
supported by exclamations from his letters. He
frequently wrote “ God knows,” “would to God,” and
so forth. But he sometimes wrote “ By Jove,” from
which it follows that he believed in Jupiter 1 Ou one
occasion he informed Dr. Hooker that he had recovered
from an illness,and could “ eat like a hearty Christian/ ’
from which it follows that he believed in the connection
of Christianity and voracity 1
�DARWIN ON GOD.
27
Mr. F. W. FI. Myers is too subtle a critic to raise
this objection in its natural crudity. He affects to
regard Darwin’s tranquillity under the loss of religious
belief as a puzzle. He asks why Darwin kept free
from the pessimism which “ in one form or other has
paralysed or saddened so many of the best lives of our
time.”
What “ kept the melancholy infection at
bay?”
“ Here, surely, is the solution of the problem. The faculties
of observing and. reasoning were stimulated to the utmost;
the domestic affections were kept keen and strong; but the
atrophy of the religious instinct, of which we have already
spoken, extended yet farther—over the whole range of aesthetic
emotion, and mystic sentiment—over all in us which‘looks
before and after, and pines for what is not.’ ”4
This is pretty writing, but under the form of insi
nuation it begs the question at issue.
Keligious
instinct and mystic sentiment are fine phrases, but they
prove nothing; on the contrary, they are devices for
dispensing with that logical investigation which reli
gion ever shuns as the Devil is said to shun holy water.
DARWIN ABANDONS CHRISTIANITY.
Dr. Buchner, the German materialist, who was in
London in September, 1881, went to Down and spent
some hours with Darwin. Fie was accompanied by
Dr. E. B. Aveling, who has written an account of their
conversation in Darwin’s study.5 This pamphlet is
4 Charles Darwin and Agnosticism. By F. W. H. Myers, “Fort
nightly Review,” January, 1888, p. 106.
5 The Religious Views of Charles Darwin. By Dr. E. B. Aveling.
Freethought Publishing Co.
�28
DARWIN ON GOD.
referred to in a footnote by Mr. Francis Darwin, who
says that “ Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impres
sion cf my father’s views.” 6 He does not contradict
any of Dr. Aveling’s statements, and they may there
fore be regarded as substantially correct.
Darwin said to his guests, “ I never gave up Chris
tianity until I was forty years of age.” He had given
attention to the matter, and had investigated the
claims of Christianity. Being asked why he abandoned
it, he replied, “ It is not supported by evidence.”
This reminds one of a story about George Eliot. A
gentleman held forth to her at great length on the
beauty of Christianity. Like Mr. Myers, he was
great at “aesthetic emotion” and “mystic sentiment.”
The great woman listened to him with philosophic
patience, and at length she struck in herself. “Well,
you know,” she said, “ I have only one objection to
Christianity.” “And what is that?” her guest en
quired. “ Why,” she replied, “it isn’t true.”
Dr. Aveling’s statement is corroborated by a long
and interesting passage in Darwin’s chapter of Auto
biography, which the reader shall have in full.
“I had gradually come by this time, that is, 1836 to 1839, to
see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the
sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually
rose before my mind and would not be banished,—Is it credible
that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he
would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva,
etc., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament?
This appeared to me utterly incredible.
“ By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be
requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by
0 Vol. I., p. 317.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
29
which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know
of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles
become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous
to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—'that tho Gospels
cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the
events,—that they differ in many important details, far too
important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual in
accuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these,
which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as
they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Chris
tianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions
have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had
some weight with me.
“ But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure
of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day
dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and
manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which
confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in
the Gcspels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free
scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would
suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very
slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that
I felt no distress.”7
Three features should be noted in this striking
passage. First, the order in which the evidences of
Christianity were tried and found wanting; second, the
complete mastery of every important point; third, the
absence of all distress of mind in the process. Darwin’s
mind was, in fact, going through a new development,
and the old creed was got rid of as easily as an old
skin when a new one is taking its place.
For nearly forty years Darwin was a disbeliever in
Christianity. He rejected it utterly. It passed out of
his mind and heart. The fact was not proclaimed
7 Vol. I., pp. 308-309.
�30
DARWIN ON GOT).
from the house-tops, but it was patent to every intelli
gent reader of his works. He paid no attention to the
clerical dogs that barked at his heels, but wisely kept
his mind free from such distractions, and went on his
way, as Professor Tyndall says, with the steady and
irresistible movement of an avalanche.
Much capital has been made by Christians who are
thankful for small mercies out of the fact that Darwin
subscribed to the South American Missionary SocietyThe Archbishop of Canterbury, at the annual meeting
on April 21, 1885, said the Society “ drew the atten
tion of Charles Darwin, and made him, in his pursuit of
the wonders of the kingdom of nature, realise that
there was another kingdom just as wonderful and more
lasting.” Such language is simply fraudulent. The
fact is, Darwin thought the Fuegians a set of hopeless
savages, and he was so agreeably undeceived by the
reports of their improvement that he sent a subscription
of £5 through his old shipmate Admiral Sir James
Sullivan. This gentleman gives three or four extracts
from Darwin’s letters,8 from which it appears that he
was solely interested in the secular improvement of the
Fuegians, without the smallest concern for their pro
gress in religion.
Darwin subscribed to send missionaries to a people
he regarded as “ the very lowest of the human race.”
Surely this is not an extravagant compliment to
Christianity. He never subscribed towards its promo
tion in any civilised country. Those who parade his
“support*” invite the sarcasm that he'thought their
religion fit for savages.
s Vol. III., pp. 127-128.
�DARWIX OX GOD.
o1
Dl
DEISM.
Having abandoned Christianity, Darwin remained
for many years a Deist. The Naturalist’s Voyage was
first published in 1845, and the following passage
occurs in the final chapter :
“ Among the scenes which are deeply impressed on my
mind, none exceed in sublimity the primeval forests undefaced
by the hand of man; whether those of Brazil, where the
powers of Life are predominant, or those of Tierra del Fuego,
where Death and Decay prevail. Both are temples filled with
the varied products of the God of Nature :—no one can stand
in these solitudes unmoved, and not feel that there is more in
man than the mere breath of his body.”9
This is the language of emotion, and no one will be
surprised at Darwin's saying subsequently “ I did not
think much about the existence of a personal God until
a considerably later period of my life/71 How great a
change the thinking wrought is seen, from a reference
to this very incident in the Autobiography, written in
1876, a few years before his death.
“ At the present day the most usual argument for the
existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward
conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.
Formerly I was led by such feelings as those just referred to
(although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever
strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the exist
ence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal
I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a
Brazilian forest, ‘ it is not possible to give an adequate idea of
the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which
fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction
that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.
9 P. 508.
1 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. ,309.
�32
D ARAVIN ON GOD.
But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such con
viction and feelings to rise in my mind.” 2
!
Darwin's belief in a personal God had not per
ceptibly weakened in 1859, when he published the
Origin of Species. He could still speak of “the
Creator’' and use the ordinary language of Deism.
In a letter to Mr. C. Ridley, dated November 28,
1878, upon a sermon of Dr. Pusey’s, he said, “ When
I was collecting facts for the £ Origin ’ my belief in
what is called a personal God was as firm as that of
Dr. Pusey himself."3
It is therefore obvious that Darwin doubted Chris
tianity at the age of thirty, abandoned it before the
age of forty, and remained a Deist until the age of
fifty. The publication of the Origin of Species' may
be taken as marking the commencement of his third
and last mental epoch.
The philosophy of Evolution
took possession of his mind, and gradually expelled
both the belief in God and the belief in immortality.
His development was too gradual for any wrench.
People upon whom his biological theories came as
lightning-swift surprises often fancied that he must
be deeply distressed by such painful truths. Some
times, indeed, this suspicion was carried to a comical
extreme. “Lyell once told me,” says Professor Judd,
“ that he had frequently been asked if Darwin was
not one of the most unhappy of men, it being sug
gested that his outrage upon public opinion should
have filled him with remorse."4 How it would have
astonished these simple creatures to see Darwin in his
2 Vol. I., p. 811.
3 Vol. III., p. 236.
4 Vol. HI., p. 62.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
33
happy home, reclining on the sofa after a hard day’s
work, while his devoted wife or daughter read a novel
aloud or played some music ; or perhaps smoking an
occasional cigarette, one of his few concessions to the
weakness of the flesh.
CREATION.
Evolution and Creation are antagonistic ideas, nor
can they he reconciled by the cheap device of assum
ing their cooperation “ in the beginning.” When the
theologians spoke of Creation, in the pre-Darwinian
days, they meant exactly the same as ordinary people
who employed the term ; namely, that everything in
nature was brought into existence by an express fiat
of the will of God.
The epithet “ special ” only
hides the fate of Creation from the short-sighted. To
say that the Deity produced the raw material of the
universe, with all its properties, and then let it evolve
into what we see, is simply to abandon the real idea of
Creation and to take refuge in a metaphysical dogma.
Creation is only a pompous equivalent for “ God
did it.” Before the nebular hypothesis explained the
origin, growth, and decay of the celestial bodies, the
theologian used to inquire “ Who made the world ? ”
When that conundrum was solved he asked a fresh
question, “ Who made the plants and animals ? ”
When that conundrum was solved he asked another
question, “ Who made man? ” Now that conundrum
is solved he asks “ Who created life 1 ” And when
the Evolutionists reply “ Wait a little ; we shall see,”
he puts his final poser, “ Who made matter ? ”
�34
DARWIN ON GOD.
All along the line he has been saying “ God did it”
to everything not understood ; that is, he has turned
ignorance into a dogma. Every explanation compels
him to beat a retreat; nay more, it shows that
“ making ” is inapplicable.
Nature’s method is
growth. Making is a term of art, and when applied
to nature it is sheer anthropomorphism. The baby
who prattles to her doll, and the theologian who prates
of Creation, have a common philosophy.
When the Origin of Species was published, we have
seen that Darwin firmly believed in a personal God.
Unfortunately he allowed himself, in the last chapter,
to use language, not unnatural in a Deist, but still
equivocal and misleading. He spoke, for instance, of
“ the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.-” This
is perhaps excusable, but there was a more unhappy
sentence in which he spoke of life “having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or into one.” A flavor of Genesis is in these words,
and the clergy, with their usual unscrupulousness,
have made the most of it; taking care not to read it,
or let their hearers read it, in the light of Darwin’s
later writings.
In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, dated March 13,
1863, Darwin writes, “ I had a most kind and delight
fully candid letter from Lyell, who says he spoke out
as far as he believes. I have no doubt his belief
failed him as he wrote, for I feel sure that at times he
no more believed in Creation than you or I.”5 Writing
again to Hooker, in the same month, he said: “ I have
5 Vol. III., p. 15.
The italics are mine.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
35
long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and
used the Pentatcuchal term of creation, by which I
really meant ‘ appeared ’ by some wholly unknown
process/’6
“ Truckling ” is a strong word. I fancy Darwin
was too severe in his self-reproach. I prefer to regard
the unhappy sentences about Creation as the slip-shod
expressions of a roan who was still a Deist, and who,
possessing little literary tact, failed to guard himself
against a misuse of popular language.
The greatest
misfortune was that the book was before the public,
and the expressions could hardly be withdrawn or
altered without a full explanation; from which I dare
say he shrank, as out of place in a scientific treatise.
ORIGIN OF LIFE.
“ Spontaneous generation is a paradoxical phrase,
and it has excited a great deal of unprofitable discus
sion. However the controversy rests between Bastian
and Tyndall, the problem of the origin of life isentirely unaffected.
Nor need we entertain Sir
William Thomson’s fanciful conjecture that life may
have been brought to this planet on a meteoric frag
ment, for this only puts the radical question upon the
shelf. We may likewise dismiss the theory of Dr.
Wallace, who holds that “ complexity of chemical
compounds ” could “ certainly not have produced
living protoplasm.” 7 “ Could not,” in the existing
state of knowledge, is simply dogmatism. Dr. Wallace
has a spiritual hypothesis to maintain, and like the
8 Vol. Ill, p. 18.
7 Darwinism, p. 474.
�36
DARWIN ON GOD.
crudest theologian, though in a superior style, he
introduces his little theory, with a polite bow, to
account for what is at present inexplicable.
The
thorough-going Evolutionist is perfectly satisfied to
wait for information. So much has been explained
already that it is folly to be impatient. The presump
tion, meanwhile, is in favor of continuity.
Argument without facts is a waste of time and
temper. “It is mere rubbish,” Darwin said, “thinking
at present of the origin of life; one might as well
think of the origin of matter.” 8 This was written in
1863, in a letter to Hooker. Darwin could not help
seeing, however, that the conditions favorable to the
origination of life might only exist once in the history
of a planet. A very suggestive passage is printed by
Mr. Francis Darwin as written by his father in 1871.
“ It is often said that all the conditions for the first produc
tion of a living organism are now present which could ever
have been present. But if (and oh ! what a big if!) we could
conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia
and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that
a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo
still more complex changes, at the present day such matter
would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not
have been the case before living creatures were formed.”9
Darwin appears to have felt that life
have
originated naturally. The interposition of an imagi
nary supernatural cause does not solve the problem.
It cuts the Gordian knot, perhaps, but does not untie
it. Nature is full of illustrations of the truth that
“ properties ” exist in complex compounds which do
8^Vol. III., p. 18.
9 Vol. III., p. 18, footnote.
�DABWIN ON GOD.
37
not appear in the separate ingredients.
Huxley
rightly inquires what justification there is for “ the
assumption of the existence in the living matter of a
something which has no representative, or correlative,
in the not living matter which gave rise to it.” 1
There is no more mystery in the origin of life than in
the formation of water by an electric spark which
traverses a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. Dr.
Wallace appears to see this, and consequently he
ascribes electricity, with gravitation, cohesion, and
chemical force, to the “ spiritual world ! ” 2
ORIGIN OF MAN.
Darwin’s masterpiece, in the opinion of scientists,
is the Origin of Species. But the Descent of Alan is
more important to the general public. As applied to
other forms of life, Evolution is a profoundly inte
resting theory; as applied to man, it revolutionises
philosophy, religion, and morals.
Tracing the development of animal organisms from
the ascidian, Darwin passes along the line of fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds, marsupials, mammals, and
finally to the simians. “ The Simiadee then branched
off,” he says, “ into two great stems, the New World
and the Old World monkeys ; and from the latter, at
a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the
Universe, proceeded.”3
Notwithstanding that some specimens of the
“ wonder and glory of the universe ” cannot count
1 Lay Sermons, p. 137.
2 Darwinism, p. 476.
3 Descent of Man, p. 165.
�38
DARWIN ON GOD.
above the number of the fingers of one hand, while
some of them live in a shocking state of bestiality,
Darwin's deliverance on the origin of man was greeted
with a storm of execration. “Fancy/’ it was ex
claimed, “ fancy recognising the monkey as our first
cousin, and the lower animals as our distant rela
tions ! Pshaw 1 ” The protesters forgot that there
is no harm in “ coming from monkeys ” if you have
come far enough. Some of them, perhaps, had a shrewd
suspicion that they had not come far enough; and,
like parvenus, they were ashamed to own their poor
relations.
Anticipating the distastefulness of his conclusions,
Darwin pointed out that, at any rate, we were
descended from barbarians; and why, he inquired,
should we shrink from owning a still lower relation
ship ?
' '
“ He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel
much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some
more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I
would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey,
who braved his dreaded enemy to save the life of his keeper,
or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains,
carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of
astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his
enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide with
out remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency,
and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.”4
Eighteen years have passed since then, and
Darwin’s views have triumphed. The clergy still
“hum’-’ and “ha'” and shake their heads, but the
scientific world has accepted Darwinism with practical
4 Descent of Man, p. 619.
�39
DARWIN ON GOD.
unanimity. Even Dr. Wallace, who at first hesitated,
is now convinced. “ I fully accept Mr. Darwin’s
conclusions,” he says, “ as to the essential identity of
man’s bodily structure with that of the higher mam
malia, and his descent from some ancestral form
common to man and the anthropoid apes. The evi
dence of such descent appears to me to be overwhelming
and conclusive.”5
Now if Darwin’s theory of the origin of man is
accepted we may bid good-bye to Christianity at once.
But that is not all. The continuity of development
implies a common nature, from the lowest form of life
to the highest. There is no break from the ascidian
to man, just as there is no break from the ovum to the
child; and neither in the history of the race nor in
the history of the individual is there any point at
which natural causes cease to be adequate, and super
natural causes are necessary to account for the pheno
mena. The tendency of Darwinism, says Dr. Wallace,
is to “ the conclusion that man’s entire nature and all
his faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual,
have been derived from their rudiments in the lower
animals, in the same manner and by the action of the
same general laws as his physical structure has been
derived.” G
Dr. Wallace sees that this is sheer materialism,
and casts about for something to support his
spiritualistic philosophy.
He assumes three stages
at which “ the spirit world ” intervened.
First,
when life appeared; second, when consciousness
began; third, when man became possessed of “ a
3 Darwinism, p. 461.
6 P. 461.
�40
DARWIN ON GOD.
number of his most characteristic and noblest facul
ties.” All this is very ingenious, but Dr. Wallace
forgets two things ; first, that the “ stages ” he refers
to are purely arbitrary, each point being approached
and receded from by insensible gradations; and
second, that his “ Spirit world ” is not a vera causa.
It is, indeed, a pure assumption ; unlike such a cause
as Natural Selection, which is seen to operate, and
which Darwin only extended over the whole range
of organic existence.
With respect to his third “ stage,” Dr. Wallace
contends that Natural Selection does not account for
the mathematical, musical, and artistic faculties.
Were this true, they might still be regarded, in Weismann’s phrase, as “a bye-product” of the human
mind, which is so highly developed in all directions.
But its truth is rather assumed than proved. Taking
the mathematical faculty, for instance, Dr. Wallace
makes the most of its recent developments, and the
least of its early manifestations ; which is a fallacy
of exaggeration or false emphasis. He also under
rates the mathematical faculty displayed even in the
rudest warfare.
There is a certain calculation of
number and space in every instance. It is smaller in
in the savage chief than in Napoleon, but the differ
ence is in degree and not in kind; and as the human
race has always lived in a more or less militant
state, the mathematical faculty would give its posses
sors an advantage in the struggle for existence; while,
in more modern times, and in a state of complex
civilisation, its possessors would profit by what may be
called Social Selection.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
41
Dr. Wallace lias discovered a mare’s nest. He may
rely upon it that the basis of beauty is utility; in the
mind of man as well as in architecture, or the plumage
of birds, or the coloration of flowers. And we may
well ask him these pertinent questions ; first, why did
“ the spirit world ” plant the mathematical, musical,
and artistic faculties in man so ineffectually that, even,
now, they are decidedly developed in less than one per
cent, of the population ; and, second, why are we to
suppose a divine origin for those faculties when the
moral faculties, which are quite as imperial, may be
found in many species of lower animals ?
ANIMISM.
Dr. Tylor is not a biologist, but he is one of the
greatest evolutionists of our age.
His work on
Primitive Culture7 is a monument of genius and re
search. Employing the Darwinian method, he has
traced the origin and development of the belief in the
existence of soul or spirit, from the mistaken interpre
tation of the phenomena of dreams among savages,
who afford us the nearest analogue of primitive man,
up to the most elaborate cultus of Brahmanism.
Buddhism, or Christianity. And as Animism is the
basis of all religion, two conclusions arc forced upon
us ; first, that the supernatural in being traced back to
its primal germ of error, is not only explained but
exploded ; and, second, that religion is a direct legacy
from our savage progenitors.
Religious progress
consists in mitigating the intellectual and moral erudi- «•
7 Primitive Culture. By Edward B. Tylor LL.D. 2 vols.
�42
DARWIN ON GOD.
ties of primitive Animism ; and religion itself, there
fore, is like a soap-bubble, ever becoming more and
more attenuated, until at length it disappears.
Darwin had written the Descent of Man before
reading the great work of Dr. Tylor, and his letter to
the author of the real Natural History of Religion is
worth extracting. It is dated September 24, 1871.
“ I hope you will allow me to have the pleasure of telling you
how greatly I have been interested by your Primitive Culture
now that I have finished it. It seems to me a most profound
work, which will be certain to have permanent value, and to
be referred to for years to come. It is wonderful how you
trace Animism from the lower races up to the religious belief
of the highest races. It will make me for the future look at
religion—a belief in the soul, etc—from anew point of view.’’8
“A new point of view” is a pregnant phrase in
regard to a subject of such importance. What can it
mean, except that Darwin saw at last that religion
began with the belief m soul, and that the belief in
soul originated in the blunder of primitive men as to
the “ duality ” of their nature ?
Darwin has a very interesting footnote on this
subject in his Descent of Man. After referring to
Tylor and Lubbock, he continues—
“ Mr. Herbert Spencer accounts for the earliest forms of
religious belief throughout the world by man being led through
dreams, shadows, and other causes, to look at himself as a
double essence, corporeal and spiritual. As the spiritual being
is supposed to exist after death, and to be powerful, it is
propitiated by various gifts and ceremonies, and its aid invoked.
He then further shows that names or nicknames given from
some animal or other object, to the early progenitors or founders
Life and Letters, vol. III., p.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
43
of a tribe, are supposed after a long interval to represent the
real progenitor of the tribe; and such animal or object is
then naturally believed still to exist as a spirit, is held sacred,
and worshipped as a god. Nevertheless I cannot but suspect
that there is a still earlier and ruder stage, when anything
which manifests power or movement is thought to be endowed
with some form cf life, and with mental faculties analogous
to our own.” 9
This is tracing religion to the primitive source
assigned to it by David Hume—“ the universal tendency
among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves,
and to transfer to every object those qualities with
which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which
they are intimately conscious.”* In other words,
1
Darwin begins a stage lower than Animism, in the con
fusion of subjective and objective such as we see in a
very young child ; although, of course, the worship of
gods could not have obtained in that stage, since man
is incapable of ascribing to nature any qualities but
those he is conscious of possessing, and it is therefore
impossible for him to people the external world with
spirits until he has formed the notion of a spirit within
himself.
Darwin was not attracted by that experiential
Animism which has such a fascination for Dr. Wallace.
In 1870 he attended a seance at the house of his brother
Erasmus in Chelsea, under the auspices of a well-known
medium. His account of the performance is not very
flattering to Spiritualism.
“ We had great fun one afternoon; for George hired a medium
who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery
Descent of Man, p. 94.
1 Hume, “ Natural History of Religion,” section III.
�44
DARWIN ON GOD.
points jump about in my brother’s dining-room, in a manner
that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths.
It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held
the medium’s hands and feet on both sides all the time. I
found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these
astounding miracles, or jugglery took place. How the man
could possibly do what was done passes my understanding.” 2
The more Darwin thought over what he saw the
more convinced he was that it was “all imposture.”
“ The Lord have mercy on us all,” he exclaimed, “ if
we have to believe in such rubbish.”
Darwin has not left us any emphatic utterance as to
his own belief about soul. “ What Darwin thought.”
says Mr. Grant Allen, “ I only suspect; but if we make
the plain and obvious inference from all the facts and
tendencies of his theories we shall be constrained to
admit that modern biology lends little sanction to the
popular notion of a life after death.” 3
Writing briefly to an importunate German student,
in 1879, he said “ As for a future life, every man must
judge for himself between conflicting vague probabili
ties.”4 This reminds one of Hamlet’s “ shadow of a
shade.” First, you have no certainty, nor even a
probability, but several probabilities ; these are vague
to begin with, and alas! they conflict with each other.
Surely such language could only come from a practical
unbeliever.
Like other men who were nursed in the delusion of
personal immortality, Darwin had his occasional fits
Vol. Ill,, p. 187.
3 The GoKpd A wording to Darwin. By Grant Allen, “ Pall Mall
Gazette,” January, 1888.
4 Vol. I., p. 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
45
of dissatisfaction with the inevitable—witness the
following passage from his Autobiography.
“ With respect to immortality, nothing shows me so clearly
how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consid
eration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, thatthe sun with all the planets will in time grow too coldfoi life?
unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus
gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant
future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is
an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings
are doomed to complete annihilation after such long continued
slow progress. To those who fully admit the immoitality of
the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear
so dreadful.”5
Had Darwin been challenged on this passage, I
think he would have admitted its ineptitude, for he
was modest enough for anything. The thought that
every man must die is no more intolerable than the
thought that any man must die, nor is the thought
that there will be a universe 'without the human race
any more intolerable than the thought that there teas
a universe without the human race. On the other
hand, Darwin did not allow for the fact that immor
tality is not synonymous with everlasting felicity.
According to most theologies, indeed, the lot of the
majority in the next life is not one of happiness, but
one of misery; and, on any rational estimate, the
annihilation of all is better than the bliss of the few
and the torture of the many. Nor is it true that
everyone would cheerfully accept the gift of immor
tality, even without the prospect of future suffering.
Every Buddhist—that is, four hundred millions of the
5Vol. I,, p. 312.
�46
PAE WIN ON GOD.
human race—looks forward to “ Nirvana,” the extinc
tion of the individual life, which is thus released
from the evil of existence. Even a Western philo
sopher, like John Stuart Mill, understood this yearning
as appears from the following passage :
“ It appears to me not only possible but probable, that in
a higher, and, above all, a happier condition of human life,
not annihilation but immortality may be the burdensome idea ;
and that human nature, though pleased with the present, and
by no means impatient to quit it, would find comfort and not
sadness in the thought that it is not chained to a conscious
existence which it cannot be insured that it will always
wish to preserve.”8
Mr. Winwood Reade, on the other hand, indulged in
the rapturous prophecy that man will some day grow
perfect, migrate into space, master nature, and invent
immortality.7 It is all a matter of taste and tempera
ment. Both wailings and rejoicings are outside the
scope of philosophy, and belong to the province of light
literature,
A PERSONAL GOD.
We have already seen that Darwin remained a Deist
after rejecting Christianity. Not only in the letter on
Dr. Pusey’s sermon, but in his Autobiography, Darwin
discloses the fact that his belief in a personal God
melted away after the publication of his masterpiece.
Speaking of “ a First Cause having an intelligent mind
in some degree analogous to that of man,” he says,
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the
* Three Euxayx on Reliyion By J. S. Mill, p. 122.
i Martrydom of Man. By Win wood Reade, pp, 51.4, 515.
�DAB WIN ON GOD.
47
time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin
of Species; and it is since that time that it has very
gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker/’'’
By the time he published the Descent of Man, in 1871,
the change was conspicuous. He was then able to treat
religion as a naturalist; that is, as one who stands out
side it and regards it with a feeling of scientific
curiosity. Not only did he trace religion back to the
lowest fetishism, he also analysed the sentiment of
worship in a manner which must have been highly
displeasing to the orthodox.
“ The feeling- of religious devotion is a highly complex one,
consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and
mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear,
reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other
elements. No being coukl experience so complex an emotion
until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least
a moderately high level. Nevertheless, we see some distant
approach to this state of mind in the deep love of a dog for his
master, associated with complete submission, some fear, and
perhaps other feelings. The behavior of a dog when returning
to his master after an absence, and, as I may add, of a monkey
to his beloved keeper, is widely different from that towards
their fellows. In the latter case the transports of joy appear
to be somewhat less and the sense of equality is shewn in
every action. Professor Braub ich goes so far as to maintain
that a dog looks on his master as a god.”9
This is not very flattering, for the dog’s attach
ment to his master is quite independent of morality;
whether the dog belongs to Bill Sikes or John
Howard, he displays the same devotion.
Darwin quoted with approval the statement of Sir
John Lubbock that “it is not too much to say that
3 Vol. I., p. 313.
Descent of Man, pp. 95, 96.
�48
DARWIN ON GOD.
the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick
cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure.”1
He also referred to witchcraft, bloody sacrifices, and
the ordeals of poison and fire, cautiously observing
that “ it is well occasionally to reflect on these super
stitions, for they show us what an infinite debt of
gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason
to science, and to our accumulated knowledge ”2—in
short, to the slow and painful civilisation of religion.
That the universal belief in God proves his exist
ence Darwin was unable to admit. “ There is ample
evidence, he says, ££ derived not from hasty travellers
but from men who have long resided with savages,
that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who
have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no
words in their language to express such an idea.”*
On the other hand, as he remarks in the same work—
“ I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has
been used by many persons as an argument for his existence.
But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled
to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits,
only a little more powerful than man ; for the belief in them
is far more general than in a beneficent Deity.’’4
Attention should here be called to a silent correction
in the second edition of the Descent of Man. Defer
ring to the question “ whether there exists a Creator
and Euler of the universe,” he said, ££ this has been
answered in the affirmative by'the highest intellects
that have ever existed.” This was altered into “some
1 Prehistoric Times. By Sir John Lubbock, p. 571.
2 Descent of Man, p. 96.
3 Ibid, p. 93.
4 Ibid, p. 612.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
49
o/the highest intellects.’'’ Darwin had discovered the
inaccuracy of his first statement, and learnt that some
of the highest intellects have been Atheists.
Two important passages must be extracted from hie
Autobiography. After remarking that the grandest
scenes had no longer the power to make him feel that
God exists, he answers the objection that he is “like a
man who has become color-blind/’ which is a favorite
one with conceited religionists.
“ This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races
had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God;
but we know that this is very far from being the case. There
fore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are
of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of
mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which
was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essenti
ally differ from that which is often called the sense of sub
limity ; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis
of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the
existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague
and similar feelings excited by music.’5
Further on in the same piece of writing he deals
with a second and very common argument of Theism.
“ Another source of conviction in the existence of God, con
nected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses
me as having much more weight. This follows from the
extreme difficulty, or rather utter impossibility of conceiving
this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his
capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the
result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I
feel compelled to look to a First Cause having, an intelligent
mind in some degree analogous to that of man. Tlii s conclusion
was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can
remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since
3 Vol I., p. 312.
�50
DARWIN ON GOD.
that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations,
become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of
man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind
as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted
when it draws such grand conclusions ? ” 6
This handling of the matter may be somewhat con
soling to Theists. One can hear them saying, “ Ah,
Darwin was not utterly lost.” But let them see how
he handles the matter in a letter to a Dutch student
(April 2, 1873).
“ I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this
grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose
through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the
existence of God ; but whether this is an argument of real
value I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we
admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it
came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from
the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am
also induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the
many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again
I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion
seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of
man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.’ ‘
“ Man can do his duty ”—a characteristic touch ! The
man who said this did his duty. His scientific achievments were precious, but they were matched by his
lofty and benevolent character.
DESIGN.
Darwinism has killed the Design argument, by
explaining adaptation as a result without assuming
design as a cause.
The argument, indeed, like all
Vol. I., pp. 312, 313.
- Vol. I., pp. 306, 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
51
“ proofs” of God’s existence, was based upon
ignorance. It was acutely remarked by Spinoza, in
his great majestic manner, that man knows that he
wills, but knows not the causes which determine his
will. Out of this ignorance the theologians manufac
tured their chaotic doctrine of free-will. Similarly,
out of our ignorance of the caus s of the obvious
adaptations in nature, they manufactured their plausible
Design argument. The “ fitness of things ” was indis
putable, and as it could not be explained scientifically,
the theologians trotted out their usual dogma of “ God
did it.”
Professor Huxley tells us that physical science has
created no fresh difficulties in theology. “Not a
solitary problem,” he says, “ presents itself to the
philosophical Theist, at the present day, which has not
existed from the time that philosophers began to think
out the logical grounds and theological consequenceof Theism.”8 While in one respect true, the states
ment is liable to mislead. Adaptation presents no new
problem—that is undeniable ; but the scientific expla
nation of it Cuts away the ground of. all teleology.
“ The teleology,” says Huxley, “ which supposes that
the'eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher
vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it
exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which
possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its deathbloAv.” Yet he bids us remember that “ there is a
wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of
Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental
8Zf/e and Letter?, vol. II., p. 202.
�52
DARWIN ON GOD.
proposition of Evolution. This proposition is that the
whole world, living and not living, is the result of the
mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the
powers possessed by the molecules of which the primi
tive nebulosity of the universe was composed.”0
Theologians in search of a life-buoy in the scientific
storm have grasped at this chimerical support, although
the wiser heads amongst them may doubt whether Pro
fessor Huxley is serious in tendering it. Surely if
eyes were not made to see with the Design argument
is dead. What is the use of saying that the materialist
is still “ at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always
defy him to disprove that the primordial molecular
arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena
of the universe?” The, very word “arrangement”
gives the teleologist all he requires, and the implied
assumption that we are “ at the mercy” of anyone who
makes an assertion which is incapable of proof, simply
because he “ defies ” us to disprove it, is a curious
ineptitude on the part of such a vigorous thinker.
When, in 1879, Darwin was consulted by a German
student, a member of his family replied for him as
follows :—“ He considers that tlie theory of Evolution
is quite compatible with belief in God; but that you
must remember that different persons have different
definitions of what they mean by God.”1 Precisely so.
You may believe in God if you define him so as not to
contradict facts ; in other words, you have a right to a
Deity if you choose to construct one. This is perfectly
harmless, but what connexion has it with the
»Vol. II., p. 201.
1 Vol. I., p. 307.
�DAPAVIN ON GOD.
53
“ philosophy ” of Theism ? There is no definition of
God which does not contradict facts. Why, indeed, is
theology full of mystery? Simply because it is full of
impasses, where dogma and experience are in hopeless
collision, and where we are exhorted to abnegate our
reason and accept the guidance of faith.
Darwin’s attitude towards the Design argument is
definite enough for such a cautious thinker. In one of
his less popular, but highly important works, the first
edition of which appeared in 1868, he went out of his
way to deal with it. After using the simile of an
architect, who should rear a noble and commodious
edifice, without the use of cut stone, by selecting stones
of various shape from the fragments at the base of a
precipice; he goes on to say that these “ fragments of
stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to
the edifice built by him the same relation which the
fluctuating varieties of organic beings bear to the varied
and admirable structures ultimately acquired by their
modified descendants.” The shape of the stones is not
accidental, for it depends on geological causes, though
it may be said to be accidental with regard to the use
they are put to.
“ Here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to
which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper
province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every
consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him.
But can itbe reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally
ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain
fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the
builder might erect his edifice ? If the various laws which
have determined the shape of each fragment were not predeter
mined for the builder’s sake, can it be maintained with any
�54
DARWIN ON GOD.
greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of
the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic
animals and plants ;—many of these variations being of no
service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to
the creatures themselves ? Did He ordain that the crop and
tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier
might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds ? Did
He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in
order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity,
with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man’s brutal sport?
But if we give up the principle in one case,—if we do not
admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally
guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect
image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no shadow
of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike
in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have
been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation
of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man in
cluded, were intentionally and specially guided. However
much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa
Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain
beneficial lines,” like a stream “ along definite and useful lines
of irrigation.” If we assume that each particular variation
was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that
plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious
deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of
reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence,
and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the
fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the
other hand, an omnipotent end omniscient Creator ordains
everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought
face te face with a difficulty as insoluble as that of free will
and predestination.2
Darwin protested that this had met with no reply.
What reply, indeed, is possible ? Design covers every2 Farfniwn of Animals and Plants under Domestication.
Charles Darwin. Vol. II., pp. 427, 428.
By
�DARWIN ON GOD.
55
thing or nothing. If the bulldog was not designed,
what reason is there for supposing that man was designed ? If there is no design in an idiot, how can
there be design in a philosopher 1
The Life and Letters contains many passages less
elaborate but more pointed. Here is one.
“ The old argument from Design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now
that'fhe law of natnral selection has been discovered. We can
no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a
bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being like
the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design
in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural
selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”3
The fit survive, the unfit perish; and the theologian is
eloquent on the successes, and silent on the failures.
He marks the hits and forgets the misses. Were
nature liable to human penalties she would have been
dished long ago; but she works with infinite time
and infinite resources, and therefore cannot become
bankrupt.
Here is a passage from a letter to Miss Julia
Wedgwood (July 11, 1861) on the occasion of her
article in Macmillan.
“ The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is
without having been designed; yet, where one would most
expect design, namely, in the structure of a sentient being, the
more I think the less I can see proof of design.”4
This reminds one of a pregnant utterance of another
master-mind. Cardinal Newman says he should be an
Atheist if it were not for the voice speaking in his
conscience, and exclaims—“ If I looked into a mirror,
3 Vol. I., p. 309.
4 Vol. I., pp. 313, 314.
�56
DARAVIN ON GOD.
and did not see my face, I should have the sort of
feeling which comes upon me when I look into this
living busy world, and see no reflexion of its
Creator.”5
Here is another passage from a letter (July, 1860)
to Dr. Asa Gray.
“ One word more on ‘ designed laws ’ and 1 undesigned
results.’ I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and
kill it. I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands
under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you
believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly
killed this man ? Many or most persons do believe this; I
can’t and don’t. If yon believe so, do you believe when a
swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particu
lar swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that
particular instant ? I believe that the man and the gnat are
in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor
gnat is designed, I see no reason to believe that their first
birth or production should be necessarily designed.”0
Twenty years later, writing to Mr. W. Graham, the
author of the Creed of Science, Darwin says, “ There
are some points in your book which I cannot digest
The chief one is that the existence of so-called
natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this.” 7
During the last year of his life a very interesting
conversation took place between Darwin and the Duke
of Argyll. Here is the special part in the Duke’s own
words.
“ In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin,
with reference to some of his own remarkable words on ‘ Fer
tilisation of Orchids ’ and upon ‘ The Earthworms,’ and
5 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 241.
6 Vol. I., pp. 314, 315.
7 Vol. I., p. 315.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
57
various other observations he made of the wonderful con
trivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impos
sible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect
and the expression of mind. He looked at me very hard and
said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming
force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely,
adding, ‘ it seems to go away.’ ’'8
This is a remarkable story, and the point of it is in
the words “ it seems to go away.’; There is nothing
extraordinary in the fact that Darwin, who was a
Christian till thirty and a Theisttill fifty, should some
times feel a billow of superstition sweep over his mind.
The memorable thing is that at other times his free
intellect could not harbour the idea of a God of Nature.
The indications of mind in the constitution of the
universe were not obvious to the one man living who
had studied it most profoundly. Belief in the super
natural could not harmonis 2 in Darwin’s mind with the
facts and conclusions of science. The truth of Evolu
tion entered it and gradually took possession. Theo
logy was obliged to leave, and although it returned
occasionally, and roamed through its old dwelling, it
only came as a visitor, and was never more a resident.
DIVINE BENEFICENCE.
The problem of how the goodness of God can be
reconciled with the existence of evil is at least as old
as the Book of Job, and the essence of the problem
remains unchanged. Many different solutions have
been offered, but the very best is nothing but a
8 Vol. I., p. 816.
�58 '
DARWIN ON GOD.
plausible compromise. Even the Christian theory of
a personal Devil, practically almost as potent as the
Deity, ancl infinitely more active, is a miserable make
shift ; for, on inquiry, it turns out that the Devil is a
part of God’s handiwork, exercising only a delegated
or permitted power. The usual resort of the theo
logian when driven to bay is to invoke the aid of
“ mystery,’7 but this is useless as against the logician,
since “ mystery ” is only a contradiction between the
facts and the hypothesis, and the theologian can hardly
expect to be saved by what is virtually a plea of
“ Guilty.7’
Like every educated and thoughtful man, Darwin
was brought face to face with this problem, and he was
too honest to twist the facts, and too much a lover of
truth and clarity to submerge them in the mysterious.
He preferred to speak plainly as far as his intellect
carried him, and when it stopped to frankly confess his
ignorance.
Writing to Dr. Asa Gray (May 22, 1850), Darwin
puts a strong objection to Theism very pointedly.
“I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I
should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all
sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent
God would have designedly created the ichneumonidse with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies
of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not be
lieving this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was
expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be
contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the
nature of mar, and to conclude that everything is the result of
brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting
from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left
�DABWIN ON GOD.
59
to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that
this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the
whole subject is too profound for the human intellect.”9
The latter part of this extract about “ designed
laws ” is modified by a subsequent letter, already
quoted, to the same correspondent. The first part is
the one to be dwelt upon in the present connexion.
Dealing with the same subject sixteen years later in
his Autobiography, Darwin gives his opinion that
happiness, on the whole, predominates over misery,
although he admits that this ‘f would be very difficult
to prove.” He then faces the Theistic aspect of the
question.
“ That there is much suffering' in the world no one disputes.
Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by
imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the
number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that
of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly
without any moral improvement. • This very old argument
from the existence of suffering against the existence of an
intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one.”1
Darwin is perfectly conscious that he is advancing
no new argument against Theism. An age of micro
scopical science was, indeed, necessary before the
internal parasites of caterpillars could be instanced;
not to mention the thirty species of parasites that
prey on the human organism. But such larger para
sites as fleas and lice have always been obvious, and
the theologians have been constantly asked why
Almighty Goodness prompted Almighty Wisdom to
provide humanity with such a sumptuous stock of
these nuisances. It may also be observed that while
9 Vol. II., p. 312.
1 Vol. I., p. 311.
�60
DARWIX OX GOD.
cholera, fever, and other germs, are modern discoveries,
such things as tumors, cancers, and leprosy, have
always attracted attention, and they are more telling
instances of malignant “ design ” than the ichneumonidae in caterpillars, as they immediately affect the
gentlemen who carry on the discussion.
Darwinism does, however, present the problem of
evil in a new light. It shows us that evil is not on the
surface of things, but is part of their very texture.
Those who complacently dwell on the survival of the
fittest, and the forward march to perfection, con
veniently forget that the survival of the fittest is the
result. Natural Selection is the process. And if we
look at this more closely we discover that natural selec
tion and the survival of the fittest are the same thing;
the real process being the elimination of the unfit.
Those who survive would have lived in any case ; what
has happened is that all the rest have been crushed out
of existence. Suppose, for instance (to take a case of
artificial selection), a farmer castrates nineteen bulls
and breeds from the twentieth; it makes a great
difference to the result, but clearly the whole of the
process is the elimination of the nineteen. Similarly,
in natural selection, all organic variations are alike
spawned forth by Nature ; the fit are produced and
perpetuated, while the unfit are produced and exter
minated. And hoic exterminated? Not by the swift
hand of a skilful executioner, but by countless varieties
of torture, some of which display an infernal ingenuity
that might abash the deftest Inquisitor. Every disease
known to us is simply one of Nature’s devices for
eliminating hei’ unsuitable offspring, and a cat’s playing
�DARWIN ON GOD.
61
with a mouse is nothing to the prolonged sport of
Nature in killing the victims of her own infinite lust
of procreation. Place a Deity behind this process,
and you create a greater and viler Devil than any
theology of the past was capable of inventing. Accept
it as the work of blind forces, and you may become a
Pessimist if you are disgusted with tlic entire business ;
or an Optimist if you are healthy, prosperous and
callous ; or a Meliorist if you think evolution tends to
progress, and that your own efforts may brighten the
lot of your fellows.
Darwin put the case too mildly in his first great work.
“ When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves
with the full belief, that no fear is felt, that death is generally
prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy
survive and multiply. ’2
Professor Huxley, in liis vigorous and uncompro
mising fashion, has put the case with greater foice and
accuracy
“From the point of view of the moralist the animal world is
;on about the same level as a gladiator’s show, the creatures
are fairly well treated, and set to figlit—whereby the strongest,
the swiftest and cunningest live to fight another day. The
spectator has no need to turn his thumbs down, as no quarte1'
is given. He must admit that the skill and training displayed
are wonderful. But he must shut his eyes if he would not see
that more or less enduring suffering is the meed of both vanguished and victor.’’3
Dr. Wallace, on the other hand, argues that the
“ torments ” and “ miseries ” of the lower animals are
imaginary, and that “ the amount of actual suffering
- Origin of Species, p, Gl.
3 The Struggle for Existence, “ Nineteenth Century,” February,
1888, p-163.
�62
DARWIN ON GOD.
caused by the struggle for existence among animals is
altogether insignificant?' They live merrily, have no
apprehensions, and die violent deaths which are “ pain
less and easy?’ Really the picture is idyllic I But
Dr. Wallace’s optimism is far from exhausted. Ide
tells us that “ their actual flight from an enemy ” is an
“ enjoyable exercise ” of their powers. This reminds
one of the old fox-hunter who, on being taxed with
enjoying a cruel sport, replied: “ Why the men like
it, the horses [like it, the dogs like it, and, demmc,
the fox likes it too.”
RELIGION AND MORALITY.
Darwin was, of course, a naturalist in ethics, holding
1 hat morality is founded on sympathy and the social
instincts.
There is no more solid and satisfactory
account of the genesis and development of conscience
than is to be found in the chapter on “ The Moral
Sense ” in the Descent of Man. I do not think-, how
ever, that he had given much attention to the relations
between morality and religion, but what he says is of
course entitled to respect.
“ With the more civilised races,” he declares, “ the
conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has
had a potent influence on the advance of morality?’4
He speaks of “ the ennobling belief in the existence
of an Omnipotent God,”5 and again of “the grand
idea of a God hating sin and loving righteousness.”c
These are casual opinions, never in any case elaborated,
so that we cannot tell on what grounds Darwin held
1 Descent of Man, p. 612.
5 Ibid, p. 93.
« Ibid, p. 144.
�63
DARWIN ON GOD.
them. One would have liked to hear his opinion as to
how many people were habitually swat ed bt this
“ grand idea” of God.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM. '
My views are not at all necessarily atheistical,
wrote Darwin in 1860 to Dr. Asa Gray.7 In the same
strain he wrote to Mr. Fordyce in 1879 :
“ What my own views may he is a question of no conse
quence to anyone but myself. But, as you ask, I may state
that my judgment often fluctuates. ... In my most extreme
fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of
denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and
more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an
Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of
mind.” s
Similarly, he closes a lengthy passage of his Auto
biography—“The mystery of the beginning of all
things is insoluble by us ; and I for one must be con
tent to remain an Agnostic.”9
Let us here recur to the conversation between
Darwin and Dr. Biichner, reported by Dr. Aveling.
Darwin “ held the opinion that the Atheist was a denier
of God,” and this is borne out by the extract just
given from his letter to Mr. Fordyce. His two guests
explained to him that the Greek prefix a was privative
not negative, and that an Atheist was simply a person
without God. Darwin agreed with them on every
point, and said finally, “ I am with you in thought, but
I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word
Atheist.” They suggested that Agnostic was Atheist
“ writ respectable,” and Atheist was Agnostic “ writ
7 Vol. II., p. 312.
8 Vol. I., p. 305.
s Vol. I., p. 313.
�64
DARWIN ON GOD.
aggressive?’ At which he smiled, and asked, “ Whyshould you be so aggressive ? Is anything gained by
trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of man
kind t It is all very well for educated, cultured,
thoughtful people ; but are the masses yet ripe for it ?”1
Mr. Francis Darwin does not dispute this report.
“ My father’s replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems to regard the
absence of aggressiveness in my father’s views as distinguish
ing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my
judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which dis
tinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which
Dr. Aveling belongs.” 2
This is amusing but not convincing ; indeed, it gives
up the whole point at issue. Mr. Francis Darwin
simply confirms all that Dr. Aveling said. The great
naturalist was not aggressive, so he preferred A gnostic
to Atheist; but as both mean exactly the same, essen
tially, the difference is not one of principle, but one of
policy and temperament.
Darwin prided himself
on having “ done some service in aiding to overthrow
the dogma of separate creations”® Had he gone more
into the world, and seen the evil effects of other dogmas,
he might have sympathised more with the aggressive
attitude of those who challenge Theology in toto as
the historic enemy of liberty and progress. This at
least is certain, that Charles Darwin, the supreme
biologist of his age, and the greatest scientific intellect
since Newton, was an Atheist in the only proper sense
of the word ; the sense supported by etymology, the
sense accepted by those who bear the name.
1 Dr. Aveling’s pamphlet, p. 5.
2 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 817.
3 Descend of Man, p, 61.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Darwin on God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 64 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N236
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Evolution
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 (Darwin on God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Darwin
Evolution-Religious Aspects-Christianity
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0f3d3fa9c261062655f6f78dba7ebd9e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sKYtST8PTxKAfq42i92vWV0rkMLm0mHsVy2t%7E89gSa2f2-l4PVpfPhNVK6n95iReMs%7EKNi53TDnFadCwvm%7E3dA2awbUDgkJ1S19x%7EQMEcIMTZDSkzjhu6dLc8kZ4a%7EtezJ1Dy727SSHZWrAyaprE8QoIRbAA1ll2tb1HWt5ysHJcoDk-hcgB6zp4pve5NNkIEBTcd7Q1vzTc3egGPvwvbdBfYHY%7ERbp1FiQkwZoxUi9bfmBhyf1AQ%7Ee47F4IfOEhOsarYveaOgTQ8Bgh5x94flj5awsUnsoam-BNt7%7E06phBdbsO5aIqfXLA6kCAb1DVfc68kyd7mQVKq0OKg9i8DA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e8f27ac8093d5c12985dae562ffc105a
PDF Text
Text
P
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
GOD AND THE STATE
BY
COLONEL INGERSOLL.
Verbatim from the New York “ Arena."
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�KT5S3
GOD AND THE STATE.
All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed.
In this country it is admitted that the power to govern
resides in the people themselves ; that they are the
only rightful source of authority. For many centuries
before the formation of our government, before the
promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the
people had but little voice in the affairs of nations.
The source of authority was not in this world ; kings
were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre
was not held by the consent of the governed. The
king sat on his throne by the will of God, and for that
reason was not accountable to the people for the
exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people
obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner,
the priest, was lord of their souls. The government of
earth was patterned after the kingdom on high. God
was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was law,
and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth, whose
will was law. The God in heaven had inferior beings
to do his will, and the king on earth had certain
favorites and officers to do his. These officers were
accountable to him, and he was responsible to God.
The feudal system was supposed to be in accordance
with the divine plan. The people were not governed
by intelligence, but by threats and promises, by
rewards and punishments. No effort was made to
enlighten the common people; no one thought of
educating a peasant—of developing the mind of a
�( 4 )
laborer. The people were created to support thrones
and altars. Their destiny was to toil and obey—to
work and want. They were to be satisfied with huts
and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their children
must expect no more. In the presence of the king
they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they
grovelled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided
his earnings with the state, because he imagined it
protected his body ; he divided his crust with the
church, believing it protected his soul. He was the
prey of throne and altar—one deformed his body, the
other his mind—and these two vultures fed upon his
toil. He was taught by the king to hate the people of
other nations, and by the priest to despise the believers
in all other religions. He was made the enemy of all
people except his own. He had no sympathy with the
peasants of other lands enslaved and plundered like
himself. He was kept in ignorance, because education
is the enemy of superstition, and because education is
the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.
The intelligent and good man holds in his affections
the good and true of every land—the boundaries of
countries are not the limitations of his sympathies.
Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who
speak other languages and worship other gods.
Between him and those that suffer, there is no
impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the
hand of friendship to the human race. He does not
bow before a provincial and patriotic God—one who
protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of
mankind.
Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has
insisted that it was the peculiar care of the true God,
and that it alone had the true religion—that the gods
of other nations were false and fraudulent, and that other
religions were wicked, ignorant, and absurd. In this
way the seeds of hatred have been sown, and in this
way have been kindled the flames of war. Men have
had no sympathy with those of a different complexion,
with those that knelt at other altars and expressed
their thoughts in other words—and even a difference
in garments placed them beyond the sympathy of others.
�( 5 )
Every peculiarity was the food of prejudice and the
excuse for hatred.
The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by
commerce, People became somewhat acquainted, and
they found that the virtues and vices were quite evenly
distributed.
At last subjects became somewhat
acquainted with kings—peasants had the pleasure of
gazing at princes, and it was dimly perceived that the
differences were mostly in rags and names.
In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods
from politics. They declared that “ all governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed.” This was a contradiction, of the then
political ideas of the world ; it was, as many believed,
an act of pure blasphemy—a renunciation of the deity.
It was in fact, a declaration of the independence of
the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests
that thereafter mankind would govern and protect
themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and
denied the authority of every “sacred book,” and
appealed from the providence of God to the Providence
of Man.
Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a
Constitution for the great Republic.
What was the office or purpose of that Constitution ?
Admitting that all power came from the people, it
was necessary, first, that certain means be adopted for
the purpose of ascertaining the will of the people ;
and second, it was proper and convenient to designate
certain departments that should exercise certain powers
of the government. There must be the legislative, the
judicial, and the executive department. Those who
make laws should not execute them. Those who
execute laws should not have the power of absolutely
determining their meaning or their constitutionality.
For these reasons, among others, a constitution was
adopted.
The constitution also contained a declaration of
rights. It marked out the limitations of discretion, so
that in the excitement of passion men shall not go
beyond the point designated in the calm moment of
reason.
�( 6 )
When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject
to reason, it is well he should define the limits of
power, so that the waves driven by the storm of
passion shall not overbear the shore.
A constitution is for the government of man in this
world. It is the chain the people put upon their
servants as upon themselves. It defines the limit of
power and the limit of obedience.
It follows, then, that nothing should be in a consti
tution that cannot be enforced by the power of the
state—that is, by the army and navy. Behind every
provision of the constitution should stand the force of
the nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon
should be there.
Suppose, then, that we amend the constitution and
acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God—
what becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how
is this amendment to be enforced ? A constitution
does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by
appropriate legislation. Will it be a crime to deny
the existence of this Constitutional God ? Can the
offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts ?
Can his lips be closed by the power of the state ?
Would not this be the inauguration of religious
persecution ?
And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God
in the Constitution, the question naturally arises as
to which God is to have this honor. Shall we select
the God of the Catholics—he who has established an
infallible church presided over by an infallible pope,
and who is delighted with certain ceremonies and
placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly common
Latin ? Is it the God of the Presbyterian, with the
Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough
to harmonise necessity and responsibility, and who
in some way justifies himself for damning most of
his own children ? Is it the God of the Puritan, the
enemy of joy—of the Baptist, who is great enough
to govern the universe, and small enough to allow the
destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it
inhabited was immersed or sprinkled ?
�( 7 )
What God is it proposed to put in the Constitution ?
Is it the God of the Old Testament, who was a
believer in slavery and who justified polygamy ? If
slavery was right then, it is right now ; and if Jehovah
was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are we
to have the God who issued a commandment against
all art—who was the enemy of investigation and of
free speech? Is it the God who commanded the
husband to stone his wife to death because she differed
with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have
a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish
hundreds of offences with death ? What court, what
tribunal of last resort, is to define this God, and who
is to make known his will ? In his presence laws
passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of
courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known
the will of this supreme God? Will there be a
supreme tribunal composed of priests ?
Of course all persons elected to office will either
swear or affirm to support the Constitution. Men who
do not believe in this God, cannot so swear or affirm.
Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of
trust or honor. A God in the Constitution will not inter
fere with the oaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a
provision will only exclude honest and conscientious
believers. Intelligent people know that no one knows
whether there is a God or not. The existence of such
a being is merely a matter of opinion. Men who
believe in the liberty of man, who are willing to die
for the honor of their country, will be excluded from
taking any part in the administration of its affairs.
Such a provision would place the country under the
feet of priests.
To recognise a deity in the organic law of our
country would be the destruction of religious liberty.
The God in the Constitution would have to be pro
tected. There would be laws against blasphemy, laws
against the publication of honest thoughts, laws against
carrying books and papers in the mails, in which this
constitutional God should be attacked. Our land
would be filled with theological spies, with religious
eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the
�( 8 )
lowest natures, in this sunshine of religious authority,
would uncoil and crawl.
It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the
lawful and rightful governor of nations—the one who
ordained the powers that be. If this God is really the
governor of nations, it is not necessary to acknowledge
him in the Constitution. This would not add to his
power. If he governs all nations now, he has always
controlled the affairs of men. Having this control,
why did he not see to it that he was recognised in the
Constitution of the United States ? If he had the
supreme authority and neglected to put himself in the
Constitution, is not this, at least, prima facie evidence
that he did not desire to be there ?
For one, I am not in favor of the God who has
“ ordained the powers that be.” What have we to say
of Russia—of Siberia ? What can we say of the per
secuted and enslaved ? What of the kings and nobles
who live on the stolen labors of others ? What of the
priest and cardinal and pope, who wrest even from the
hand of poverty the single coin thrice earned ?
Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitu
tional amendment?
The “Confederate States” ac
knowledged God in their constitution, and yet they
were overwhelmed by a people in whose organic law
no reference to God is made. All the kings of the
earth acknowledge the existence of God, and God is
their ally ; and this belief in God is used as a means to
enslave and rob, to govern and degrade the people
whom they call their subjects.
The government of the United States is secular.
It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a
government with which God has nothing whatever to
do—and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the
fundamental fact that the people are the source of
authority, should be abandoned. In this country there
should be no oaths—no man should be sworn to tell
the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal
to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath
appears to go in partnership with God, and ignorant
jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness
should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should
�( 9 )
be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and
Presidents should not issue religious proclamations.
They should not call upon the people to thank God. It
is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and
beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing
in the Constitution of the United States to justify this
religious impertinence.
For many years priests have attempted to give to our
government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded
in putting the legend upon our money : “ In God we
Trust
and we have chaplains in the army and navy,
and legislative proceedings are usually opened with
prayer.
All this is contrary to the genius of the Re
public, contrary to the Declaration of Independence,
and contrary really to the Constitution of the United
States. We have taken the ground that the people can
govern themselves without the assistance of any super
natural power. We have taken the position that the
people are the real and only rightful source of authority.
We have solemnly declared that the people must
determine what is politically right and what is wrong
and that their legally expressed will is the supreme
law. This leaves no room for national superstition—
no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings—
and this does away with the necessity for political
prayers.
The government of God has been tried. It was tried
in Palestine several thousand years ago, and the God of
the Jews was a monster of cruelty and ignorance, and
the people governed by this God lost their nationality.
Theocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God
was the governor—the Pope was his agent, and every
priest and bishop and cardinal was armed with cre
dentials from the most high—and the result was that
the noblest and best were in prisons, the greatest and
grandest perished at the stake. The result was that
vices were crowned with honor, and virtues whipped
naked through the streets.
The result was that
hypocrisy swayed the sceptre of authority, while
honesty languished in the dungeons of the Inquisi
tion.
�( 10 )
The government of God was tried in Geneva when
John Calvin was his representative ; and under this
government of God the flames climbed around the
limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus,
because he dared to express an honest thought. This
government of God was tried in Scotland, and the
seeds of theological hatred were sown that bore,
through hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre and
assassination. This government of God was established
in New England, and the result was that Quakers were
hanged or burnt—the laws of Moses re-enacted and the
■“ witch was not suffered to live.” The result was that
investigation was a crime, and the expression of an
honest thought a capital offence. This government of
God was established in Spain, and the Jews were
expelled, the Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were
exterminated, and nothing left but the ignorant and
bankrupt worshippers of this monster. This govern
ment of God was tried in the United States,when slavery
was regarded as a divine institution, when men and
women were regarded as criminals because they sought
for liberty by flight, and when others were regarded
as criminals because they gave them food and shelter.
The pulpit of that day defended the buying and
selling of women and babes, and the mouths of slave
traders were filled with passages of scripture defending
and upholding the traffic in human flesh.
We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the
century of man. Every effort to really better the con
dition of mankind has been opposed by the worship
pers of some God. The church in all ages and among
all peoples has been the consistent enemy of the human
race. Everywhere and at all times, it has opposed the
liberty of thought and expression. It has been the
«worn enemy of investigation and of intellectual de
velopment. It has denied the existence of facts the
tendency of which was to undermine its power. It has
always been carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy.
It has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the
dungeon for thinkers. And to-day the orthodox church
is as much opposed as it ever was, to the mental free
dom of the human race.
�(11)
Of course there is a distinction made between
churches and individual members. There have been
millions of Christians who have been believers in
liberty and the freedom of expression—millions who
have fought for the rights of man—but churches as
organisations have been on the other side. It is true
that churches have fought churches—the Protestants
battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased
to call the freedom of conscience ; and it is also true
that the moment these Protestants obtained the civil
power, they denied this freedom of conscience to
Others.
Let me show you the difference between the theo
logical and the secular spirit. Nearly three hundred
years ago, one of the noblest of the human race,
Giordano Bruno, was burnt at Rome by the Catholic
church—that is to say by the “ Thriumphant Beast.”
This man had committed certain crimes—he had
publicly stated that there were other worlds than
this —other constellations than ours. He had ventured
the supposition that other planets might be peopled.
More than this, and worse than this, he had asserted the
heliocentric theory—that the earth made its annual
journey about the sun. He had also given it as his
opinion that matter is eternal. For these crimes he was
found unworthy to live, and about his body were piled
the fagots of the Catholic church. This man, this
genius, this pioneer of the science of the nineteenth
century, perished as serenely as the sun sets. The
Infidels of to-day find excuses for his murderers. They
take into consideration the ignorance and brutality of
the times.
They remember then the world was
governed by a God who was then the source of all
authority.
This is the charity of Infidelity—of
philosophy. But the church of to-day is so heartless,
is still so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse for
the murdered.
This is the difference between Theocracy and
Democracy—between God and man.
If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must
abdicate. There is no room for both. If the people of
the great republic become superstitious enough and
�( 12 )
ignorant enough to put God in the Constitution of the
United States, the experiment of self-government will
have failed, and the great and splendid declaration
that “ all governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed ” will have been denied,
and in its place will be found this : All power comes
from God ; priests are his agents, and the people are
their slaves.
Religion is an individual matter, and each soul
should be left entirely free to form its own opinions
and to judge of its accountability to a supposed supreme
being. With religion, government has nothing what
ever to do. Government is founded upon force, and
force should never interfere with the religious opinions
of men. Laws should define the rights of men and
their duties toward each other, and these laws should
be for the benefit of man in this world.
A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel—a
nation is incapable of having opinions upon these
subjects. If a nation is Christian, will all the citizens
go to heaven ? If it is not, will they all be damned ?
Of course it is admitted that the majority of citizens
composing a nation may believe or disbelieve, and
they may call the nation what they please. A nation
is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying “ it has
no soul.” There can be no such thing as a Christian
Corporation. Several Christians may form a corpora
tion, but it can hardly be said that the corporation
thus formed was included in the atonement. For
instance : seven Christians form a corporation—that is
to say, there are seven natural persons and one
artificial—can it be said that there are eight souls to
be saved ?
No human being has brain enough, or knowledge
enough, or experience enough, to say whether there is,
or is not, a God. Into this darkness science has not
yet carried its torch. No human being has gone
beyond the horizon of the natural. As to the existence
of the supernatural, one man knows precisely as much,
and exactly as little as another. Upon this question,
chimpanzees, and cardinals, apes and popes, are upon
exact equality. The smallest insect discernible only
�( 13 )
by the most powerful microscope, is as familiar with
this subject as the greatest genius that has been
produced by the human race.
Governments and laws are for the preservation of
rights and the regulation of conduct. One man should
not be allowed to interfere with the liberty of another.
In the metaphysical world there should be no inter
ference whatever. The same is true in the world of
art. Laws cannot regulate what is, or what is not,
music—what is or what is not beautiful—and constitu
tions cannot definitely settle and determine the perfec
tion of statues, the value of paintings, or the glory and
subtlety of thought. In spite of laws and constitutions
the brain will think. In every direction consistent
with the well-being and peace of society, there should
be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt
the theology of another ; neither should a minority
however small, be forced to acquiesce in the opinions
of a majority, however large.
If there be an infinite being, he does not need our
help—we need not waste our energies in his defence.
It is enough for us to give to every other human being
the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may or may
not be a supreme ruler of the universe—but we are
certain that man exists, and we believe that freedom is
the condition of progress, that it is the sunshine of the
mental and moral world, and that without it man will
go back to the den of savagery and will become the
fit associate of wild and ferocious beasts
We have tried the government of priests, and we
know that such governments are without mercy. In
the administration of theocracy, all the instruments of
torture have been invented. If any man wishes to
have God recognised in the Constitution of our country,
let him read the history of the Inquisition, and let him
remember that hundreds of millions of men, women,
and children have been sacrificed to placate the wrath
nr win the approbation of this God.
There has been in our country a divorce of Church
and State. This follows as a natural sequence of the
declaration that “ governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed.” The priest was no
�( 14 )
longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction
of the principle on which the Republic was founded.
He represented, not the authority of the people, but of
some “power from on high,” and to recognise this
other power was inconsistent with free government.
The founders of the Republic at that time parted com
pany with the priests, and said to them : “ Y ou may
turn your attention to the other world—we will attend
to the affairs of this.” Equal liberty was given to all.
But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with this ; he
wishes to destroy the liberty of the people ; he wishes
a recognition of his God as the source of authority, to
the end that the Church may become the supreme
power.
But the sun will not be turned backward. The
people of the United States are intelligent. They no
longer believe implicitly in supernatural religion.
They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels
of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free
school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They
are believers in education, in the free play of thought,
and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian,
is destined to take his place with the necromancer, the
astrologer, the worker of magic, and the professor of
the black art.
We have already compared the benefits of theology
and Science. When the theologian governed the world,
it was covered with huts and hovels for the many,
palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the
children of men reading and writing were unknown
arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins—they
devoured crusts and gnawed bones. The day of
Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are
the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks
of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies
than the princes and kings of the theological times.
But above and over all of this, is the development of
the mind. There is more of value in the brain of an
average man of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of a
chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there
was in the brain of the world four hundred years
ago.
�( 15 )
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These
benefits did not crop from the outstretched hands of
priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind
altars—neither were they searched for with holy
candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes
of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious
supplication. They are the children of freedom, the
gifts of reason, observation and experience—and for
them all man is indebted to man.
Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of
Lincoln : Let us insist that this, the Republic, is
“ a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people.”
�Works by Colonel Ingersoll.
Mistakes of Moses
...
...
...
Superior edition, in cloth
...
...
Only complete edition published in England.
i o
i 6
Defence of Freethought
...
...
0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds
for Blasphemy.
. Reply to Gladstone
...
...
With Biography by J. M. Wheeler,
...
0 4
Rome or Reason ? Reply to Cardinal Manning
0 4
Faith, and Fact. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
0 2
Second Reply to Dr. Field ...
0 2
God and Man.
The Dying Creed
...
The Household of Faith
...
...
0
2
...
...
0
2
...
0
2
The Limits of Toleration
...
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Courdert
and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
...
...
0 2
Marriage and Divorce...
...
...
0 2
Do I Blaspheme?
...
...
0 2
The Clergy & Common Sense...
...
Art and Morality
...
...
0
2
Social Salvation
...
...
...
0 2
The Great Mistake
...
...
' ...
0 1
Live Topics
... *
...
...
0 1
Myth and Miracle
...
...
...
0 1
Real Blasphemy
...
...
...
0 1
...
Progressive Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street,
London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
God and the state
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: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the New York "Arena." "Works by Colonel Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 27d in Stein checklist, but with different date and pagination (later printing?). Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
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
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N353
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 (God and the state), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church and State
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1236d3aa0b9858003141d95ed3d1b574.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hhbTGxjJAdDBAw4w2tWWOd3%7EQU-kBmZfGrS9WVlerzfLevJCmy5AniYU%7EFQ7eyu7vpcdENHRv1MyEl-%7EmEoIbVfhduj5BUTFWLSaVPvG1mfdTTsK9bHmyQRu%7EQ0BDEB-CnV9FXAtcK3z%7E0pMPq3Biv6liZRi2p28hbwPNgdtcfGRdbkEJY58ar3psXfxroM81o8TDb1h6%7EcMhMqRDHLTN9U44BBi7hgvsCi8-hqK3PZ-urnswOovO59XhYIlQNXdEdUIdStjuwJIYZSPhGx2CZTKzb1sbQkx5ySIAQbzJUxzUYKetQ6EwYnNoh8MB1uYKTQBSmSwyJyTqYhqNk6IuA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
82a35807effd5284b60164f50b917913
PDF Text
Text
N4-J.7
national secular society
THE BIBLE GOD
- AND HIS -FAVOURITES..
BY
ARTHUR
B-
MOSS.
if'HERE are. various conceptions of Deity. From
1 beginning Go’d has been drawn in the image of
the
his
maker, man ; and the grosser the character of the man, the
lower have been the qualities ascribed to his Deity. Find a
noble-minded man like Paine, elevated above his fellows by
virtue of his lofty-principles and benign character ; find«a
magnanimous soul like Spinoza, or a penetrating mind like
Voltaire, and no inhuman conception of Deity- would, exist
in his imagination : only a grand pure spirit, of which-, the
human mind could form no picture—only a lofty ideal,”the
reflection'of his own pure mind, would satisfy him. It is
not our purpose, however, to deal here with "the intangible
essence of the pure Theist, or with the honest imaginings
of modest philosophers; we-shall strike only at the man
made idol of the theologian—the puerile, vacillating, petu
lant, and revengeful God described in the Holy Bible.
Who wrote the books containing the description of the
character and conduct of the God of the Jews?’ Secularists do
not know; Jews do not know; even Christians do not know,
although they say they do. It is very important that we
should know to whom God entrusted the great office of agent
or medium between'himself and the creatures of his manu
facture. ’ The Christians say it was Moses. Freethinkers
ask for proof of this, since they fail to see the possibility of
Moses being able to write an account of his own death and
-.burial. Whoever placed the name of Moses in the front
-page of the Bible as the author of the Pentateuch must
have either been an impudent Freethinker or an incipient
dolt; for, in the one case, he could only have done it for
the purpose of seeing how far credulity can go, or, in the
�2
THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES.
other, to demonstrate how very simple religious compilers
or translators often are. Though it is very important that
we should know who wrote the Pentateuch, in. order that
we might not be duped by some wicked impostor, we need
not trouble ourselves to investigate the matter now ift any
length.- We have but to read the books themselves—
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, etc.—to*
be at once convinced of the character of the author's mind.
There are some who say to u$, Who wrote the plays attri
buted to Shakespeare—plays that have thrilled so many
thousands by virtue of the human interest that pervadesevery scene, which have commanded admiration from the
loftiest minds, and which even the greatest wit canrfOt
successfully ridicule ? We answer by confessing that the
authorship is disputed. Shakespeare may, possibly, not
have written the works of which he is alleged to be the
author; but this much at least we do know—that he whowrote them must have been a great human soul* swayed by
human sympathies, understanding human frailties, painting
virtue in the purest and most beautiful colours, describing
<iice with true artistic skill, and causing the profoundly wise
to bow their heads in humble reverence before the greatest
mind England has ever known.
But can we in the same way reverence the writings of
Moses ? The ignorant and credulous, who belong to the
masses, would worship the writings of an idiot if they were
labelled “ inspired.” Do not let us? however, be misunder
stood. There are many pure, high-minded persons who
regard the Bible as the greatest and btst book that has ever
been written. But they do not think it so because Moses,
or any other of its authors, contributed to it; the reason is
because they regard it as the word of God. Their belief is
the result of circumstances, not of thought; it is more an
hereditary matter than the outcome of intelligent examina
tion. It is such as these that Freethinkers desire to win ;
we would sooner expend all our time and energy in con
verting these to truth and liberty than give a thousand
lectures to cause mirth among the ignorant and the thought
less.
But the Bible is the inspired word of God, and surely he
would not libel himself. He would not, for instance, say
he was of jealous disposition if he meant us to understand
that he was a God of love; he would not advise us to make
�THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES.
3
slaves of the heathen if he wished us to believe that he was
the father of us all, and that all men were brothers; he
would not command us to slaughter inoffensive and un
defended people if he intended to impress us that he was
just; and neither would he, if he desired us to believe that
he was infinitely wise, give us to understand that he came
•down from above to see if it were true that the people
were building a tower that should reach up to heaven—
indeed, he could not do or even sanction these things and
.at the same time retain the attributes ascribed to him by
theologians.
Let us turn over the pages of the Bible, and see who
were the favourites of God. We have a right to expect
that God would be impartial—that, like the wisest and
noblest judge who ever adorned the bench, he would
administer justice to all, favouring none. If, however, he
should esteem some more than others, those selected for
this special mark of respect should certainly be among the
most virtuous, the most upright, the most true. This is
what we have a right to expect. But, when dealing with
the Biblical God, our expectations are very rarely realised ;
and the only consolation the believer can give us is that
“ God’s ways are not our ways.” Adam, the first man ot
whom we read, wTas not a favourite with God, and, conse
quently, the Lord soon set the Devil on to Adam, of whom
he made very short work. When we come to the fourth
chapter of Genesis we find God showing favour to Abel by
accepting his offering of the blood of a lamb, and despising
poor Cain’s modest offering of “ the fruit of the ground.”
Why this favour ? We all feel a thrill of horror in the con
templation of the wicked crime of Cain in slaying his
brother • but is not our horror intensified when we remem
ber that it was the manifestation of favouritism from God
that led to the commission of this crime ? The Bible God
has much to answer for.
We turn over the pages of the Bible, and find that the
men and women whom God created in his own image had
gone irrevocably bad—so bad, indeed, that he determined
to destroy them all. Stop! not all; God still had favourites.
He would destroy all but one family. We search the Bible
in vain to find the record, of any good that the family of
Noah had done for mankind. God looked upon the earth,
.and found that it was corrupt; “for all flesh had corrupted
�4
THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES.
his way upon the earth.” Noah alone “ was a just man—
perfect in his generation.” We will not dispute his justicenor his perfection : in the Biblical sense these do not meam
much. Was Noah’s wife perfect too? There is not a word',
about her in the Bible. If she were not just, did God saveher for the sake of her husband or her children ? If yes,,
here is favouritism again. But why save Shem, Ham, and
Japheth? What good had they done? The God who<
would save these, or who could have pity for these, and yet
ruthlessly slaughter the thousands of mothers with babes at
their breasts, cannot be worthy of a moment’s earnest
thought—indeed, such a wretched idea of Deity could only
have emanated from a base and brutal mind.
We can pass by the absurdities involved in bringing all
the animals, two by two, and packing them close as herrings
in the ark. But we are appalled at the magnitude of God’s
wickedness in destroying the world by a deluge, and wonder
how any people could have put their trust in such a being;
again. We pass to Abraham, another favourite of God.
What did he do to merit God’s approval? He offered to
sacrifice his only son to show his faith. But God, being
all-wise, must have known his faith beforehand. The
dramatic scene with Abraham, with outstretched hand
ready to do the bloody deed, was a mockery. Though
Abraham wished to show his faith, he looked round to see
if the Lord was at the side-wings ready to rush on and cry,
“ Hold ! enough !” Abraham was a great favourite of
Jehovah’s; yet Abraham was a great liar, and on two occa~sions allowed his wife’s purity to be very seriously imperilled,
because he feared to tell the truth. God favours liars ; he
favoured Jacob and that father of liars, David. Abraham
ill-treated the woman who had borne him a child, yet God
reproved him not; Jacob cheated his brother of his birth
right, yet God was with him ; Moses slew an Egyptian, yet.
God encouraged him ; David committed almost all thecrimes in the calendar of guilt, yet he was perfect in the
sight of God.
We will consider Jacob more closely. When Isaac layon his death-bed he called his two sons to him, promising
to pronounce a blessing upon Esau. But Jacob came with
a lie on his tongue, and stole away the blessing intended
for his brother. Yet the Lord forsook him not. Day by
day Jacob increased in wickedness, and we are not at all'
�THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES.
surprised, in following him, to find that he ultimately becamea great thief, and actually aided and abetted, Rachel, his
wife, to steal the images that belonged to her father. In.
all this the Lord’s encouraging voice was heard to say,
“ Jacob, I will be with you.” Oh ! what a contrast is this
to God’s treatment of Esau ! Esau was despised of God ;
yet none can read his life without admiring his magna
nimity. Even when a chance of revenge was possible Esau
forgave his wicked brother, and fell on his neck and kissed
him. What noble conduct! Not one word in the Bible
praises Esau for his generous forbearance.
In Exodus we read of some midwives who feared God,,
and we are told that, on account of this, God dealt well
with them, and built them houses. We will not ask whether
God has given up the trade of jerry-builder now ; only one
z thing concerns us—we are anxious to know whether those
houses were freehold or only leasehold.
Moses played a very important role in the Biblical drama
arranged by God. The first thing recorded of him when
he grew to manhood was that one day, seeing that a Hebrew
and an Egyptian were quarrelling, he looked in one direc
tion, and then another, and when he saw that no one
was looking he slew the Egyptian.
The Lord took no
notice of this, or, perhaps, did not see it; and, had not
another Egyptian been peeping round the corner, this crime
would have gone unobserved and unrebuked. Moses, with,
his eloquent brother Aaron, were great favourites of the
Lord, and assisted the Almighty very materially in plaguing;
the Egyptians. The Lord had playfully hardened Pharoah’s
heart, so that he objected to “ let the children of Israel
goand thus God brought great trouble upon the
Egyptians, who had done no evil. It is true that Mosesnad some conscientious scruples at first in going to Pharoah ;
but when he was informed that the Israelites should “ spoil
the Egyptians, and take their jewels of gold,” he readily
consented to pocket his conscience and the spoil.
The many battles fought by Moses on the Lord’s
behalf and his own we have not space to detail; we will*
however, select one quotation as a sample of how the Lord
permitted his favourites to deal with their fellow creatures.
It is from Exodus xxxii. 26—28 : “ Then Moses stood in
the gate of the camp and said, Who is on the Lord’s side?"
Let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered
�*6
THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES.
\
’themselves together unto him. And he said unto them,
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his
rsword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate
'throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
■every man his companion, and every man his neighbour,
And the children of Levi did according to the word of
Moses : and there fell of the people that day about three
’thousand men.” In Numbers xxxi. 7—18 we find Moses
warring against the Midianites, killing all the males and all
the married females, but directing that the virgin women
•should be preserved to gratify the lust of the Israelites.
We pass a long list of smaller favourites, and come at last
to the man after God’s own heart. We find on examination
that he told innumerable falsehoods, that he robbed his
friends and neighbours, that he committed perjury, adulterj’,
'murder, and other crimes too numerous to mention. Yet
'God was ever with him and prospered him. These were
■among the favourites of the God of Israel.
Job was a good man: how did God treat him ? He sub
jected him to such torture as language is altogether power
less to describe. He let the Devil do as he pleased with
him, for the Devil was always on the very best of terms
with God. It is better far to earn the disfavour of such a
<God than his approval. And what is the conduct of the
(favourites of God—the priests—to-day ? They are still on
the side of injustice.
They asked God to help them to
■slaughter the poor Zulus, while the Infidel Bishop Colenso
prayed that their lives might be spared. They favoured
the perpetuation of ignorance among the poor bv opposing
;a national scheme of education which did not include the
teaching of their theological doctrines, and now they stand
in the way of a duly-elected member of Parliament taking
Lis seat in the House of Commons, because his faith is in
.Humanity, and not in the Biblical God.
Leaving individuals, we come now to consider the cha
racter of God’s chosen people—the Israelites. First, what
idea had these people of God ? Did they think he was a
•spirit—an essence permeating the universe ? Not so. To
itheir mind God was but an elongated man, with all the
’•attributes—very much amplified—of humanity. He was a
material being, seen on the mountain top by Moses, Aaron,
;and a number of Jewish elders—-a Being who conversed
with Moses face to face, wrestled with Jacob, visited Abra-
�THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES.
7
ham and Manoah, Samson’s mother, and who, above all,,
was a mighty king of war. It is no wonder that, in study
ing the early history of the Israelites, we find them constantly
engaged in warfare, always arrogating to themselves that
the Lord of Hosts was on their side. From the time of
their deliverance from Egypt till the death of David they
were scarcely ever free from military engagements. And theLord showed them much favour ! If Moses desired to win
a battle, when it seemed as though defeat were inevitable,
he had but to hold up his hands, or get somebody to hold,
them up for him, and victory was certain ; if Joshua wereengaged in warfare, and the day was far spent, he had but
to command the sun to stand still, and triumph over the
enemy was complete.
Throughout the whole of Judges, Samuel, and Kings we-,
are confronted with tales of bloody deeds perpetrated in
the name of the Lord; and we shudder to think that in the
nineteenth century pure-minded men and women can be
found who do not hesitate to confess that they render thehomage of their lives to so atrocious a Deity as that which
the sacred writings of the Jews describe. “Barbarous and
uncivilised nations,” says Shelley, “ have uniformly adored,,
under various names, a God of which they themselves,
were the model—revengeful, bloodthirsty, grovelling, and.
capricious. The idol of the savage is a demon that delightsin carnage. The steam of slaughter, the dissonance of
groans, the flames of a desolate land, are the offerings which,
he deems acceptable,-and his innumerable votaries through
out the world have made it a point of duty to worship him.
to his taste.”
In addition to the bloodthirsty qualities ascribed to the:
Hebrew God, the inspired books teem with obscenities,
such as no pure woman could read without a blush of'
shame suffusing her face, and which no man would dare
publish to-day apart from the Bible.
Moreover, God is
said in Leviticus to have personally instituted some of the
most filthy observances it is possible for the human mind to
conceive.
The conclusion, therefore, is forced upon us.
that the books of the Bible contain the description of a God.
who is the outcome of base and brutal imaginations, and
that priests have encouraged the belief in this Deity among.,
the ignorant and credulous to awe them into submission.
Doubtless there will be many who will call this blasphemy;,
�3
THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES.
the Freethinker, however, cannot blaspheme a God in whom
he has no belief. The strongest denunciations which the
human mind could frame, and to which the human tongue
could give utterance, would be all too feeble with which to
condemn the conduct of such a God as the one we have
been considering, if such a being really existed. And if a
good God exists, altogether unlike this one, he would
assuredly be the first to condemn the so-called “ inspired ”
writers for their wicked audacity in describing him in such
-odious terms. The believers would be the blasphemers—
mot the disbelievers.
How long will the people worship in ignorance the
monster wrought by a base imagination ? Surely not long.
They are even now awakening from this hideous nightmare,
and we put in our feeble voice and cry aloud for intellectual
freedom for all people of the nations of the earth.
ALSO BY THE SAME AUTHOR
BIBLE HORRORS ; OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY..............................
FICTITIOUS GODS
..
..........................................................
CHRISTIANITY UNWORTHY OF GOD
..............................
THE SECULAR FAITH ..
..
..
..............................
IS RELIGION NECESSARY OR USEFUL?
..
..
..
HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS
.<
..
..
THE OLD FAITH AND THE NEW
..
..
..
..
o j
® x
ox
ox
02
01
01
London : Watts & Co., 84. Fleet Street; or (to order) of all
Booksellers.
JOSS’ For Mr. Moss's List of Subjects of Freethought, Political, and
Social I.ectures apply—87, Catlin Street, RotJierhithe New Road, S.E,
Printed and Published by Watts & Co., 84, Fleet Street, London.—
Price One Penny.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Bible God and his favourites
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Moss, Arthur B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: List of works by the same author available from Watts & Co. on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1881]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N497
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Bible God and his favourites), 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
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a8ec57ddc02e85bfebb6d29e15283a77.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=d36T8r9TaLtfLuDvvxuJY3n9VzZRrgl7th2uLECTWCwEfQF9llYD1CDPjUrMNHqR5fuZ7Px45UnQ-Rg5eSzHWbxIEpeThA40HRo%7E4kBFd9AQkO191jW4k2fiMRQ972B0uyOm-%7E1nZ09Mf441BMirQcqiTWx7QRTjoVjs%7EXg5ObC3Dcxp-aYg1y88N6jyonqmxnAx3fJjD7p7NLbKAVF3tqgF2xeYL8j9YDFqdCuRBe4qwikPsBydAIH%7EbZOd3yb8R-z6YkIhvvAh6IcLCV8Qlz0TRecUROSXwCZ5eE-xqFl8ouV8LfpajRo06RQXlPnJLd07LBCqt16dIU3plQCPgg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
61f4f5cb51ef1eb732f43d067eae76af
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY (
/(J
UV
Price One Penny.
.
.
TWENTY-FOUR PROOFS
.
THAT THE
BIBLE is NOT the WORD of GOD.
By a CAMBRIDGE GRADUATE.
«.
■
----------- ♦-----------
The 'popular doctrine concerning the Bible, taught by the
Church of England and other bodies of Christians, is that
it is a direct communication from an omniscient and all
wise God to his creature, man, inspired or breathed into the
minds of certain holy men of old. From this it follows, as
a logical necessity, that every syllable, from the first verse
in Genesis to the last in the Revelation of John, must be
absolutely true; that the morality and philosophy of the
Bible must be the most sublime imaginable; its history
perfect in accuracy ; and that its prophecies have been, or
will be, fulfilled in every detail. If this be not the case,
then we must conclude that it is purely human in its origin,
for we cannot suppose that it is partly inspired and partly
false, since God has given us no means of distinguishing
the inspired from the uninspired, and we should have tojudge for ourselves of its value—that is, use reason to the * . "
exclusion of faith, and treat it as we do any other book.
1. The Bible is clearly proved to be historically inaccurate, ’
since it contains contradictions in different accounts of the
same event. For example, we will take the story of the
resurrection of Christ. Matthew tells us that Mary Mag
dalene and the other Mary came to the sepulchre ; there
was an earthquake ; the angel of the Lord descended and
rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it; and
finally “ they did run to bring his disciples word ” (Matt,
xxviii., 1-8). Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, J^Iary the
mother of James, and Salome, came to the sepulchre, found'the
stone already rolled away (no earthquake or angel this Time), .
and entering in they saw a young man sitting on the -right
side (evidently meant for the angel mentioned in Matthew,
since he gives the same message) ; and finally “ they
trembled and were amazed, neither said they anything to any
man” (Mark xvi., 1-8). Thus on the last .point Mark
flatly contradicts the other three evangelists. Luke tells
�2
us that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of
James, and other women that were with them, came to the
sepulchre, found the stone rolled away, and entering in,
“ behold two men stood by them in shining garments ” ; and
“ they told these things unto the apostles. And their words
seemed unto them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
Then arose Peter and ran unto the sepulchre ” (Luke xxiv.,
1-12). Lastly, John tells us that Mary Magdalene went to
the sepulchre (apparently alone this time), and seeing the
stone taken away, ran and told Peter and the other disciple
whom Jesus loved that they had taken away the Lord. The
two disciples went into the sepulchre, and not seeing Jesus,
went away again unto their own home. Mary stood with
out, and saw the two- angels sitting, “ one at the head and
the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain,”
and she came and told the disciples (John xx., 1-18). It
certainly requires a considerable exercise of faith (self
deception ?) to persuade ourselves that these four accounts
agree with each other in every detail; yet on their truth
hangs the central doctrine of Christianity—namely, the
resurrection of Christ; for “ If Christ be not risen, then is
our faith vain.”
2. The genealogies of Christ given in Matt, i., 1-17, and
Luke iii., 23-38, are different and contradictory to one
another. Not only are the names different, but while
Matthew gives twenty-seven generations from David to
Jesus, Luke gives forty-two 1
3. We are told by John that “ no man hath seen God at
any time ” (1 John iv., 12), and yet Jacob said at Peniel:
“ I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved ”
(Gen. xxxii., 30). Again, we find (in Exodus xxxiii., 11)
that “ the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend ” ; and in the 20th verse of the
same chapter we are informed that he said to Moses : “ Thou
Sanst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and
live ” ; and so he put Moses in a clift of the rock, and put
his hand over him, and took it away, and showed him his
back parts as he passed by. We are also told that there
“ went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God
.of Israel : and there was under his feet as it were
a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were
the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the
�3
nobles of the children of Israel he laid^not his hand: also
they saw God, and did eat and drink ” (Exodus xxiv., 9-11).
After this it may be thought hardly worth mentioning that
Isaiah puts in a claim to having seen the Lord in a vision :
“ I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted
up, and his train filled the temple ” (Isaiah vi., 1).
4. The Laws in the Old Testament, which are said to
have been given to Moses by God himself, prove on exami
nation not to be calculated to refine, elevate, and humanise
the race to whom they were given, educating and leading
them to nobler things—“ a schoolmaster to bring them unto
Christ”—such as would come from an all-wise and bene
volent being, “ whose mercy is everlasting ”; but a code
infamously unjust and cruel, brutalising and degrading, in
its tendencies, showing the grossest superstition in the mind
of the lawgiver, and altogether what we should expect to
find coming from a barbarous and primitive people. One
example of the injustice of these laws will be sufficient:
“ If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and
he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Not
withstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished : for he is his money ” (Exodus xxi., 20, 21).
5. Not only has the Mosaic code of laws cursed the race
to whom it was given, but even now it exercises a baneful
influence over the world ; those laws sanctioning and regu
lating slavery proving most formidable obstacles to the
abolition of the slave trade in the Colonies and Southern
States of America, where large meetings of ministers were
held declaring slavery to be enjoined by God; and in every
session of Parliament at the present time are they brought
up by the opponents of the Bill for legalising marriage with
a deceased wife’s sister.
6. The laws in the Old Testament on witchcraft (Lev.
xix., 31 ; xx., 6, 27, etc.) have caused tens of thousands of
innocent men, women and children to be burnt alive in the
middle ages, and now the world has discovered it to be a
purely imaginary crime 1 Is it possible that God, fore
knowing all this, would have inspired such laws ?
7. Polygamy is nowhere condemned in the whole Bible,
and is distinctly allowed in the Old Testament; the chief
saints, as Abraham, David and Solomon, being all poly
gamists.
8. We are taught that “ God is love ” and yet that he is
�4
going to burn the vast majority of mankind for all eternity
in hell; for “ strait is the gate and narrow is the way,
and few there be that find it ” ; “ many are called, but few
chosen ” ; “he that believeth not shall be damned.” Surely
no one will contend that the majority believe.
9. Paul teaches that God will torture us in hell, not for
resisting his will, but because he makes us sin without our
being able to resist. “ He saith to Moses, I will have mercy
on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I will have oompassion. So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth
mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for
this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show
my power in thee, and that my name might be declared
throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on
whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault ?
For who hath resisted his will? Nay, but, 0 man, who
art thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto
dishonor ? What if God, willing to show his wrath,
and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.”—Rom.
ix., 15-22. So Paul teaches us to believe, not in a merciful,
all-loving Father, “ unwilling that any should perish,” but in
an omnipotent Devil, who amuses himself by roasting us in
hell for committing sins which he himself forces us to
commit.
10. The Bible does not solve the difficulty of the origin of
evil, but on the contrary states expressly that God is the
author of evil. “ I form the light, and create darkness : I
make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
—Isaiah xlv., 7.
11. There are many other passages which prove that the
God of the Bible, whom we are taught to love and reverence,
is malignant in character, and are wholly incompatible with
those passages attributing to him mercy and goodness. For
example, Paul says, speaking of certain persons, “ God shall
send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
that they all might be damned” (2 Thess. ii., 11, 12).
Noble motive truly I
�12. In the Old Testament especially, God is represented
as approving of the most horrible atrocities ; among otherstoo numerous to mention, slaughtering all the Midianitesb
men, women and children (Numbers xxxi., 1-18}.
13. God is even represented as accepting a human sacri
fice, as in the case of Jephthah’s daughter, who was offered
up “ for a burnt offering ” (Judges xi., 30-39).
14. We submit that the basis of morality held up through
out the Bible is purely selfish ; not doing right because it is.
right, but rather for hope of reward in heaven, and from
fear of hell; trying to curry favor with God, no matter at
what expense to our fellowmen.
15. In some of the Psalms (read every Sunday in the
churches) we find sentiments simply diabolical in theirmalignity. David prays concerning his enemies, “ Let their
table become a snare before them: and that which should
have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their
eyes be darkened that they see not; and make their loins,
continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon
them, and let thy wrathful aDger take hold upon them..........
Add iniquity unto their iniquity : and let them not come
into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book
of the living, and not be written with the righteous ” (Psalms,
lxix., 22-28). Just fancy praying that your enemies may
not repent, lest they should get saved and not be burnt for
ever in hell! And this is implied in the above passage.
We can only compare this prayer, inspired by the Holy
Ghost into the mind of David, the man after God’s own
heart, for true charity and nobility of thought, with the
following passage of the Christian father Tertullian, who is.
so highly esteemed by the Church : “ Expect the last and
eternal judgment of the universe. How I shall admire, how
laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many
proud monarchs and fancied gods, groaning in the lowest,
abyss of darkness ; so many magistrates, who persecuted the
name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever
kindled against the Christians ; so many sage philosophers
blushing in red-hot flames with their deluded scholars ; somany celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of
Minos, but of Christ; so many tragedians more tuneful in
the expression of their own sufferings ; so many dancers,” etc.
(De Spectaculis, cap. 30).
16. Again we find in another Psalm—“ Set thou a.
�6
wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right
hand. When he shall be judged let him be condemned,
and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and
let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually
•vagabonds and beg : let them seek their bread also out of
desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath,
and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to
extend mercy unto him ; neither let there be any to favor
his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off, and in
the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let
the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord,
and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out ” (Psalm
cix., 6-14). In our churches and Sunday-schools to-day it
is taught that this is the inspiration of hi a who said, “Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you
and persecute you” (Matt, v., 44).
17. Jesus Christ prophesied that “ the son of man shall
come in the glory of his father with his' angels, and then he
shall reward every man according to his works. Verily, I
say unto you, there be some standing here which shall no
taste of death till they see the son of man coming m his
kingdom ” (Matt, xvi., 27-28). He said also, after referring
to the destruction of Jerusalem, “ Immediately after the
tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the
moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from
heaven and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
And then shall appear the sign of the son of man m heaven:
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they
shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven
with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels
with a great sound of a trumpet . . . Verily, I saij unto
you, this generation shall not pass till all these things ie ful
filled” (Matt, xxiv., 29-34). It is evident that these pro
phecies, which have been shown to be false by time were
understood by the apostles to be on the eve of fulfilment
when they wrote their epistles, for Peter and Paul apologise
for the end of the world not coming so soon as might be
expected (see 2 Peter iii., 3-12 ; 2 Thess. n.1-6) Peter
also says: “The end of all things is at hand (l Petei
iv , 7)/ Paul says: “ The Lord is at hand (Phil. iv., o),
and tells the Hebrews not to forsake their assemblies, and
�7
to exhort one another “so much the more as ye see the_
day approaching” (Heb. x., 25). James says: “Be ye
also patient; stablish your hearts, for the coming of the
Lord draweth nigh” (James v., 8). Jude says: “There
are certain men crept in unawares,” and after denouncing
them, reminds his readers of the words of Christ—“ How
that they told you there should be mockers in the last time ”
(Jude, v. 18). Lastly, John informs us that “the time is
at hand ” (Rev. i, 3). And all these things (and more, which
we have not room to notice) were written about the time
that “ that generation ” who heard Jesus was passing away.
Have not these predictions one and all been proved utterly
false by time, that trier of truth ?
18. The prophecies in the Old Testament, said by the
evangelists to refer to Christ, on examination will be found
wholly inapplicable. For example, Matthew (ii., 6) applies
to Christ the prophecy of Micah—“ And thou Bethlehem,
in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of
Juda : for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule
my people Israel.” On turning to Micah, however, we find
that this “ ruler in Israel,” who he says shall rise up, is a
general, coming to defend them against the Assyrians ; for
he goes on to say: “ This man shall be the peace, when
the Assyrian shall come into our land : and wh< n he shall
tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven
shepherds and eight principal men. And they shall waste the
land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod
in the entrances thereof ; thus shall he deliver us from the
Assyrian when he cometh into our land, and when he
treadeth within our borders” (Micah v., 5-6). It is some
what difficult to see how this can apply to Christ; yet if
it cannot the Holy Ghost must have made a mistake in
making Matthew quote part of this prophecy as being ful
filled in Christ.
19. Again Matthew tells us that the words of Hosea,
“ Out of Egypt have I called my son,” were fulfilled in
Christ (Matt, ii., 15). On turning to the prophet we find
him chiding Israel for national ingratitude. “ When Israel
was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of
Egypt. As +hey called them, so they went from them : they
sacrificed umo Baalim, and burned incense to graven
images ” (Hosea xi., 1, 2). We will merely remark on this
that we have not sufficient faith to enable ourselves to
�8
believe that this is not simply an historical reference to the
Israelites coming from Egypt under Moses, much less are
we able to see in it an overwhelming proof of prophetical
power in Hosea.
20. None of the prophecies said to refer to Christ will
bear the slightest examination. For example: “He shall
judge among the nations and shall rebuke many people :
and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their
spears into pruning-hooks : nation shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”
(Isaiah ii., 4). Yet when the Prince of Peace did come, he
said: “ Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I
come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to
set a man at variance against his father and the daughter
against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law” (Matt, x., 34, 35).
21. Science has clearly demonstrated that it is false that
“ in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ”
(Exodus xx., 11).
22. Science has clearly proved that the grass and herbs
and trees were not created before the sun and moon and
stars, as stated in Gen. i., 11-18.
23. Science clearly teaches the utter absurdity of such
astronomical ideas as that “ God said, Let there be a firma
ment in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters. And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven” (Gen. i., 6-8)
St. Augustine, in explaining this, informs us that the firma
ment was‘stretched across the sky like a skin. We suppose
this is what Peter refers to when he says “ the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise ” (2 Peter iii., 10).
24. If by any sophistry it were possible to reconcile
science and the Bible, it must still be admitted that in the
past God was unable to convey his true meaning on these
points, and not only has his revelation given rise to false
scientific ideas, but has hindered the development of science
at every tufti, and brought untold bitterness and persecution
in the last few centuries on scientific men, in addition to
wrecking the faith of many truthseekers at the present day.
Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Twenty-four proofs that the Bible is not the word of God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cambridge Graduate
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Tentative date publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Ramsey and Foote
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N114
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
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 (Twenty-four proofs that the Bible is not the word of God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6b82a5a95f41e6164c2b46d4ba5e489b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vSkAFV5CMD1VsnpCNTXU5D7TSZp9OwfHK8-Yda2%7EJz-cQUNyjYQf5ejYqNeyn0fx1eYeBRTbuFXvQ7NcZqzODBoH%7ExtMTCzx8n2tQtmL6yPD3ZQD76zjReenRKjbT4fx8O4F2VW%7EB%7E0GL7DX8IDMULnAwMg9L-jsrHy80f4xYgu8ZyE1HYU6M5Jtac%7ENesRnQs9uHNEPuPgxzla2UV5wKm6mDa-KXeSJDixKUG8TiEN854A50FmBEL1vCFyNxGkMeDL5aZgqVs5cPL4PYDerQSuegcnD9YBVafc8arIzcka8E2%7ExeYqwqqhU%7E6eyCO12Qzs9t4jhx3%7EUNJF3Hbk0Ug__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
22866463666557d5f2834881f87ddcfb
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES.
ON
THE BOOK OF GOD
G. W. FOOTE.
PRICE ONE HALFPENNY.
Itonlraij:
B. FOR DEB, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1893,
�THE BOOK OF GOD
AN OPEN LETTER
TO THE
MINISTERS OF ALL CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.
Gentlemen,—
I am going to address you on a very important subject,
and I shall do it in very plain language. It is my desire to be
understood, both by yourselves and by others who' may read
what I write. At the same time I have no intention to be
rude or personal. The truth of what I utter may hurt your
feelings, but in that case you have only yourselves to blam
You are, all of you, as Christian ministers, the expound
of a book called the Bible, which you all allege to be
Word of God. Many of you, being Catholic priests, do i
treat this book with exactly the same veneration as others 1
are Protestants; you put the Church first, and the Script!
second, and make the truth and authenticity of the one!
upon the living authority of the other. Yet, it is evident^
all of you, Protestants and Catholics alike, would be lost /with
out the Bible. Say what you will about tradition, and inspira
tion, and infallibility, it is after all the BOOK on whicB you
depend. Were the Bible lost for ever, and all recollection^ of
its contents obliterated from men’s minds, the Christiaiyfrldgfon
would certainly disappear. The “ fathers ” and jWivines ”
would be some assistance for a while ; but unless you had the
BOOK to quote from, to select texts’ for your sermons, and to
put into the hands of children, nothing could save your faith
from speedy, absolute, and irrecoverable destruction.
Now it is upon this Book—the Book of God, as you call it—
that I wish to address you; and my right to address you is
involved in my being an English citizen. In this country the
Bible is only allowed to be printed by certain printers; it is
“appointed ” by the Queen, that is, by the Government, to b
“ read in all the churches ” of the Established Religion; it .
put into the hands of the children in our public schools,
supported out of the rates and taxes, and they are forced to
read it as a sacred volume; and, further, it is protected by law
against such criticism as may be applied to other books, so that
men are liable to long terms of imprisonment like common
Ai
I
|
’*
■
■
■
■
B
■
�The Booh of God.
3
thieves for bringing it “ into disbelief and contempt.” This
being the case, and your BOOK being set up by law as some
thing holy, I have a right to ask you some questions about it.
Every book that is published, in a certain sense challenges
criticism; but a book like yours, which claims, and enjoys,
such an exalted position, should have its reputation established
beyond any reasonable doubt. Every man, I think, must
agree that a book, which we may be imprisoned for bringing
into “ disbelief and contempt,” ought to be God’s Word,
whether it is or not. For my part, however, I do not believe
it is ; and, before I have done, you will know why.
The Book of God which you use in this country is printed in
English; in other countries it is printed in French, German,
Italian, Spanish, and so forth. It is not alleged, however, that
God wrote himself, or inspired men to write, in these
languages. The Bibles in use in the various Christian
countries are translations. Now I know something of
translating, and I know it is simply impossible to translate
from one language into another with perfect accuracy, and
sometimes difficult to translate with any approach to accuracy.
I am sure, therefore, even without an examination, that the
English Bible cannot be the real Book of God. Besides,
there is more than one translation into English. The
Authorised Version, done in the reign of James I, in 1611,
was very largely a collation of previous translations. The
Revised Version has been done by an “ appointed ” Committee
of Christian scholars in the present generation; and it was
done, I suppose, because the old version was unfaithful. This
new version is found fault with in turn, and many disputes
have arisen over special passages. In the face of these facts,
I say that you have no right to pass off your Bible as the Book
of God. You may declare it is pretty nearly the same, or as
nearly as you can make it; but the very same it is not, and in
learned books, not meant for the people’s eyes, you admit is
deficiency.
Have you then, I ask, the hardihood to stand up and tell me
that this is all I am entitled to expect from my “ Maker ” ? If
a father has any communication to make to his children, should
he not make it in their own language ? Do you believe that
God is not as able to speak in English as in Greek or Hebrew ?
Ought not his “ Revelation ” to be expressed clearly, definitely,
unmistakably ? Ought it not, therefore, to be expressed, not
through questionable translations, but at first-hand, in all the
several tongues on this planet ? It would cost God no effort
to do this, for he is omnipotent; and no trouble, for he is
omniscient. Can you assign any legitimate reason for his not
addressing us all in the only way in which we should be sure
to understand him ?
�4
The Book of God.
I will now go back to your real Book of God, if such exist,
and ask you a few questions about that. Is not the Old
Testament written in Hebrew ? Is not Hebrew a language
very hard to understand P Was it not written right on, from
side to side of the parchment, without a break between the
words ? Was it not written without vowels? Would it not
be difficult for one man to be quite sure of the meaning of
another who wrote in this way? Would not the writer
himself, after a lapse of time, be occasionally puzzled to know
what he meant himself ? Is it not a fact that the meaning
of a vast number of passages in the Hebrew Bible is still
disputed ? Have not candid authorities, like Sir William
Drummond, confessed that they hardly knew of any two
Hebrew scholars who translated six consecutive verses in the
same way ? Is not all this now admitted by Christian
scholars, such as Canon Driver and Professor Bruce? Does
not the latter plainly declare that the Masoretic Hebrew
text—that is, the text now in use, with vowel points—is only
“ a translation by Hebrew scholars of the vowelless original ” ?
Does he not decisively assert that the “ errorless autograph ”
is a “ theological figment ” ?
Most of you, gentlemen, teach that Moses (for instance)
wrote the Pentateuch, and that he lived, roughly speaking,
1,500 years before Christ. But what is the age of your oldest
Hebrew manuscripts? The editors of the Revised Version
admit, in a footnote to their Preface, that “ the earliest MS. of
which the age is certainly known bears date a.d. 916.” Now
this is 2,400 years from the time of Moses; and let me ask
you, plainly, Is not this long enough for any amount of
accident and vicissitude ? And, unless you fall back on a
miracle, have you the slightest reason for supposing that
Moses himself would recognise the a.d. 916 document as his
own production ?
Besides the difficulty and obscurity of Hebrew, is it not the
case that the existing Manuscripts are full of different read
ings ? I gather from scholars on your own side, to say
nothing of sceptical investigators, that the number of different
readings amounts to many thousands, indeed to many myriads.
Will you kindly explain, then, how any man, even if he be a
perfect master of Hebrew, can be sure of having the exact
Word of God? You are also aware, or should be, that the
more ancient versions of the Old Testament—such as the
Greek Septuagint and the Roman FwZpate—diffe'r very con
siderably from the Masoretic text.
Thus we have Version differing from Version, and a vast
quantity of variations in the current Hebrew manuscripts;
that is, collection differs from collection, and, in the same
collection, document differs from document. It is evident,
�therefore, that the Hebrew Old Testament is no more the real
Word of God than the English Old Testament. I may be told,
of. course, that the variations are unimportant, and do not
affect the substance of the volume; but 1 deny this, and I add
that no variation can De unimportant when we are dealing
with a communication from God to mankind. You may think
it unimportant, but how do you know that God does ?
Supposing that God, for some reason which passes human
comprehension, chose that the first part of his revelation to dll
men should be given in a language only known to a small
section of them : even then, would it not be reasonable to
suppose that he would take care to preserve it in its integrity,
so that we might not be burdened with the difficulty of finding
out its words as well as its meaning ? You admit that the
manuscripts have suffered the common fate of ancient writings,
in the hands of custodians and copyists; and, to my mind,
this is an evidence of their human origin. I believe that, if
God wrote a message for us, personally or by proxy, he would
take the trouble to preserve it as he wrote it.
The New Testament manuscripts are older than those of the
Old Testament. None of them, however, go beyond the fourth
century; that is, the oldest copy we have of any book in the
New Testament, including the Gospels, was written at least
three hundred years after the death of Christ. Why is this ?
Why are there no earlier manuscripts ? Surely, if God inspired
the writers of them, he would not neglect their safety for
three centuries after theii- composition, and then begin to
take care of them. Had he preserved them until the days of
Constantine, the Church could have preserved them afterwards.
I dare say you will tell me that God did not work miracles to
preserve the autographs of the New Testament; but he
worked miracles to be recorded in them, and miracles to inspire
the writers of them, and I cannot see why he should not work
another miracle to preserve what they wrote.
So much for the documents themselves ; and now let me ask
you whether, in the Greek documents as we have them,
there are not hundreds of thousands of different readings ? If
this be so (and you cannot deny it), the Greek Testament
itself, in a multitude of cases, must contain what the Apostles
and Evangelists did not write, besides omitting, perhaps,
many things which they did write; so that, here again,
your very New Testament, even in the original Greek, is not,
and cannot be, the real, exact, authentic Word of God.
The Gospels are four in number, and there were many
others. The Church selected the four and stamped them as
canonical; it rejected the others, to' the number of dozens,
and branded them as apocryphal. To a Catholic, of course,
this is quite satisfactory, for he holds the Church to be
�6
The Book of God.
infallible; but the Protestant does not, and what is his
guarantee? You, gentlemen, who belong to Protestant
Churches, take the four Gospels on trust from the Catholic
Church, which you so often describe as idolatrous and fraudu
lent ; but I want you to give me a reason for accepting these
four Gospels, and no others, as the inspired Word of God.
What suits your convenience does not satisfy my intelligence.
I want a reason; something different from custom and
tradition, something founded on logic and evidence.
Let me now draw your attention to another aspect of your
Book of God. Over the heads of the various documents it
contains, you have their authors’ names printed. Thus you
announce that the first five books, the Pentateuch, were written
by Moses; that most of the Realms were written by David;
that Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles were written by
Solomon; that the very curious story of a prophet and a whale
was written by Jonah; that a certain prophetical book,
referred to by Jesus Christ, was written by Daniel; that
fourteen epistles were written by Paul, one by James, two
by Peter, and three by John, who also wrote the Revelation;
and that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John.
These announcements of yours, as to the authorship of the
books of the Bible, are most of them false. You were told so,
long ago, by sceptics like Spinoza, Voltaire, and Thomas
Paine; but now the fact is not only admitted, but proclaimed,
by scholars and professors within your own Churches. Let
me take, for instance, a volume like Lux Mundi, edited by
the Rev. Charles Gore, late Principal of Pusey House, Oxford.
This clergyman allows that the Pentateuch was not written
by Moses, who is only responsible for the Ten Commandments;
he also allows that David did not write the Psalms, nor
Solomon the Proverbs; and that Jonah and Daniel are
“dramatic compositions,” and not history; although, as a
matter of fact, Jesus Christ referred to both Jonah and Daniel
as records of actual occurrences. But the admissions of Mr.
Gore are outdone by those of Canon Driver, in his Introduction
to the Literature of the Old Testament. According to this
clergyman, the book of Genesis was written hundreds of years
after the time of Moses, by more than one hand; Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers are just as modern; while Deute
ronomy was written some time between Isaiah and Jeremiah.
The Hexateuch—that is, the Pentateuch and Joshua—was the
work of nameless Jewish scribes; and the whole of the
Priestly Code, or Law of Moses, belongs “ approximately to
the period of the Babylonian captivity.”
This view of the Pentateuch was advocated by Thomas
Paine, and unanimously opposed by the Churches. Dean
�The Boole of God.
7
Graves, Bishop Watson, Dr. Marsh, and a host of other
ministers, stood up for its Mosaic origin; and scores of men
and women were sent to gaol for selling books in which the
opposite was maintained. However, the case is now altered;
Canon Driver can only urge that the Jewish priests, who made
laws and ascribed them to Moses, should not be accused of the
crime of “ forgery,” as they were only conforming to “ the
literary usages ” of their age and nation; though, for my part,
I hold with Mr. Gladstone, that, if the Pentateuch was not
written by Moses, but by Jewish priests and scribes, eight
hundred years after his time, both the Jewish and the Christian
worlds have been made the victims of “ a heartless imposture.”
Let us take the rest of Canon Driver’s admissions as to the
Old Testament books. David did not write the Psalms, which
“ set before us the experience of many men, and of many ages
of the national life.” Proverbs was “ formed gradually,” and
not written by Solomon ; nor was Ecclesiastes, which belongs
to the second or third century before Christ; nor was the Song
of Solomon, which is a love poem, and not an allegory; so
that the headings of the chapters, in our English Bible, are an
absurd, if not a base, imposition on the British public. Job is
not history, but a drama, belonging to the period of the Cap
tivity, and the speeches of Elihu are interpolations. Daniel
was written hundreds of years after the time of its ostensible
author, probably about b.c. 168; so that its prophecies were
.Allfilled, because the events occurred first and the writer issued
his predictions afterwards. Jonah was written long after the
prophet’s age, probably in the fifth century; and it is “ not
strictly historical ”; that is, Jonah never converted Nineveh,
and never took a submarine excursion in the belly of a whale.
There is a great outcry in your Churches, gentlemen, against
the publication of such conclusions as those of Canon Driver,
but I do not observe that the clamorers try to answer him.
They want to silence him. But it is too late to do that; the
cat is favtly out of the bag. People with any eyesight, and
there aPe more of them than you think, now perceive that all
you have been teaching, for so maay hundreds of years, about
the Old Testament, is a falsehood. Its various books were not
written, for the most part, by the persons whose names you
’nave put at the top of them; in fact, you do not know who
wrote them ; and, if you have been all along mistaken as to
who wrote these books, and when they were written, I say it
is a thousand to one that you are also mistaken as to their
contents. It seems to me downright nonsense to say you do
not know who wrote a certain book, and at the same time to
say you are quite sure that all it contains is true.
/ The books of the New Testament, as to their authorship, are
just as uncertain as the books of the Old Testament. Of the
�The Boole of God.
fourteen Epistles by Paul, only four axe generally admitted as
authentic, and even those are disputed. The other Epistles, by
Peter and John, are also doubtful, if not spurious. Nor are the
Gospels in any better plight. Mr. Matthew Arnold thought it
time to tell the public that the Gospels did not exist, as we
now have them, before the last quarter of the second century;
that is, a good deal more than a hundred years after the death
of Christ. Dr. Giles, a clergyman of the Church of England,
declares that none of the New Testament books existed, as we
have the®, within a hundred and twenty years after the
Crucifixion. It is generally allowed by the most competent
critics that the earliest writings about Jesus Christ are lost;
that the four Gospels, bearing the names of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, were written lotig afterwards, in the second
century, by unknown persons; and that it was a very common
thing, in the early Christian Church, to compose books and
attach to them the names of the Apostles.
Now, gentlemen, I want to ask you a plain question, to
which I should like you to give me a plain answer. Your
Bible is stuffed with the most tremendous miracles; that is,
stories which* no man is called upon to believe, unless they
are accredited by the most tremendous evidence. Do you
really think, gentlemen, that the evidence you offer is good
enough ? Can you expect people, who think for themselves,
to believe a host of things contrary to sane experience, on the
word of men who lived somewhere—God knows where; and dF
some time—God knows when?*
The “ advanced ” ministers—that is, those amongst you,
gentlemen, who patronise the “ New Criticism —are patching
up a new theory of Inspiration. They see that it will no
longer do to maintain the old position, that the Bible contains
truth only, without any admixture of error; or, to use the
words of the late Mr. Spurgeon, that every sentence of it was
written bj an Almighty finger, and every word of it fell from
Almighty lips. Knowing that their Book of God dotn? contain
errors, in science and history, to say no more; they how teach
that the writers (whoever they were) were onlyXnBpired in
relation to religion and ethics; in short, thaj/the Bible.is
God’s Word because it reveals to us religious and moral trutrlB"
which we could not ourselves discover. Byr this is only a
temporising theory; it may do for the time* but it will pre
sently be seen through and abandoned ; in hfi’ief, your Book of
God will, sooner or later, have to stand on‘the Bhelf, side by
side with other Books of God; and then, gentlemen, you
will have to get your livingB in a more honest and useful
profession.----- Yours, with best wishes,
G. W. FOOTE.
Printed by G. W. Foote, 14 Clerkenwell-green, London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The book of God : an open letter to the ministers of all Christian churches
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Series title: Letters to the churches
Series number: 1
Notes: Title and first page badly torn. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N251
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The book of God : an open letter to the ministers of all Christian churches), 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
God
NSS
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The God idea : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lennstrand, Viktor
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Translated from the Swedish. "For delivering which the Author was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for Blasphemy in Sweden" [Title page]. Lennstrand (1861-95) was a Swedish freethought activist and writer.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N437
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Wheeler, Joseph Mazzini [1850-1898]
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The God idea : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ad2e5247ae1649781210545c1cdfd2ae.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aeLL9XS8Z%7Ey6LVs1HdbmSaChgV2z-1XjqgD8SHJLJO4EEPwNiXvzexbi5PpFLtF%7E0SpKPX73NuN8W5uC3uKASZCFiH6qKX19HAnPXS-rWtei0oslA1fsjfoIdLcCki6ZQYoZkmUJ2TXTq8XCzmTCimgQZjylHV18q3CcheLnf5RgiwsaXsEyjn-6ds%7Eo3Ix%7EChauwEfh6RPjVgBOPYns5wvmvapBQtzYkJGhhWZEGoOiPFExhtktwY426PNMzZjvrIPy0YpGV090CdpnU536SM4lrGspII-UA7dphS6kF3NKv4Y4H6vpnjeJxFcwXQzRIpV4aaa2ECkMVw82e3mgPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b8ee05afcc4f58f1591070a4d60fe6be
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
IS THERE A GOD?
By CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
The initial difficulty is in defining the word “ God ”. It is
equally impossible to intelligently affirm or deny any pro
position unless there is at least an understanding, on the
part of the affirmer or denier, of the meaning of every
word used in the proposition. To me the word “God”
standing alone is a word without meaning. I find the
word repeatedly used even by men of education and refine
ment, and who have won reputation in special directions of
research, rather to illustrate their ignorance than to ex
plain their knowledge. Various sects of Theists do affix
arbitrary meanings to the word “ God ”, but often these
meanings are in their terms self-contradictory, and usually
the definition maintained by one sect of Theists more or
less contradicts the definition put forward by some other
sect. With the Unitarian Jew, the Trinitarian Christian,
the old Polytheistic Greek, the modern Universalist, or the
Calvinist, the word “God” will in each case be intended
to express a proposition absolutely irreconcilable with those
of the other sects. In this brief essay, which can by no
means be taken as a complete answer to the question
which forms its title, I will for the sake of argument take
the explanation of the word “God” as given with great
carefulness by Dr. Robert Elint, Professor of Divinity in
the University of Edinburgh, in two works directed by
him against Atheism. He defines God (“ Antitheistic
Theories,” p. 1,) as “a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent,
omniscient, righteous and benevolent being who is dis
tinct from and independent of what he has created ” ; and
(“Theism”, p. 1,) as “a self-existent, eternal being, in
finite in power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and
goodness, the maker of heaven and earth”; and (p. 18,)
“the creator and preserver of nature, the governor of
nations, the heavenly father and judge of man ” ; (p. 18,)
�2
IS THERE A GOD ?
“ one infinite personal ” ; (p. 42,) “ the one infinite being ”
who “is a person—is a free and loving intelligence”;
(p. 59,) “the creator, preserver, and ruler of all finite
beings”; (p. 65,) “not only the ultimate cause, but the
supreme intelligence”; and (p. 74,) “the supreme moral
intelligence is an unchangeable being”. That is, in the
above statements “ God” is defined by Professor Flint to
be : M supreme, self-existent, the one infinite, eternal, omni
potent, omniscient, unchangeable, righteous, and benevolent, per
sonal being, creator and preserver of nature, maker of heaven
and earth ; who is distinct from and independent of what he has
created, who is a free, loving, supreme, moral intelligence, the
governor of nations, the heavenly father and judge of man.
The two volumes, published by William Blackwood and
Son, from which this definition has been collected, form the
Baird Lectures in favor of Theism for the years 1876 and
1877. Professor Flint has a well-deserved reputation as a
clear thinker and writer of excellent ability as a Theistic
advocate. I trust, therefore, I am not acting unfairly in
criticising his definition. My first objection is, that to me
the definition is on the face of it so self-contradictory that
a negative answer must be given to the question, Is there
such a God ? The association of the word “ supreme ” with
the word “ infinite ” as descriptive of a “ personal being ”
is utterly confusing. “Supreme” can only be used as
expressing comparison between the being to whom it is
applied, and some other being with whom that “ supreme ”
being is assumed to have possible points of comparison and
is then compared. But “ the one infinite being ” cannot be
compared with any other infinite being, for the wording of
the definition excludes the possibility of any other infinite
being, nor could the infinite being—for the word “one”
may be dispensed with, as two infinite beings are unthink
able—be compared with any finite being. “ Supreme” is
an adjective of relation and is totally inapplicable to “the
infinite”. It can only be applied to one of two or more
finites. “Supreme” with “omnipotent” is pleonastic.
If it is said that the word “supreme” is now properly
used to distinguish between the Creator and the created,
the governor and that which is governed, then it is clear
that the word “supreme” would have been an inappli
cable word of description to “theone infinite being ” prior
to creation, and this would involve the declaration that the
�IS THERE A GOD?
3
exact description of the unchangeable has been properly
changed, which is an absurdity. The definition affirms
“creation”, that is, affirms “ God” existing prior to such
creation—i.e., then the sole existence; but the word
“ supreme ” could not then apply. An existence cannot be
described as “highest” when there is none other ; there
fore, none less high. The word “ supreme” as a word of
description is absolutely contradictory of Monism. Yet
Professor Flint himself says (“Anti-Theistic Theories”,
p. 132), “ that reason, when in quest of an ultimate expla
nation of things, imperatively demands unity, and that only
a Monistic theory of the universe can deserve the name of
U philosophy ”. Professor Flint has given no explanation
of the meaning he attaches to the word “ self-existent ”.
Nor, indeed, as he given any explanation of any of his
words of description. By self-existent I mean that to which
you cannot conceive antecedent. By “infinite” I mean
immeasurable, illimitable, indefinable ; i.e., that of which I
cannot predicate extension, or limitation of extension. By
‘(eternal ” I mean illimitable, indefinable, i.e., that of which
I cannot predicate limitation of duration or progression of
duration.
“ Nature ” is with me the same as “ universe ”, the same
as “ existence ”; i.e., I mean by it: The totality of all
phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be neces
sary for the happening of each and every phsenomenon. It
is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent, eternal,
infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discon
tinuity, or creation. I am unable to think backward to the
possibility of existence not having been. I cannot think
forward to the possibility of existence ceasing to be. I have
no meaning for the word “ create ” except to denote change
of condition. Origin of “universe” is to me absolutely
unthinkable. Sir William Hamilton (“ Lectures and Dis
cussions,” p. 610) affirms: that when aware of a new ap
pearance we are utterly unable to conceive that there has
originated any new existence ; that we are utterly unable to
think that the complement of existence has ever been either
increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive no
thing becoming something, or something becoming nothing.
.Professor Flint’s definition affirms “God ” as existing “ dis
tinct from, and independent of, what he has created ”. But
what can such words mean when used of the “ infinite ? ”
�IS THERE A GOD ?
Does “distinct from” mean separate from? Does the
“ universe ” existing distinct from God mean in addition to ?
and in other place than ? or, have the words no meaning ?
Of all words in Professor Flint’s definition, which would
be appropriate if used of human beings, I mean the
same as I should mean if I used the same words in the
highest possible degree of any human being. Here I
maintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his
examination of Sir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteous
ness and benevolence are two of the words of descrip
tion included in the definition of this creator and governor
of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create
men and govern nations, so that the men act crimi
nally and the nations seek to destroy one another in
war? Professor Flint does not deny (“Theism,” p. 256)
“ that God could have originated a sinless moral system”,
and he adds: “I have no doubt that God has actually made
many moral beings who are certain never to oppose their
own wills to his, or that he might, if he had so pleased, have
created only such angels as were sure to keep their first
estate ”. But it is inaccurate to describe a “ God ” as right
eous or benevolent who, having the complete power to
originate a sinless moral system, is admitted to have origi
nated a system in which sinfulness and immorality were
not only left possible, but have actually, in consequence of
God’s rule and government, become abundant. It cannot
be righteous for the “omnipotent” to be making human
beings contrived and designed by his omniscience so as to
be fitted for the commission of sin. It cannot be benevo
lent in “ God ” to contrive and create a hell in which he is
to torment the human beings who have sinned because
made by him in sin. “ God ”, if omnipotent and omnis
cient, could just as easily, and much more benevolently,
have contrived that there should never be any sinners, and,
therefore, never any need for hell or torment.
The Bev. B. A. Armstrong, with whom I debated this
question, says:—
“ ‘Either,’ argues Mr. Bradlaugh, in effect, ‘God could
make a world without suffering, or he could not. If he
could and did not, he is not all-good. If he could not, he
is not all-powerful.’ The reply is, What do you mean by
all-powerful? If you mean having power to reconcile
things in themselves contradictory, we do not hold that
�IS THERE A GOD ?
5
God is all-powerful. But a humanity, from the first en
joying immunity from suffering, and yet possessed of no
bility of character, is a self-contradictory conception.”
That is, Mr. Armstrong thinks that a “sinless moral
system from the first is a self-contradictory conception ”.
It is difficult to think a loving governor of nations
arranging one set of cannibals to eat, and another set of
human beings to be eaten by their fellow-men. It is im
possible to think a loving creator and governor contriving
a human being to be born into the world the pre-natal
victim of transmitted disease. It is repugnant to reason
to affirm this “free loving supreme moral intelligence”
planning and contriving the enduring through centuries of
criminal classes, plague-spots on civilisation.
The word “unchangeable ” contradicts the word “ crea
tor”. Any theory of creation must imply some period
when the being was not yet the creator, that is, when yet
the creation was not performed, and the act of creation
must in such case, at any rate, involve temporary or
permanent change in the mode of existence of the being
creating. So, too, the words of description “governor of
nations” are irreconcileable with the description “un
changeable ”, applied to a being alleged to have existed
prior to the creation of the “nations”, and therefore,
of course, long before any act of government could be
exercised.
To speak of an infinite personal being seems to me pure
contradiction of terms. All attempts to think “person”
involve thoughts of the limited, finite, conditioned. To
describe this infinite personal being as distinct from some
thing which is postulated as “what he has created” is
only to emphasise the contradiction, rendered perhaps still
more marked when the infinite personal being is described
as “intelligent”.
The Rev. R. A. Armstong, in a prefatory note to the
report of his debate with myself on the question “Is it
reasonable to worship God?”, says: “I have ventured
upon alleging an intelligent cause of the pheonomena of
the universe, in spite of the fact that in several of his
writings Mr. Bradlaugh has described intelligence as im
plying limitations. But though intelligence, as known to
us in man, is always hedged within limits, there is no diffi
culty in conceiving each and every limit as removed. In
�6
IS THERE A GOD?
that case the essential conception of intelligence remains
the same precisely, although the change of conditions
revolutionises its mode of working.” This, it seems to
me, is not accurate. The word intelligence can only be
accurately used of man, as in each case meaning the
totality of mental ability, its activity and result. If you
eliminate in each case all possibilities of mental ability
there is no “conception of intelligence” left, either essential
or otherwise. If you attempt to remove the limits, that
is the organisation, the intelligence ceases to be thinkable.
It is unjustifiable to talk of “ change of conditions ” when
you remove the word intelligence as a word of application
to man or other thinking animal, and seek to apply the
word to the unconditionable.
As an Atheist I. affirm one existence, and deny the possi
bility of more than one existence; by existence meaning,
as I have already stated, “the totality of all pheenomena,
and of all that has been, is, or may be necessary for the
happening of any and every pluenomenon ”. This exist
ence I know in its modes, each mode being distinguished
in thought by its qualities. By “mode” I mean each
cognised condition; that is, each pheenomenon or aggre
gation of phenomena. By “quality” I mean each charac
teristic by which in the act of thinking I distinguish.
The distinction between the Agnostic and the Atheist
is that either the Agnostic postulates an unknowable, or
makes a blank avowal of general ignorance. The Atheist
does not do either; there is of course to him much that
is yet unknown, every effort of inquiry brings some of this
within reach of knowing. With “the unknowable” con
ceded, all scientific teaching would be illusive. Every real
scientist teaches without reference to “God” or “the
unknowable ”. If the words come in as part of the
yesterday habit still clinging to-day, the scientist conducts
his experiments as though the words were not. Every
operation of life, of commerce, of war, of statesmanship,
is dealt with as though God were non-existent. The
general who asks God to give him victory, and who thanks
God for the conquest, would be regarded as a lunatic by
his Theistic brethren, if he placed the smallest reliance
on God’s omnipotence as a factor in winning the fight.
Cannon, gunpowder, shot, shell, dynamite, provision, men,
horses, means of transport, the value of these all estimated,
�IS THERE A GOD?
7
then the help of “ God ” is added to what is enough with
out God to secure the triumph. The surgeon who in
performing some delicate operation relied on God instead
of his instruments—the physician who counted on the
unknowable in his prescription—these would have poor
clientele even amongst the orthodox; save the peculiar
people the most pious would avoid their surgical or
medical aid. The “God” of the Theist, the “unknowa
ble” of the Agnostic, are equally opposed to the Atheistic
affirmation. The Atheist enquires as to the unknown,
affirms the true, denies the untrue. The Agnostic knows
not of any proposition whether it be true or false.
Pantheists affirm one existence, but Pantheists declare
that at any rate some qualities are infinite, e.g., that
existence is infinitely intelligent. I, as an Atheist, can
only think qualities of phsenomena. I know each pheno
menon by its qualities. I know no qualities except as the
qualities of some phenomenon.
So long as the word “ God ” is undefined I do not deny
“ God”. To the question, Is there such a God as defined
by Professor ..Plint, I am compelled to give a negative
reply. If the word “ God ” is intended to affirm Dualism,
then as a Monist I negate “ God ”.
_ The attempts to prove the existence of God may be
divided into three classes:—1. Those which attempt to
prove the objective existence of God from the subjective
notion of necessary existence in the human mind, or from
the assumed objectivity of space and time, interpreted as
the attributes of a necessary substance. 2. Those which
*{ essay to prove the existence of a supreme self-existent
cause, from the mere fact of the existence of the world by
the application of the principle of causality, starting with
the postulate of any single existence whatsoever, the world,
or anything in the world, and proceeding to argue back
wards or upwards, the existence of one supreme cause is
held to be regressive inference from the existence of these
effects”. But it is enough to answer to these attempts,
that if a supreme existence were so demonstrable, that
bare entity would not be identifiable with “God”. “A
demonstration of a primitive source of existence is of no
formal theological value. It is an absolute zero.”
3. The argument from design, or adaptation, in nature,
the fitness of means to an end, implying, it is said, an
�8
IS THERE A GOD?
architect or designer. Or, from the order in the universe,
indicating, it is said, an orderer or lawgiver, whose intelli
gence we thus discern.
But this argument is a failure, because from finite
instances differing in character it assumes an infinite cause
absolutely the same for all. Divine unity, divine per
sonality, are here utterly unproved. 11 Why should we rest
in our inductive inference of one designer from the alleged
phenomena of design, when these are claimed to be so
varied and so complex ? ”
If the inference from design is to avail at all, it must
avail to show that all the phenomena leading to misery
and mischief, must have been designed and intended by a
being finding pleasure in the production and maintenance
of this misery and mischief. If the alleged constructor of
the universe is supposed to have designed one beneficent
result, must he not equally be supposed to have designed
all results? And if the inference of benevolence and
goodness be valid for some instances, must not the in
ference of malevolence and wickedness be equally valid
from others ? If, too, any inference is to be drawn from
the illustration of organs in animals supposed to be
specially contrived for certain results, what is the inference
to be drawn from the many abortive and incomplete organs,
muscles, nerves, etc., now known to be traceable in man
and other animals ? What inference is to be drawn from
each instance of deformity or malformation? But the
argument from design, if it proved anything, would at the
most only prove an arranger of pre-existing material; it
in no sense leads to the conception of an originator of
substance.
There is no sort of analogy between a finite artificer
arranging a finite mechanism and an alleged divine creator
originating all existence. Brom an alleged product you
are only at liberty to infer a producer after having seen a
similar product actually produced.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, London, E.C.—1887.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is there a god?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N096
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Is there a god?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f5fa044cf927e1f0f9a100d0b6e2ac7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Uc%7E4ojv%7Ec6QJJHCPii-ulAhlmL3Ba7i6Bju8z3x0XFIM2XqT0QPBQIaCFwcrzpA6miP9ZkYr01KSAbuaOvQEroX7PYm8Uyhrkfm-lYRfPHbOZj2CCyaTIyyOOHv8px3xemAkF6FOERzw7BinguaxP9EJdXaktwoLdEy8D4Rp%7EyOPljPyhh%7El7TGzsOngfk0n8hqWGi7qtAIt7t36Ybftoy2%7EYh3OkwnH3p48TiOIqBqYrib9ZfMVJ-bQEsgt1vM%7EI7uHJRG3q%7E1qvq0NLNRgoZnzr-rM0VvDMt7%7Ecr04rILkBJfs6aldK1Z7E1G9IomOzDzF53avlVEFS5T4v-v-2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e8497e74d27e10e6ec16629316a503eb
PDF Text
Text
THE
PAST AND THE FUTURE,
BY
ISAAC S. VARIAN.
JANUARY, 1868.
*
DUBLIN :
R. D. WEBB & SON, PRINTERS, GT. BRUNSWICK ST.
1869.
�The following short address was delivered before a small body
of persons of kindred religious thought. It was not intended
for publication ; but as the writer has since been called to join
the loved ones to whom he so feelingly refers, and as even a
slight memento of him will be very precious to many who held
him in especial esteem and veneration, as a man of unwonted
purity and nobleness of mind, it has been thought well to print
a few copies for private circulation.
Other members of the same circle have been called from this
earth within the past year, or have had to lament the loss of
those dear to them. May not these pages help to strengthen
and encourage such on the earthly path that yet lies before
them ?
A. W.
Dublin, January, 1869.
�THE PAST AND THE FUTURE,
January, 1868.
“ One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh.
---------- > ♦ ♦ ♦ <----------
Since we last met together, another year has closed upon
us—another year has opened. Once again has our earth in
its ceaseless never-ending whirl, completed its great circle—
swift as the lightning—deep and calm and solemn as a
midnight hell:—another year has formed the connecting
link between two eternities—The Past and The Future.
What a wdrld of solemn meaning there is in the words.
But a while ago and the past was ours—ours to use and to
enjoy; it is gone from us, never, never to return. All those
loves and affections; those kindnesses given and received ;
those high resolves; those manifestations of pure and ex
alted soul, of tender loving nature ; all are but memories—
sweet and beautiful—yet but memories. As time draws
over them his dark and shadowy pall, are they indeed
quite gone from us for ever—nothing done that we might re
touch, nothing said that we might unsay, nothing omitted
that we might now supply? Alas, yes ! The present
moment only is ours; the past is irrevocable. Yet it lives
for ever in memory; it writes its history upon our souls
with an “ iron pen and lead as upon a rock for ever.” Let
us therefore be careful that we use it aright, let our acts
�4
not alone be good, but our very best, our wisest, our most
saintly. Let us throw into them all our thought, all our
energy, all our devotion, for when once done they must
remain ever as they are. No after-thought can alter them,
however thoughtlessly or recklessly they may have been
performed; under whatever impulse of passion, however
instigated, they can never be blotted out. Rarely is the
opportunity granted us even to make amends when we
have done wrong, and even then we do it with sorrow and
humiliation. And let us remember that although irreme
diable they are not therefore inactive. Not alone in
memory do they live ; yea are they not all as seed put into
the ground which will grow. Every act brings another,
aye ten others, we know not how many, after it.
By our acts our minds are formed, and our position, and
that of those around us fixed ; and we must act—life is a
succession of acts—well or ill, -wisely or unwisely, usefully
or injuriously. Life means action. Life is before us to
act in—in time or in eternity. It is no choice of ours.
We are here. We cannot annihilate ourselves, as surely
as we cannot create ourselves. Nay we could not if we
would annihilate one particle of the matter of which even
our bodies are composed; how much less can we destroy
our souls. It is no choice of ours that we are here, and
that we must act; our acts are the seed of future action, of
future joy or future sorrow.
And they are eternal.
Therefore we must get knowledge, so as to act with greater
wisdom. It is a sacred duty, for we cannot be too wise.
Therefore let us cultivate holy and blessed thoughts ; let
us cleanse our minds of everything that is impure and that
is unlovely.
We cannot be too good. Alas, at our very best, with
our greatest care, with our greatest energy, how full of
sorrow and Ttgret are our lives. What a consciousness of
�errors and short comings. How frail, how feeble are we.
We fail in will, and we fail in knowledge, and no prayer
suits us so well as that of the desponding publican—“ God
he merciful to us sinners.” Almost docs the crushed soul
cry out “ The work is too great for me, I cannot under
take it. I cannot act wisely and well. Take back, oh !
Creator, thy great but too perilous gift.” But it cannot be.
We cannot falter or turn back in the great journey—no,
nor even halt on the way. With fear and trembling it
may be, or with a firm and reliant step ; in cloud, and dark
ness, and trouble it may be, or in sunshine and prosperity.
Through well-known beaten paths it may be, dr in devious
and uncertain ways where there is nothing but the inner
light to guide us,—still must we ever onward. Well may
the faint and weary heart fail within us, as we tread that
path on which there must be no faltering, no false step, no
going aside to the right or to the left ; for assuredly if we
do, trouble and tribulation, suffering and sorrow, will
inevitably follow—for such is the decree that has gone
forth from Eternity, that has resounded through the ages.
It is undeviating. It is unavoidable. The wisest, the
most loving, the holiest are not exempted from it. Ye
must always act wisely and well. There is no exception
either in time, place, or person.
This is a great subject, including all of religion, morals,
and philosophy. Let us think well over it. There are
laws of being in all its phases; laws of our material bodies,
of health and disease ; laws of our moral nature ; of our
fellow beings—the society in which we move; and laws of
our spiritual nature—our duties to our souls—of our rela
tions to the Great Author of our being. And the breach
of any one of those laws, any misunderstanding and con
sequent misapplication of them, any want of knowledge of
them whereby they may be set aside or disregarded, is
�followed by the inevitable sentence “ Retribution.” No plea
of ignorance, inadvertence, forgetfulness, will avail us.
Nay, no appeal to higher duty will supersede in the small
est iota the divine laws of nature. Fatigue follows overexertion, in however holy a cause it may be undergone;
disease follows infection, however benevolent or loving the
motive which drew us to the bedside of sickness. In every
instance the punishment is inexorably demanded. Suffer
ing, physical or mental—sorrow, pain, or loss of some sort—
follows every breach, however occasioned, of those varied
and all-pervading laws. How necessary is all our care and
all our thoughtful anxiety.
If, indeed, we must tread this path—this path that is
marked out for us—do this work that is set before us, and
do it always perfectly, always wisely and well, surely^very
nerve should be strung, every power and faculty heightened,
every means and opportunity of gaining knowledge resorted
to, so that we should be prepared in body and mind, ready
for every emergency, like men of God, “ perfect and entire,
wanting nothing.” Alas, how far from such a condition do
we find ourselves ; how feeble and frail; how fickle ; how
ignorant, and short-sighted; how often forgetful or reckless
of our highest dpties !
And for us there is no substitute, no mediator, no atone
ment in the orthodox and usually accepted sense. We are face
to face with God; there is no go-between. We live sur
rounded by His laws, always within His influence. Thankful
are we that God, as we believe Him, is not a hard task
master, expecting perfect service from imperfect creatures.
True obedience is required to all His laws, and their breach is
ever followed by the appointed punishment. Yet is it ever
inflicted as by the ever-loving Father, to warn us of our
danger, or to guide us into life. Anger or vengeance belong
not to Him. His justice requires not satisfaction. It is for
�ourselves alone, and for our soul's good, that His laws
exist; and this His awful law of Retribution, is but one
amongst His many mercies. If wise and good actions were
to bring no happy pleasurable results, or unwise or simple
ones no painful, then indeed would we lose our chief
guide and warning. Better for us to bear the inevitable
penalty, and be lead back again to the path of life.
I will not pursue this subject further—it is too wide
and many-sided—only so far as to indicate the nature of
the Divine dealings. Thus, the rewards and punishments
that flow from obedience or disobedience to the divine laws
participate in the nature of those laws themselves. The
physical have relation to health of body—and the effect of
neglect of them, or defiance from whatever cause, is bodily
pain, weakness, infirmity, death. The moral laws, having
relation to our dealings with our fellow beings, have their
punishment in mental and moral debasement, social exclu
sion and self condemnation ; and the spiritual laws, having
relation to our own soul, and its connection with the great
soul of the universe, have also their glorious rewards and
most terrible penalties.
Of those penalties how shall I speak ? Is there
any bodily anguish so severe as the consciousness of
having lost—aye, though inadvertently—the tender affec
tion or even the confidence of a loved or valued friend—
—of a brother or sister, father or mother, or dear, dear,
relative. How will the recollection of the act haunt
our thoughts by day, and our dreams by night; until
we seek by unwearied assiduity and thoughtfulness to
win back again the affection and esteem of our friend. So
also in our relation to our God, if we feel that we have
polluted our soul, that we have lowered it from its high
position, and that we dare not come into the presence of
our Maker, that at best we can but stand trembling in the
�8
outer court of the temple, and smite upon our breasts,
saying “ God be merciful to me a sinner/’ there is no
anguish equal to our anguish, and we are ready to exclaim
with him of old “ my punishment is greater than I can bear.”
Yet how beautiful and excellent is the retributive law,
which brings us in sorrow and anguish to the footstool of the
throne, and, opening our bleeding heart to our Heavenly
Father, makes us resolve upon renewed and holier life.
So also of the rewards of the spiritual life, of the intense
delight which follows a loving, true, and devoted action.
Who can tell the joy that is concentrated in the expiring
moments of the martyr for truth, for love, or for liberty ;
nay, we none of us can express it, but we all instinctively
feel that we would not exchange its joy or its triumph for
all the glory or the glitter of an earthly conqueror.
Thus have I endeavoured to explain the nature of our
destiny, and the complication and variety of the laws we
are compelled to understand and obey. But it is important
we should view them also in their relation to each other.
No doubt each is obligatory. Retribution follows their
breach or non-observance with equal certainty ; but yet are
they placed one above another. We must, as far as it is in
our power, build up a healthy body, and guard its health
with scrupulous care, but at the slightest whisperings of the
soul, must we put all its warnings aside. We must at the
call of duty overtask its powers, expose it to hardship, stint
its food ; at the call of love, expose it to contagion, weari
ness, anxiety; aye in the cause of truth, humanity, and
progress, peril to the uttermost even its very existence; and
we feel that we can point to acts, which if judged of the
material laws solely, were undoubtedly foolish—examples
of extravagant enthusiasm and infatuation—but judged of
by the spiritual laws, become our highest wisdom. Thus
can we join in the true spirit of the popular song
�9
“ John Brown’s body is mouldering in the clay,
But his soul keeps marching on.”
So say we of all the martyrs who have died for truth and
humanity—sowing the earth -wide with lessons of truth and
heroism ; of love and virtue. They died not in vain
for their own or for their race’s benefit. A little more
knowledge, perhaps a little more insight into human
affairs, would have saved their lives for a time. Others,
perhaps with more wisdom or greater knowledge, may have
doubted or disbelieved the righteousness of their cause or
the justice of their measures. What matters it to them ?
It was their highest light—their loftiest duty. They have
gone through with it “ and their souls keep marching on,”
a countless and innumerable army.
Let us gather up the great subject. Here have we thrust
upon us this glorious and blessed patrimony of life, with its
countless duties, laws and responsibilities; its struggles, its
trials, and its dangers, but oh ! with its gracious blessings,
its loving providences, and its most glorious anticipations.
Who will halt or falter on the way ? Who will not “ be
strong and of a good courage?” The path is clearly marked
and well defined, full of snares and pitfalls for the unwary
and ignorant, and of delusions for the heedless. All the
laws of our being must be attended to, and while “ the
mint and cummin ” of the bodily life are duly regarded
Justice, Mercy, Truth, (the soul’s high watchwords) must
be the touchstones of every thought and action. Then
shall we move gloriously forward in the path of duty with
certain and sure footsteps, with the everlasting arms sup
porting us, and the voice of the Eternal Father ever sound
ing in our ears.
Ours is no Simplon pass of eternal snows, lighted by
dim twilight, with a grim devil ever at our elbow, seeking
how he may entangle our slippery feet—obscuring still
�io
more the paths before us, or hurling us headlong into the
abyss below; while in the dim misty light, many voices
sound in our ears, each one shrieking in his peculiar
key, “No! this is the way;” “This is the true way;”
“This is the infallible light; all others leadeth to destruc
tion, ” and each holds up his little lurid light, and now
and again shouts “We alone shall climb the holy hill; we
alone shall see the celestial city.” No ! our step is ever on
the solid earth, and the sunshine cf, Heaven rests upon it.
We feel the Holiest ever at our side; often do we struggle
on in sad forgetfulness, yet do we know He is ever
there, helping our weaknesses, healing our backslidings,
and ever making our clip run over with blessings, heedless
of our unthankfulness, of our ingratitude, often even of our
grumblings and discontent. No ! our faith is firm, leading,
it is true, from we know not where, commencing from before
our consciousness—but ever lying in pleasant places, ever
resounding with cheering voices and beaming with cheer
ful faces; sometimes overcast with cloud and storm, and
anon aglow with light and love.
Many a trial and hard fought struggle have we gone
through. Each heart knows its own bitterness; yet is
hopeful life strong within us, and we trust we have
gathered strength from sufferings. We would fain bind up
our loins for our eternal journey; and while we add
another mark to the record of our lives, prepare ourselves
with joyful alacrity for whatever the future has in store for
us.
During the last revolution, two beautiful spirits have
passed from us—passed within the veil into the Holy of
Holies ; and while we try and peer beneath the curtain into
the resplendent glories beyond—where they have gone to
meet the noble army of martyrs, the glorious company of
the just made perfect, to join the seraphim who love most,
�11
and cherubim who know most—fain would we see the meet
ing with the other loved ones, who one after another long
before had left our own circle—some in mature years, some
amid abundant cares and useful life, and some in bounding
youth and toddling infancy—fain would we witness the
raptured embrace, the endearing, loving remembrance.
Nay, it is not given us to see. We cannot enter within
that veil with our mortal bodies, yet can we with the soul’s
eyes sometimes see them round about the eternal throne,
ever circling joyfully, not without song, not without holy
work in everlasting jubilee. But surely, wre hear some scorner whisper in our ears, “ How know you that we live
again 1 What you call revelation is but old wives’ tales—
give us facts—facts—all else is worthless.” Ah ! friend,
one great stupendous fact has been pealing in our ears since
childhood, has been about our path and about our bed, has
beset us behind and before, from infancy up to manhood—
through it we live, and move, and have our being. Oh! it
has been very bountiful to us. It has given us thought
and affection, and hope, and memory. It has, science tells
us, moulded this beautiful world myriads of years ago, far
longer than thought can reach ; has taken it atom by atom,
and minute crystal by crystal, until through ceaseless
never-ending change this beauteous world has been produ
ced, every operation carefully, thoughtfully prepared for—
never missing of its purpose, never failing—nothing forget
ting, nothing misplaced, nothing wasted or lost, an undevi
ating movement onward—onward through all ages—from
glory to glory. Do we not see it even in our own short
lives ?
Shall we, then, separate our loved ones from the same
kindly Providence which we feel within us and in every
atom around us, animate and inanimate 1 Their bodies may
moulder in the ground. They were beautiful, but they
�12
were of the earth, and have returned to their beautiful
mother. But their souls cannot die. Their love, their
truth, their hope, their faith, their devotion—these live for
ever. They are entities. They have life. Their souls keep
marching "bn ; and when one by one we too are called to
tread the darksome valley, we shall, as we hope, tread fear
lessly, aye joyously. We shall feel “ our Father’s right
hand in the darkness, and be lifted up and strengthened
we shall hear His soft kind voice sounding in our ears
“ It is I, be not afraid
and with trusting fearless hand,
shall we lift that mystic awful veil, and stand with Him
within the Holy of Holies.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The past and the future
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Varian, Isaac S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Dublin
Collation: 12 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Introductory paragraph signed 'A.W.' From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R.D. Webb & Son
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5175
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Religion
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 (The past and the future), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
God
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/585a3f9f871094c6b44b5774ff7a7232.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=X4pIQRqxyiET8l8vvDgieGgSZPEt-eXpcXSvqWmiFlgiC4m13tzDUw2y%7EtCnjNI2jl8aKQu8tY3pHqXmWpL2EbV-ULnWWQI8Sa7CvtCQR3nvlOJA6x-B0C3JuA2HidlJBudQkOeV4cRNIOoALDGvHyZ2QJNyyRMfDkKMwQTFzsNVZQxNT1sirOCGoLq4DmEquWUSn6fyOIiN-onWhxXR8kk%7EuzmiDeBP%7EOvivBSJyV6OOg90XB1kt5P3OpXsRMsM3k4tqrqqhgc1oTVZv79MNl0DmnGBMgBzhNR3xsp2pz-Pvhdn2VDApshVhe%7E0eSX-crRfVFjlfoBnnz%7Ef45ePUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
78e735b4b9db706b95bac08b36bcc1ff
PDF Text
Text
I
I
' ■< i
I
■
AND ITS RELATION TO THE SCIENTIFIC
AND RELIGIOUS WANTS OF MAN.”
A SERMON
DELIVERED AT TIIE PENNSYLVANIA YEARLY MEETING
PROGRESSIVE FRIENDS IN THE YEAR 1858.
OF
By THEODORE PARKER.
J
Honor, then, to the manly simplicity of Theodore Parker. ||
Perish who may among the Scribes and Pharisees,—“orthodox ||
liars for God,”—he at least, “ has delivered his soul.”—Professor
Martineau.
d
/
I
To guaranteed Subscribers of One Shilling per quarter and upwards,
these Sermons will be supplied at the rate of 1UI. each, single
copies dd., post freed^cl.
^luitrnlanb:
PRINTED BY B. WILLIAMS, “TIMES” OFFICE, 129, HIGH STREET-
�BRIDGE STREET, SUNDERLAND.
The following course of Lectures will be delivered in the
above place of worship, on the undernamed Sunday
Evenings ;—1876.
April 2nd.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—■“ Religion and
the Bible.”
April 9th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD. — “ Modern
Literature in Relation to the Bible.” (By request).
April 16th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ Paul at
Athens. ”
April 23rd.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ Religious
Life and Sectarian Stagnation.”
April 30th.—GEORGE LUCAS, Esq.—“ Wasted Life-a
Lesson drawn from the Tinies we live in.”
May 7th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ Christ and
the Pharisees.”
May 14th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ The Basis of
Religious Belief.”
May 21st.—GEORGE LUCAS, Esq.—“True Nobility—
Words of Encouragement for the struggling and the
tempted.”
May 28th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD. —“ Heathen
Prophets—Confucius.”
June 4th.—Rev. JAMES
MACDONALD.—Professor
Huxley—“ On the Physical Basis of Life.”
June Uth.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—Mazzini—
“ His Life and Labours.”
June 18th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“Mr. Ruskin
and his Creed.”
June 25th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ The Spirit
of the Gospel.”
ALL SEATS FREE.
The offertory at the close of each service.
MORNING SERVICE at a Quarter to Eleven.
EVENING SERVICE at Half-past Six.
Strangers are requested to enter and take any seat that
may be vacant.
�THE
ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD,
AND ITS RELATION TO THE SCIENTIFIC
AND RELIGIOUS WANTS OF MAN.
BY TH EODORE PARKER
The great and Dreadful God.—Daniel ix. 4.
Our Father which art in heaven.—Matthew Vi. 9.
IN the Religion of civilized men there are three things :—Piety
—the love of God, the Sentimental part; Morality—obedience to
God’s natural laws, the Practical part; and Theology—Thoughts
about God and Man and their relation, the Intellectual
part. The Theology will have great influence on the Piety and
the Morality, a true Theology helping the normal developement
of Religion, which a false Theology hinders. There are two
methods of creating a Theology,—a scheme of doctrines about
God and Man, and the relation between them, viz. : the
Ecclesiastical and the Philosophical.
The various sects which make up the Christian Church pursue
the Ecclesiastical method. They take the Bible for a miraculous
and infallible revelation from God—in all matters containing
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—and
thence derive their doctrines, Catholic, Protestant, Trinitarian,
Unitarian, Damnationist. or Salvationist. Of course they follow
that method in forming the Ecclesiastical Conception of God,
in which the Christian sects mainly agree. They take the whole
of the Bible, from Genesis to the Fourth Gospel, as God’s
miraculous affidavit; they gather together all which it says
about God, and from that make up the Ecclesiastical Conception
as a finality. The Biblical sayings are taken for God’s deposition
as to the facts of his nature, character, plan, modes of operation
—God’s word, his last word; they are a finality—all the
evidence in the case , nothing is to be added thereto, and naught
taken thence away. Accordingly the statement of a writer in
the half-savage age of a ferocious people is just as valuable, true,
and obligatory for all time as that of a refined, enlightened, and
religious man in a civilized age and nation ; for they are all
equally God’s testimony in the case, his miraculous deposition ;
God puts himself on his voir dire, and it is of no consequence
�THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
which justice of revelation records the affidavit of the Divine
Deponent. The deposition is alike perfect and complete, whetheffl
attested by an anonymous and half-civilized. Hebrew {filibuster,
or by a refined and religious Christian philosopher. The state
ment that God ate veal at Abraham’s, or that he sought to kill
Moses in a tavern, is just as true and important as this, that
“God is love.” It is said in the Old Testament that the Lord
is a “ consuming fire;” he is “ angry with the wicked everyday,”
and keeps his anger for ever ; that he hates Esau ; that lie gives
cruel commands, like that in the thirteenth chapter of
Deuteronomy, forbidding all religious progress /that lie orders
the butchery of millions of innocent men, including women and
children ; that he comes back from the destruction of Edom red
with blood, as described in the sixty-third chapter of Isaiah. In
the New Testament he is called Father ; it is said that he is Love,
that he goes out and meets the returning prodigal a great way
off, and welcomes him with large rejoicing.
Now, say the Churches, all these statements are true, and the
Christian believer must accept them all.
Deason is not to sift
and cross-examine the Biblical testimony, rejecting this as false
and including that as true ; for the whole of this evidence and
each part of it is God’s affidavit, and does not require a crossexamining, sifting, amending. We are not to reconcile it to us
but us to it; and if it conflict with reason and conscience, we
shall give them up.
All the Bible, says this theory, is the in
spired Word of God, and one part is just as much inspired as
another, for there'are no degrees of inspiration therein; each
statement by itself is perfect, and the whole complete. The
test of inspiration is not in man; it is not Truth for things
reasonable, nor justice for things moral, nor Love for things
affectional. The test is wholly outside of man; it is a miracle—that is, the report of a miracle ; and so what contradicts the
universal human conscience is to be accepted just as readily
as what agrees with the moral instinct and reflection of all
human kind. In the third century Tertullian, a hot-headed
African bishop, said, “ I believe, because it is impossible
that is, the thing cannot be, and therefore I believe it is !
It
has been a maxim in ecclesiastical theology ever since ; without
it both Transubstantiation and the Trinity would fall to the
ground, with many a doctrine more. I think Lord Bacon was
an unbeliever in the popular ecclesiastical doctrines of his time ;
he would derive, all science from the observation of nature and
reflection thereon ; but he left this maxim to have Eminent
Domain in Theology! It was enough for him to break utterly
with the Philosophy of the Schools ; he would not also quarrel
against the Theology of the Churches : thereby he lost his
scientific character, but kept his ecclesiastical reputation.
�TttE ecclesiastical
Conception of
gob.
3
Joshua, the sou of Nun, was a Hebrew fillibuster, with a
HKlfcivilized troop of ferocious men following him ; he conquered
■ country, butchered tlie men, women, and children; and he
gives us such a picture of God as you might expect from a
IPequot Indian in the days of our fathers.
It is taught in the
Churches that Joshua’s statement about God is just as trust
worthy as the sublime words in the New Testament, ascribed
to John or Jesus, and far more valuable than the deepest
intuitions, and the grandest generalizations, of the most
cultivated, best educated, and most religious of men to-day !
The Christian Churches do not derive their conception of God
from the World of Observation about us or the World'
of Consciousness within us, but from the “Book of llevelation,”
as they call that collection from the works of some
hundred writers, mostly anonymous, and all from remote
ages; and they tell us that the teachings of Joshua are of as
much value as the teachings of Jesus himself, far more than
those of Fenelon or Channing.
Now from such facts, and by such a method, the Christian sects
have formed their notion of God, which is common to the Greek,
the Latin, and the Teutonic Churches ; only a few sects have
departed therefrom, and as they are but insignificant in numbers,
and haveliacl scarcely any influence in forming the ecclesiastical
conception of God, so I shall omit all reference to them and
their opinions.
To-day I shall not speak of the ecclesiastical Arithmetic of
God, only of the Ethics thereof; not of God according to the
category of number—the quantitative distribution of Deity
into personalities ; only of the character of God by the category
of substance—the qualitative kind of Deity, for that is still the
same, whether conceived of in one person, in three, or in three
million, just as the qualitative force of an army of three hundred
thousand soldiers is still the same, whether you count it as one
corps or as three.
Look beneath the mere words of theology, at the things
which they mean, and you find in general that the ecclesiastical
conception of God does not include Infinite Perfection.
It
embraces all the true and good things from the most religious
and enlightened writers of the Bible, but it also contains all the
ill and false things which were uttered by the most rude and
ferocious ; one is counted just as true and valuable as the other.
Accordingly God is really represented as a limited being,
exceedingly imperfect, having all the contradictions which you
find between Genesis and the Fourth Gospel; he is not infinite
in any one attribute. I know the theological language
predicates infinite perfection, but the theological facts affirm
exceeding imperfection. Look at .this in several details.
�4
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OE GOD.
1. God is not represented as Omnipresent. When the
theologian says, “ God is everywhere,” he does not mean that
God is everywhere always, as he is anywhere sometimes ; not
that he is at this minute present in this meeting-house, and in
the air which my hand clasps, as he was in the Hebrew Holy
of Holies when Solomon ended his inaguration prayer, as he
always is in some place called the Heaven of Heavens. There
are degrees of the Divine Presence ; he is more there and less
here. Some spots he occupies by his essence, others only
potentially. He was creationally present with all his personal
essence at the making of the world, but only providentially
present with his instrumental power, not his personal essence,
at the governing of the world. Thus the Queen of England,
by her power, is present in all Great Britain and the British
posessions, while by her person she occupies only a single
apartment of the Palace of St. James in London, sitting in
only one chair at a time. So it is taught that God must inter
vene miraculously to do his work : must come into a place
where he was not before, and which he will vacate soon.
So
the actual, personal, essential and complete presence of God
is the very rarest exception in all places save Heaven. He is
instantial only in Heaven, exceptional everywhere else. He is
not universally immanent, residing in all matter, all spirit, at
every time, working according to law, by a constant mode of
operation and in all the powers of matter and man, which are
derived from him and are not possible without him ; but he
comes in occasionally and works by miracle. He is a non
resident God, who is present in a certain place vicariously, by
attorney, and only on great occasions comes there in his proper
person. That is the ecclesiastical notion of Omnipresence.
2. He is not All-Powerful, except in the ideal Heaven which
he permanently occupies by his complete and personal presence.
On earth he is restricted by Man, who thwarts his plans every
day and grieves his heart, and still more by the Devil, who
continually thwarts his Creator. I know the ecclesiastical
doctrine says that God is omnipotent, but ecclesiastical history
represents him as trying to make the Hebrews an obedient
people, and never effecting it; as continually worrying over
that little fraction of mankind, “rising up early and speaking”
to them, but the crooked would not be made straight.
Nay,
he is unable to keep the Christian Church without spot or
wrinkle for a single generation, charm he never so wisely ; but
Paul fell out with such as were apostles before him, and the
seamless ecclesiastical coat is roughly rent in twain betwixt the
two !
3. He is not All-Wise. He does not know his own creation
will work. He finished the world, and found that his one man,
�THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
5
■Stalling alone, did not prosper; it was necessary to make a
woman, to help him; she was an afterthought. Her first step
ruins the man she was meant to serve ; and God is surprised at
the disobedience. He must alter things to meet this unexpected
emergency ; he grows wiser and wiser by continual experiment.
4. He is not All-Righteous. He does great wrong to the
Egyptians, for he hardens Pharaoh’s heart, so that he may have
an excuse for putting the king and people to death. He does
injustice to the Canaanites, whom he butchers by Joshua; he
provides a punishment altogether disproportionate to the
offences of men, and will make them softer for ever for the sin
committed by their mythological ancestor, six thousand years
before you and I were born ; he creates souls by the million,
only to make them perish everlastingly. In the whole course
of human history, you cannot find a tyrant, murderer, kidnapper,
who is so unjust as God is, represented by the ecclesiastical
theology.
5. He is not All-Loving. Of the people before Christ, he
loved none but Jews; he gave no other any revelation, aud
without that, they must perish everlastingly ! Since Jesus he
loves none but Christians, and will save no more ; the present
heathen are to die the second death; and of Christians he loves
none but Church-members. Nay, the Catholics will have it
that he hates everybody out of the Roman Church, while the
stricter Protestants retaliate this favor upon the Catholics
themselves. Nay, they deny salvation to all Unitarians and
Universalists, to the one because they declare that the man
Jesus was not God the Creator; and to the other because they
say that God the Father is not bad enough to damn any man
for ever and ever.
You remember that scarcely was Dr.
Channing cold in his coffin, before orthodox newspapers rung
with the intelligence that he was doubtless then suffering the
pangs of eternal damnation, because he had “ denied the Lord
that bought him.” You know the damnation pronounced on old
Dr. Ballou, simply because he said men were brethren, and the
God of earth and heaven is too good-hearted to create anybody
for the purpose of crunching him into hell for ever and ever.
According to some strict sectarians, God loves none but the
elect—an exceedingly small number. It has been the doctrine
of the Christian Church for fifteen or sixteen hundred years
that God will reject from heaven all babies newly-born who die
without baptism ; the sprinkling of infants was designed to
save these little ones, who, as Jesus thought, needed no salva
tion, but were already of the kingdom of heaven. Accordingly,
to save the souls of children ready to perish without ecclesiastical
baptism, the Catholic Church mercifully allows doctors, nurses,
mid-wives, servants, anybody, to baptize a child newly born,
�6
THE .ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
by throwing water in its face, in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, and that saves the little thing. But the
doctrine of infant damnation follows logically from the first
principles of the ecclesiastictl theology. “ He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved, and he^believcth not shall be
damned !”
6. He is not All-Holy, perfectly faithful to himself.
He is
capricious and variable ; men can wheedle him into their favor
ite plans ; now by penitence or a certain belief, they can induce
God to remove the consequence of their wicked deeds ; and the
effects of a long life of wickedness will at once be miraculously
wiped clean off from the man’s character ; he will take the
blackest of sinners and wash him white in the blood of the
Lamb, and “ in five minutes he shall be made as good a Christ
ian as he could become by fifty years of the most perfect piety
and morality.” Since God is thus changeable, men think they
can alter his plan by their words, can induce him to send rain
when they want it, or to “ stay the bottles of heaven ” at their
request, to check disease, to curse a bad man, or to pervert and
confound the intellect of a thinking man. Hence comes the
strange phenomenon which you sometimes see of a nation
assembling in the churches, and asking God to crush to the
ground another people at war with them ; two years ago you
saw Englishmen bending their knees in the name of Christ, to
ask God to blast the Russians at Sebastopol, and the Russians
bending their knees and in the same name asking God to sink
fdie British ships in the depths of the Black Sea!
Put all these things together—God is not represented as a
perfect Creating Cause, who makes all things right at first; nor
a perfect Preserving Providence, who administers all things
well, and will bring all out right at last. Even his essential
presence is only an exception in the world, here for a moment,
and then long withdrawn. According to the ecclesiastical con
ception, God transcends man in power and wisdom, but is
immensely inferior to the average of men in justice and
benevolence ; nay, in hate and malignity he transcends the very
worst man that the very worst man could conceive of in his
heart.
I. Now, this idea of God is not adequate to the purposes o
Science. To explain the World of Matter, the naturalist wants
a sufficient power which is always there, acting by a constant
mode of operation ; not irregular, vanishing, acting by fits and
starts ; but continuous, certain, reliable ; an intelligent power
which acts by law, not caprice and miracle. No other God is
adequate Cause of the Universe, or of its action for a single
hour.
�THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
7
But tlie Christian Church knows no such God, for all the
Biblical depositions concerning him, all the pretended affidavits
whence it has made its conception of God, came from men who
had no thought of a general law of matter or of mind, and no
notion of a God who acted by a constant mode of operation,
and who was the indwelling Cause and Providence of all things
that are. Just so far as any scientific thinker departs from
that limited idea of God, who comes and goes and works by
miracle, so far does he depart from the ecclesiastical theology
of Christendom. The actual facts of the Universe are not
reconcilable with what the ecclesiastical theology teaches about
God. This has become apparent, step by step, in the last three
centuries.
«
Galileo reported the facts of astronomic nature just as they
were. The Roman Church must silence her philosopher, or
else revolutionize her notion of God. Had not she God’s own
affidavit that he stopped the sun and moon a whole day, to give
Joshua time for butchery of men, women and children 1 would
she allow a philosopher to contradict her with nothing but the
Universe on his side ? He must swear the earth stands still.
“ And yet it does move though !”
Geologists relate the .facts of the universe as they find them
in the crust of the earth. The Churches complain that these
facts are inconsistent with the story in Genesis.
“ We have,”
say they, “ God’s deposition that he made the Universe in six
■ days, rested on the seventh, and was refreshed 1 What is the
testimony of the rocks and the stars, to the anonymous record
on parchment, or the printed English Bible ?” So the geologist
,-also has a bad name in the Churches, many equivocate, and
some lie.
For the history of the heavens and earth, theologians would
rely on the word of a man whose name even they know nothing
; of, and reject the testimony of the Universe itself, where the
footprints of the Creator are yet so plain and deeply set.
Zoologists find evidence, as they think, that the human race
has had several distinct centres of origination ; that men were
created in many places : and a great outcry is at once raised.
Such facts are inconsistent with the ecclesiastical idea of God !
So, to learn the structure of the heavens, the earth, or of man
kind ; you must not go to the heavens, the earth, or man
kind ; you must go to the book of Genesis, and if the facts of
the Universe contradict the anonymous record therein, then
you must break with the Universe and agree with the minister,
for the actual testimony of things is worth nothing in com
parison with the words of a Hebrew "writer whom nobody
knows !
�8
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
The great obstacle to the advancement of science, nay, to
the diffusion of knowledge, is not the poverty of mankind, not
the lack of industry, talent, genius amongst men of science;
but it is the ecclesiastical conception of God. Not a step
can be taken in astrogoly, geology, zoology, but it separates a
man from that notion. The ecclesiastical conception of God
being thus utterly inadequate to the purposes of science,
philosophic men turn off from the theology of Christendom;
and some, it is said, become atheists. Look at the scientific
men of England, France, and Germany, for proof of this.
In
America there is no considerable class of scientific and learned
men, who stand close together, write books for each other, and
so make a little public of their own ; so here the scientific man
does not stand in a little green-house of philosophy as in
Europe, where he is sheltered from public opinion, lives freely,
and expands his flowers in an atmospsere congenial to his
natural growth, but he is exposed to all the rude blasts of the
press, the parlor, and the meeting-house ; so is he more cautious
than his congeners and equivalents in Europe, and does not
commonly tell what he thinks ; nay, sometimes tells what he
does not think, lest he should lose his public reputation
amongst bigoted men ! To this there are some very honorable
exceptions ; scientific men who do not count it a part of their
business to prop up a popular error, but who know society has
a right to demand that they tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. But if you will take the hundred
foremost men of science in all Christendom who are not
ministers, I do not think that ten of them have any belief in
the common ecclesiastical conception of God. Some have better
—nay, a true idea of God, but dare not divulge it; and some,
alas I seem to have no notion at all. Accordingly, men of science
turn from theology; soon become atheists, and all lose much
from lack of a satisfactory idea of God.
You all know what
clerical complaints are made of the infidelity and atheism of
scientific men. Three hundred years ago the Church suspected
doctors, and invented this proverb:—As many doctors, so
many atheists ; ” because the doctors knew facts irreconcilable
with the ecclesiastical theology. I think the chargo of atheism
grossly unjust, when it is brought against the great body of
scientific men; but where it is true, it ought to be remembered
that in the last two hundred and fifty years the Christian
Church has had no idea of God adequate to the purposes of
science, and fit for a philosopher to accept; and if it be so, will
you blame the philosopher for rejecting what would only
disturb his processes ? The cause of the philosopher’s atheism
often lies at the Church’s door, and not in the scholar’s study.
II. But this ecclesiastical conception of God is as inadequate
�THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
C 9'
In religious conociousness we all want a God whom we can absolutely rely
upon; who is always at hand, not merely separate and one
side from the World of Matter or the World of Man. We
want a deity who acts now, and is the Infinite God, who desires
the best of possible things for each man, who knows the best of possible things, and has will and power to bring about the
best of possible things, and that for all persons. We want a
God all powerful, all-wise, all-just, all-loving, all-faithful; a
perfect Creator; a perfect Provider, who will be just to each of
his children. I put it to each one of you—thoughtfulest or
least thinking—is there one of you who will be content with a
God who does not come up to your highest conception of power,
wisdom, justice, love and holiness 1 Not one of you will be
content to rely on less !
You must falsify your nature before
you can do it. But according to the ecclesiastical conception,
God is the most capricious, unjust, unreliable of all possible
beings. Look at this old and venerable doctrine of eternal
damnation, believed by all the Christian sects, save the
Universalists, Unitarians, and Spiritualists—not yet a sect—
who make at the most some four or five millions out of the two
hundred and fifty or sixty millions of Christendom. This is
the doctrine:—God is angry with mankind, and will burn the
greater part of them in hell, for ever and ever.
Why is his
wrath so hot against us ? ”
1. The Jews are God’s ancient covenant people; with them •
he made a bargain, sworn to on both sides : it was for a good
and sufficient consideration, value received by each party; he
commanded them to observe the Mosaic form of religion for
ever; if any prophet shall come, working never so many
miracles, and teach them a different conception of God, they
must put him to death, and all his followers, with their wives,
their children, and their cattle. (Deut. xiii.) But now all
these “ chosen people ” are to be damned for ever because they
do not believe the theology of Paul and Jesus, whom the
divine law commands the Jews to slay with the edge of the
sword for teaching that theology. So God commands the Jews
to kill every man among them who shall teach the Christian
doctrine, and yet will damn them for not believing it.
2. The Heathen also are to be damned because they have
no faith in Christ, no belief in the popular theology of the
Catholic or Protestant sects. But that theology is unreasonable,
and thoughtful, unprejudiced men cannot believe it; besides
that, the greater part of the Heathens never heard of such.
Eoctrines, or of Christ; still God will damn them, millions by
millions, to eternal torment, because they have not believed
to the purposes of Religion, as of Science.
�10
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
what was never preached to them, what they never heard they
must believe. Three hundred years ago Spanish J esuits preached
the doctrine of eternal damnation to the heathen at Japan, who
asked of the missionaries, “ Is it possible that God will damn
men for ever?” “Certainly, without doubt,” was the reply.
“ And if a man dies who has not heard of these things before,
will God damn him for ever ?” “Yes,” was the answer. The
whole multitude fell on their faces and wept bitterly and long,
and would not believe it. Do you blame them for casting those
priests from the island, and saying, “Let the salt sea separate
us from the Christian world for ever.”
3. Then the Christians themselves are not certain of their
salvation,
The Catholics are the majority, and they say God
will damn all the Protestants ; the Protestants say the same of
the Catholics. The ecclesiastical idea of God in both represents
him as ready enough to damn either ; and if the first principle
of the Catholic Church be true, no Protestant can be saved |
and if the first principle of the Protestant Church be true, then
every Catholic is sure of damnation and nought besides.
See how the Protestants dispose of one another.
(1.) All “ unconverted ” and positively wicked men are to
be damned; God has no love for them, only hate.
(2.) All “ unconverted ” men, not positively wicked ; they
have no salvation in them ; they may be the most pious men
in the world, the most moral men, but their own religion
cannot save them. They must have “ faith ”—that is belief in
the ecclesiastical theology—and be Church members ; that is,
they must believe as Dr. Banaby believes, and be voted into
some little company called a Church, at the Old South or the
New Noith, or some other conventicle.
(3.) New-born babies not baptized must be shut out from the
kingdom of heaven, if not included in the kingdom of hell;
such has been the doctrine of the Christian Church from the
time of Justin Martyr, who I think first broached it seventeen
hundred years ago, and it follows with unavoidable logic from
the ecclesiastical notion of God and the ecclesiastical method
of salvation. So Jesus must have made a great mistake when
he took babies in his arms, and blessed them, and said, “Suffer
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of
such is the kingdom of heaven—he ought to have said,
“Suffer baptized children to come unto me,” &c.
Now what confidence can you have in such a God, so unjust,
so unloving, so cruel, and so malignant ? I just now said that
God is represented as transcending men in hate and malignity.
Look at the matter carefully, narrowing the thing down to the
smallest point. Suppose there are now a thousand million
�theTEcclesiastical conception of god.
11
persons on the earth, and that only one shall be damned; and
suppose that some day a hundred years hence, all the nine
hundred and ninety-nine millions, nine hundred and ninety-nine
thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine of us are gathered in
the kingdom of heaven, enjoying all the blessedness that Divine
love can bestow on the vast faculties of man, still further en
hanced by the first taste of immortal life; suppose that
Intelligence is brought to all and each of us that one man is
miserable, languishing in eternal fire, to be there, for ever;
suppose we are told that a globe of sand, big as this earth hangs
there before his comprehensive eye, and once in a thousand
years a single atom is loosened and falls off, and he shall suffer
the cruellest torment till, grain by grain, millennium after mil
lennium, that whole globe is consumed and passed away! and
yet then he shall be no nearer the end of his agony than when
he first felt the smart. Suppose we are told it was the worst man
of all the earth, that it was a murderer, a violator of virgins, a
pirate, a kidnapper, a traitorous wretch, who, in the name of
Democracy, sought to establish a despotism in America, to'
crush out the fairest hopes of political freedom which the sun
ever shone upon : or even it was an ecclesiastical hypocrite,
with an atheistic heart, believing in no God, and loving no man,
who, for the sake of power and ambition, sought to make men
tremble at the ugly phantom of a wrathful Deity, and laid his
unclean hands on the soul of a man, and macle that a source
of terrible agony to mankind.!- -When you are told that this
man is plunged into hell for all time; is there a man who would
not cry out against the hideous wrong, and scornheaven offered
by such a Deity? No ! there is no murderer, no pirate, no
violator of virgins, no New England kidnapper, no betrayer of
his nation, no ecclesiastical hypocrite even, who would not reject
it with scorn, and revolt against the injustice. But the ecclesias
tical doctrine represents God as thus damning not one man, but
millions of millions of men, the great majority of mankind, nine
hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand, and those, too,
often the best, certainly the wisest and most loving and pious
men ! Do you wonder, then, that thoughtful men, moral men.
Affectionate men, and religious men turn off with scorn from
tins'conception of God ? I wonder not at all. The fact that
the majority have not done so only shows how immensly
powerful is this great religious instinct, which God meant
should be Queen within us.
Let me do no injustice. I admit the many excellent qualities
Ascribed to God in the popular theology ; but remember this,
that as much as the noblest words of the New Testament add
to the conception of God in the worst parts of the Old Testa-
�12
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
ment, just so much also do the savage notions from Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, from the baser
Psalms, and the Prophets, take away from the Father who is
m Heaven, the Spirit who is to be worshipped in spirit and
in truth ! In. this “ alligation alternate ” one chapter of the
Old Testament can adulterate and spoil all the blessed oracles
of the New. Jesus is set off against Joshua; the whole of the
Fourth Gospel, the Sermon on the Mount, and many a blessed
Parable, is nullified by a scrap from some ancient Jew who
thought God was a consuming fire !
The form of Religion demanded of men, in accordance with
the ecclesiastical conception of God, certainly has many good
things, but it is not natural Piety for its emotional part, the
aboriginal love of God ; nor natural Theology for its intellectual
part, the natural Idea of God : nor natural Moraltv for its
practical part, the normal use of every human faculty ; but it is
just the opposite of these; it has a sentiment against nature,
thought against nature, practice against nature. In place of Love
to God, with trust and hope, the most joyous of all emotions
possible to man, it puts Fear of God, with doubt, and dread,
and despair, the most miserable of all emotions; and in place
of love to men, to all men, according as they need and we are
able, it puts love only for your own little household of faith,
and hate for all who cannot accept your opinions ; for out of
the ecclesiastical conception of God comes not only the superstitition which darkens man’s face, clouds his mind, obscures
his conscience, and brutalizes his heart, but also the persecution
which reddens his hand with a brother’s blood. The same
spirit is in Boston to-day that in the middle ages was in Italy
and Spain. Why does not it burn men now, as once it did in
Italy, in Spain, and in Oxford ? It only lacks the power; the
wish and will are still the same. It lacks the axe and faggot,
not the malignant will to smite and burn. Once it had the
headsman at its command, who smote and silenced men ; now
it can only pray, not kill.
Such being the Ecclesiastical Conception of God, such the
Ecclesiastical Religion, I do not wonder it has so small good
influence on mankind.
Men of science, not clerical, turn off
from such a God, and such a form of Religion. They are less
wise and less happy; their science is die, more imperfect,
because they do not know the Infinite God of the Universe, the
Absolute Religion. With reverence for a great mind, do I turn
the grand studious pages of La Place and Von Humboldt, but
not without mourning the absence of that religious knowledge
of God, and that intimate trust in Him, which else would have
planted their scientific garden with still grander beauty. I do
not wonder that men of politics turn off from ecclesiastical
�THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
13
religion, and are not warned from wickedness by its admonition,
nor guided to justice and philanthropy by its counsels.
Look
at the politicians of America, England, France, all Christendom
and can you show me a single man of them in a high place
who believes in the ecclesiastical conception of God, and in
public ever dares appeal to the religious nature of man, and
there expect to find justification of a great thought or a noble
plan ? No ! when such politicians evoke the religious spirit, it
is only to make men believe that it is a religious duty to obey
any tyrant who seeks to plunder a nation, to silence the Press
of France, to crush out the life from prostrate Italy and Spain,
to send Americans kidnapping in Pennsylvania or New Eng
land. The great men of science have broke with the ecclesiastical
notion of God ; men of great moral sense will have nothing to
do with a Deity so unjust; while the affectional and religious
men, whose “ primal virtues shine aloft as stars,” whose deeds
are “ charities that heal, and soothe, and bless ” the weary sons
of men, they turn off with disgust from the ecclesiastical God,
whose chief qualities are self-esteem, vanity, and destructive
ness. One of the most enlightened writers of the New Testa
ment says, “God is love.” “Yes,” says the ecclesiastical
theologian, “ but he is also a CONSUMING FIEE; he gives all his
love to the Christians who have faith in Christ, and turns all
his wrath against the non-Christians who have no faith in
Christ. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he
that believeth not shall be damned.”
If a man accepts this notion of God, he can never be certain
of his own welfare hereafter; he may hope, he cannot be sure,
for salvation does not depend on a faithful use of talents or
opportunities ; but on right belief and right ritual.
And
when neither the intuitive nor the reflective faculties afford and
test, who knows if his belief is right ? The Jews are to be
rejected for their faith in Moses and the Prophets. The Fourth
Gospel makes Jesus say that.all before him “were thieves and
robbers —I think he never said it.
Paul repudiated Peter,
if not also James and John; he was a dissembler, and they only
“ seemed to be somewhatwhile the author of the book of
Revelation thrusts Paul out of heaven, consigning him to the
synagogue of Satan.
Now if Paul and Peter and James and
John did not know what faith in Christ meant, and could not
agree to live in the same Church, and sit in the same heaven,
can you and I be sure of admittance there ?
While the ecclesiastical conception of God is thus inadequate
to a thoughtful man’s religion, we are yet told that we must
never reform this notion ! There is a manifest progress in the
conception of God in the Biblical books ; but in the Christian
Church we are told that there must be no further step; we
�14
THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OE GOD.
must stop with Joshua. “Fear hath torment, ’’says that anonymous,
deep-heartecl religious writer of the New Testament, seventeen
hundred years ago; but “ perfect love casts out fear.” We are
told we must not cast it out, but must have a notion of God,
which we must fear !
Shame on us !
Mankind has made a
mistake. We took a false step at the beginning. The dream
which a half-savage Jew had of God we take for God’s affidavit
of his own character. We do not look on the World of Matter
and Mind, to gather thence a natural idea of God, only at the
statements of certain men who wrote seventeen hundred or
three thousand years ago, men who did well enough for their
time, not ours.
All round us lie the evidences against the ecclesiastical con
ception of God, within us are they yet more distinct. The great
mistake of the Christian Church is its conception of God. Once
it was the best the nations could either form or accept. To-day
it is not worth while to try to receive it. It is inadequate for
Science, either the philosophy of matter or man, explaining
neither the condition, the history, nor yet the origin of one
or the other. It is unfit for Religion; for Piety, its sentimental
part—Theology, its intellectual part—Morality, its practical
part. I cannot love an imperfect God, I cannot serve an im
perfect God with perfect morality.
There will be no great and sufficient revival of religion till
this conception be corrected. Atheism is no relief ; indifference
cannot afford any comfort; and belief makes the matter worse.
The Churches complain of the atheism of Science; their false
notion of God made it atheistic. You and I mourn at the
wickedness of men in power; is there anything in the ecclesiastical
religion to scare a tyrant or a traitor ? In high American office
mean men live low and wicked lives, abusing the people’s trust,
and then at last, when the instincts of lust, of passion, and of
ambition fail them, they whine out a few penitent words to a
priest, on their death-beds, with their last breath making
investment for their future reputation on earth, and also in the
Christian Church !
For this mouthful of wind do they pass
for better Christians than a whole life of eighty years of phil
anthropy gave Franklin the reputation for. Thus selfish and
deceitful men are counted for saints by the Christian clergy,
while the' magnificent integrity of Franklin and Washington
never gave them a high place in any Christian Church ! You
weep at the poverty of life in the American Church—thirty
thousand ministers with right of visitation and search on all
mankind, and no more to show for it! A revival of religion
going on over the whole land—and a revival of the slave trade
at the same time, and neither hindering the other ! You mourn
�THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPTION OF GOD.
15
at the poverty of life in the Churches of America, but the
Church of Christendom is no better—nay, I think the Church
in the Free States of America is its better part; the Christian
Church abroad strikes hands with every tyrant, it treads down
mankind, nor will it be ever checked, while it has such a false
conception of God.
Under us is the Earth, every particle of it immanent with
God; over us are the Heavens, where every star sparkles with
Deity; within us are the Heavens and the Earth of human
Consciousness, a grander revelation of Deity in yet higher form.
These are all of them a two-fold testimony against the
Ecclesiastical Conception of God. Not one of them has a
whisper of testimony in favor of atheism ; all are crowded with
evidence of the Infinite God,—First Good, First Perfect, and
First Fair, Father and Mother to you and me, to all that were,
that are, that shall be, leading us to life everlasting.
�■
to
am
(MH
..<<< V ?■ .«f n
wl
i'c, ' ■
Mt ‘
r|
\K
1.! f
■ '.
■ •> «ifl
■■ .
fl
■! <«f i
i!-fe :
«
'UgUM^
'♦»■ M* ■ •
?<
^Br:'.' * ‘•■fl ci, ki •<•>
.i .. '
OH t*. ■•»-.'<».‘Krj
J-!
.' W
>«: V jrf) '4
jBil .•;'
r
<
<■ -.>,Ji
*”
. •■ '• . i * '* -•1
jiM
■
'.h
■ptf-
'•••■'
I--'
7 .. a ■ - jK >jU.J
•
■’V" '
w
' ■«".)
' IM
">!
*'■
' ■■'• f‘.t ftfVl. :.tj iu n.H • ■i’a/'.'; ■; ■ JMfT. ..?. r / /., ■■-<=-.« ’Mi ,
■ wT a i ■'■ ■
1
. j.,.
1
i • tw »>..
dr* *
< ,;> • • ».!'' Hr.; «#••!• a »t ’
'WKtf'
'i;'
t ; * V. s ,t "■' '
-•*'■#,.
‘
■•.•>:/'
«' j.
* ijjr ■ -,‘!t
i
i i> ■,
'ERf ' ’ *1’
•
; ~ ' id
i
W ■ /.M
.■*
gft
ii7 <
n? ‘/if
�IS HELD
EVERY SUNDAY AFTERNOON, in the Chapel,
FROM HALF-PAST TWO TO HALF-PAST THREE.
THE
CLASS
IS
OPEN
TO
THE
PUBLIC.
WEEK EVENING CLASSES as usual on the Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday.
JUBILEE LECTURE,
British and Foreign Unitarian Association.
On SUNDAY EVENING, April 2nd, Rev. JAS. MACDONALD
will Lecture in the Workmen’s Hall, Monkwearmouth,
Subject
RELIGION AND THE BIBLE.”
Service "will Commence at Half-past Six.
There will be no service in the Bridge Street Chapel in the
Evening of the above-named day.
On SUNDAY, April the 9th, Special Collections will be made
in the Unitarian Chapel in behalf of the Sunderland Infirmary.
THE SUNDERLAND UNITARIAN PULPIT LECTURES
on Sale at the Book Stall :■—
Discipleship with Christ. By the Rev. Janies Macdonald.
do.
Do.
Ideal Religion.
do.
Do.
Comparative Religion.
do.
Do.
British Workman. Part 1.
Do.
do.
British Workman. Part 2.
The Progressive Development of the Conception of God in
the Books of the Bible. By Theodore Parker.
... -/I
...
...
...
-/I
-/I
-/I
-/I
... -/2
�1 he following valuable Books illustrative of Christian Unitarianism
may be purchased from the book stall at the chapel door before
or after the Sunday services, or from the Bev. JAMES
MACDONALD, Elmwood Street:—
Published
Channing’s Complete AVorks............................
Channing’s Perfect Life....................................
Bible and Popular Theology. Dr. V. Smith..,
Memoir of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, M. A.
Priestley’s History of the Corruptions of 1
Christianity ....................................
j
Unitarian Hand-book Rev. R. Spears...........
John Milton’s Last Thoughts on the Trinity
First Principles in Religion. Rev. J. P. Hopps
Parker’s Matters Pertaining to Religion ...
Spirit and AVord of Christ. Dr. V. Smith ...
Childhood of the World. By E. Clodd, F.R.A.S.
The Church of the First Three Centuries. )
By Dr. Lamson ..................................... J
The Childhood of Religions. By E. Clodd, )
F.R.A.S.
... “. ... .................. J
Literature and Dogma—Arnold ...................
God and the Bible
Do..........................
3/6
3/6
3/6
5/o „
~JI^)
_/6
1/1/2/—
—]/-
Offered,
at.
.
..
2/2/6
2/2/6
'■
K,
6/~
9/9/-
.,
..
1/-/6
-/9
-/8
1/9
1/lOd.
2/-
■
..
..
7/6
7/6
..
4/2
The following Lectures may also be obtained at the book stall :
Sympathy of Religions. By T. AV. Higginson................
A Study of Religion. By F. E. Abbot............................
Sin against God. By Professor Newman ...................
The Origin of the Devil. - By Dr. Zerffi..........................
Erasmus—His influence on the Reformation. By Elley
. Finch............................................................. ... ...
Is Jesus God1 Rev. R. R. Suffield
...................
Light for Bible Readers. Rev. J. P. Hopps...................
Popular Doctrines that obscure the views which the New
Testament gives of God. By Rev. AV. Gaskell, M.A.
A Lecture on Rationalism. By Rev. Charles Aroysey
A Lecture on the Bible. By Rev. Charles A'oysey ...
The Living God. By Rev. E. M. Geldart ...................
Truths for the Times. By F. E. Abbot ...................
-/2
~/2
-/2
-/3
_/3
-/3
—/2
-/I
-/6
-/6
-/3
-/3
Hie Lnitarian Herald (weekly) price Id., and the Christian
1 reeman (monthly) price 1-J-d., are also on sale at the stall.
N.B.—These works are offered to the public at a slight sacrifice
to the committee, and the object is exclusively for the encouragement
of religious truth and. inquiry.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The ecclesiastical conception of God, and its relation to the scientific and religious wants of man: a sermon delivered at the Pennsylvania yearly meeting of Progressive Friends in the year 1858
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Parker, Theodore
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Sunderland
Collation: [2],35, [2] p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the Sunderland Unitarian Pulpit, No. IV, 2nd Quarter, 1876. Inscription on front flyleaf: M.D. Conway Esq with Mr Jm. Macdonald's compliments. A list of lectures delivered at the Unitarian Chapel, Sunderland listed on title page verso and unnumbered end pages. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
B. Williams, printers
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1876]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5356
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 ecclesiastical conception of God, and its relation to the scientific and religious wants of man: a sermon delivered at the Pennsylvania yearly meeting of Progressive Friends in the year 1858), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Sermons
Unitarianism
Conway Tracts
God
Science and Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/51060d7799f98bd889db5f72bd3c3790.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dynfLV1Th7MfeMN8q6D69rxyROv-67lwup%7E0APf-TZvoilVM5TpfXd0ddrZg%7EGCE4zaFYAzRbWWz85gTvAI%7EbCAf7Z-yvEPmKAnMuI8X-qVwc7djJgR4sPv5whB-nfElSaQHprQDLiy371tRSwK5crjfua49UngkPhhbaY1yrhH17psPWA-U3dUv2Y8KWS6CdFZamR%7E9-ME0X9m0zsOQ9I4%7EaPvOVUNii%7EPBa68RWikClivedATqDNCyLpkdLm1hAS80gTOCYD5xO53w-wqQ0G3Wi6CZQ4FJWfL%7Ebet2EdVYoknqcVRCT0GVouK70GRNLT5-JN5GK94hAJ9OpfvMlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8c504829d131825b13a5f34432fb693a
PDF Text
Text
ECULAR SOCIETY
I SO, PICCADILLY, HANLEY
DOES THERE EXIST A
moral governor of the universe?
AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ALLEGED
UNIVERSAL BENEVOLENCE IN NATURE.
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
induced to suspend the operations of Er t 7 prai8e and pra-ver8> aad
of every earnest suppliant. These are the™3
ra.eet1*16 wants aad wishes
many Theists-men whose theology is modified T* b?hevers- There are
--who reject the Special Providence Zorv » EE advanced views
philosophic conception of Deitv ” The ^’rand ?° d wbat tbeV term a
merciful God made all things for man’s Mn” ‘«T E an alI*wise and all
fixed and unalterable; that he Himself is comn liTr ’
Ws Ws are
the medium of unbending and undevfo inJ? P
t0 aCt sole,V through
idea, there are millions who hold th«
.Forone who holds this
Nevertheless both maintain that TTnivL
°f a Speoial Providence.
But the fallacy underlying the position o/th Bhe“?vo,ea?e reigns over all.
volence, is the assumption that a God mL & E™ ln ua‘vereal bene-th« », r» ,h. beM»t J
•‘■»e» /or • »1.. purpp«
being of infinite power and ffoodnp^a k
term God in the sense of a
pableof controllingall thin^ Tnv7h "T 311 thi^s- aad whois caundeviatmg laws ” of the universe
the “uabending and
part of it, and therefore not God at all I EE'“ na(ure’ and therefore
mg I attach to the terms I uTe as I do nt J l° be explicit ia the ™aawhat is equally as bad, mislead myself rT
to mislead others, or,
without hesitation that I de not believe thE a\0nceJ01a issua, and say
Thed0“^
It
Cbatiesatb7ri0US
38 mUch de£"
The destruction of Pompeii and E 1 ™ betweea contending armies
rendered the name of volcanoes woriof“forrEh0^"6”068 which haV0
Jet some writers, who claim to hold the u! • • ^ronghoijt the world.
®anoes 38 being made hy a good Cod f 8CIent.ltlc Jdea, speak of vol
though what morality there is V th
■/
W18e
purpose”—
^ad out. I think they serve a physical nT? P3ZZle 3 Sciencidc man to
off the incandescent matter and gas^whielA P
?“ occa81onal|y letting
mitting it would not be a wise otfectfon^ CCU“lulat0 ia the earth. Ad
elines that they occasionally blow up but it foT againSt the ase ofsteatn
ebote „i
�A Moral Governor of the Universe.
2
explosion; or when the safety-valve refuses to act, and the boiler, becoming
overcharged, bursts, and spreads destruction all around. But if it were
not for volcanoes, argue some persons, there would be earthquakes. But
earthquakes are continuous notwithstanding, and whole cities are swallowed
up, and thousands of human beings are hurled to destruction. What moral
purpose is served thereby ? With what possible conception of a God who
is worthy of veneration and worship will this harmonise? He makes the
gases and the burning lava in the interior of the earth, and he makes the
volcanoes to act as safety-valves; but they do not always act, and frightful
convulsions are the consequence. Then this arrangement is not perfect,
and man is still the sufferer.
.
. ,
* * nThe countless forms of physical suffering in the world are totally irre
concilable with the idea of an all-wise and all-good Designer. No amount
of logic can bridge over the difficulty. Though frequently out of evil
cometh good, and by suffering we are elevated; yet why not have the good
and the elevation without the evil and the suffering, if wisdom and bene
volence rule the world ? Take a homely illustration.
An aged or infirm
person goes to the seaside and takes up his residence at an hotel, and it is
more conducive to his health that he should live on the top floor, notwith
standing the fatigue of walking up and down ong flights of stairs. But
what says the human designer, who lays no claim to perfect wisdom and
celestial benevolence ?-why, that the aged or infirm shall have the
benefit of the top floor unmixed with evil, and he at once erects a li t
which will enable the invalid to attain to any elevation without the slightest
fatigue. The whole economy of nature seems to be a struggle between
ignorance and force. Nature has secrets to impart and treasures to yield,
but weak man only attains them after toil, anxiety, and danger. Suffe g
is the order of the whole of the animated world. Animals, from the
simplest organisms, prey upon one another; and man, by the power of his
superior endowments, preys upon them all; but he is gifted with reason and
mental faculties of a high order, and these cause him the most exquisite
torture, at times far transcending physical pain. Coal is a great agent o
civilisation, and adds considerably to the comforts of life; man therefore
descends into the bowels of the earth to procure this treasure. But the
demon Firedamp, who has been lying in wait for him during untold ages,
suddenlv rushes from his lair, and sweeps him to destruction without a
moment’s warning. We embark in foreign enterprises, and to carry on
the commerce of nations, “men go down to the> sea m ships, when the
Storm Fiend rises, and the pitiless ocean engulpbs them, and they are seen
no more These and other objections to the idea of universal benevolence
,
toon anntrht to be met by the declaration that whatever is, is
riaht ” Can self-stultification go farther than this? Whatever is, ts;
but to say that the good and the bad are right, is to confound all language.
To assertytSt evil ¿right, and to overcome evil is right also, is simply
in
RevtaCharles Voysey, of the Church of England, and the Rev.
John P^gl Hopps, of the Unitarian Church, both hold the scientific
John rage uopp ,
respective circles, are men of
theory of God Both
n
ti(£ Mr. Hopps has written
mark, and what they say is worthy o
crkicisra of hi3 views. For his
ta tbebuXsof
ado,»«, concept.«« «i bMP
�A Moral Governor of the Universe.
3
rtrhThei?M ?6 bUrni"g °f Shif>3 at 8ea always results from carelessness
h. -k J“ Ab8f m,onstrous supposition), do not tbe innocent suffer with
the guilty ? And where is the goodness of that? Take the large ocean
steamers. Vr hat have the passengers to do with the management of these
vessels—the women and children especially? Yet the ship is burnt and
S Tri Where.ls the g°°dness to them ? There is nothing inconsis
tent, that I can see m asking a God of mercy to “interfere to prevent
the fire burning the poor fellows in the blazing ship.” If onecrWiZ
imagine an all-powerful God making laws which he could not control it
IXThe,ieve thata God of u™ersal ?oodne8s
b .mgs of
0™ creating to become victims of these laws. I embark in
imca, JI
fl
knowledge that fire applied to combustible matter
ZmmitthJ
knOW k is inevitable; I therefore do not
commit the folly of burning the ship and still expect to go scatbless. But
some one else may fire the ship without my knowledge, and when I am
powerless to help myself: I thus lose my life, not through any fault of my
own, but through the wilfulness or carelessness of others. If I saw the
crime about to be committed, and had the power to prevent it, I should do
s without hesitation.
But an all-good and all-powerful God looks
leJe1of°h and.Permit8theevil- You thus degrade the Deity below the
tZi?f u”“ y How can Ipraise and worship a Being thus constiThii-ii ’• ? Uwuaying that “Part™l evil is universal good!”
That is illogical.
When we suffer we cannot be brought to believe that
it is good we should suffer. Then why should we presume to say it is
Rn°tdJh6n OdrS SUffSr Under Pai“ anddisease, misfortune and calamity?
But ships are lost at sea from other causes than fire and neglect. Storms
puCtaStogeSer0
“ t0
pr°P°rty at 8ea than a11 Other causa*
FittlesW ? aS who,can Provlde against all storms? Men build
o niecS P The
y 7 3t; th6y build big 8hiPs’ and they are dashed
wifh!? a
laws of nature are undeviating, but how can weak man
SohrancedanJeflr varl0,us ®Perat!ons? It « an eternal warfare between
would hUd f°rhCeAand «dlions perish miserably in the encounters; and you
Men itb:?m\beheVethat ifc was a11 designed for man s especial good.
Kd cento J“6’
more knowledge of the laws of nature now than they
results of th J. -S0’ 1 r-they u ™ better oPPortunities of recording the
to their Off • investigations; but they cannot transmit their knowledge
hJhJintiZ?gTnay’1S1lnOtaphyskdogica! fact' tbat the children of
An ire born toil parentshave generally but mediocre mental powers?
be Jne thro u ly lgDOrant’ and the same druggie for knowledge has to
be gone through by every generation; tbe same mistakes are made and
the same caja ties f0now ignorance.
A knowledgf) of
the most favo® hf 8afeguard’ but how Htt,e can be learned, even under
the most favourable conditions, in the brief span of human existence,
believe thaJhAi 6 aDdr ma“’8 Position on this earth, I see no reason to
excessive c2 heX
than the meanest flnimaL He dies from
he mav h«nnPJht r
excess,ve heat. On whatever spot of this globe
aguis or f vfX •
. F0rnKOr thr°WD’ he Perishes Prematurely by the
creatL in X H
t0
If ever there
a Crea'°r and *
brute” Man f
i^ine plan man had no pre-eminence above the
for himse&Jr°m Jh ineS8-and egOtism’ has created an immortality
over hkin ° in d he ha^ Imagmed an ever-merciful God watching
of all thineT'ariJ6818
^aSb. meD Pretend t0 comprehend the purpose
tery of ihe ¿Zh
m°r6 .<?autl0U8’ while confessing the profound mys
tery of the unfathomable, sail persuade themselves that boundless benevo
�4
A Moral Governor of the Universe.
lence reigns over all. But man’s weak conjectures receive the rudest
shocks; for Nature sweeps on her majestic course sublimely indifferent to
the frantic cries of humanity. The heaving billows wreck the frail
barque; the volcano overwhelms the smiling village; the earthquake
rends the earth and engulphs the fairest cities; the lightning blasts the
oak ; the hurricane and the tornado spread destruction o’er the plain; the
pestilence exbales its poisonous breath through the affrighted town; and
the busy haunts of men become more hateful than the howling wilderness.
The Rev. Mr. Voysey did me the honour of forwarding tome Parts viii.
and ix. of his Sling and the Stone, containing four sermons preached by
him at Healaugh on a passage from Isaiah lv. 8, 9: For my thoughts
are not your thoughts, neither are your ways iny ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher
than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” I have read
these four sermons attentively, and while agreeing with much that is in
them, and heartily approving of the admirable spirit which pervades the
whole, I take exception to the assumptions and conclusions arrived
at by the preacher, as I must maintain that he has absolutely no data to
go upon.
The believers in a God of mercy and benevolence occupy a position
both amusing and painful. Firmly convinced in their own minds that a
God exists whom they are bound to worship, they set about to invest him
with attributes which, according to their judgment, will justify theit
adoration. But their difficulties are only increased thereby, and many a
contradiction they have to gloss over, and many an anomaly they have to
gulp down. In the words of the text, the Lord’s “ thoughts are not
their thoughts, neither are their ways his ways.” And this must ever
remain so, and to attempt to comprehend them or describe them, is a piece
of self-delusion of the most ludicrous kind. Yet men are constantly
doing this. They are not content to confess that the God whom they
seek is the Nature that they know. But how little even of the nature
which surrounds them, and of which they form a part, do men comprehend.
I wish the Rev. Mr, Voysey had given his conception of what God is —
whether an organised being, subject like all of us to the laws of nature;
or an indefinable something above and beyond all influence. He appears
to hold both notions, paradoxical as it may appear, for in some places he
speaks of God’s thoughts, and we cannot conceive of thought apart from
mental organisation.
Whence Mr. Voysey derives his conception of Deity I cannot tell. At
one time you think he takes it from the Bible, but that supposition soon
becomes dissipated when you find him expressing, in the most unequivocal
terms, his disbelief of portions of the supposed “ Word of God.” He
appears to place implicit belief in the words of the above text, and he
believes that God sent Jesus with a message of “world-wide love;” but
when that messenger is represented as saying, “Verily I say unto you.
This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled,” he says
he does not believe Christ ever said anything so irrational, or ever in
tended to sav it! But then Mr. Voysey obtains both declarations from
the self-same source, and the evidence for the one is quite as conclusive as
the evidence for the other. Here is bewilderment indeed. The rational
man is at liberty to reject anything that does not approve itself to his
judgment which he finds in the Bible, but the orthodox man is not.
Mr. Voysey is no believer in the infallibility of the Bible as we have it.
But his prosecutors will have a difficult task to perform, to reconcile the
�A Moral Governor of the Universe.
5
solemn prophecy of a supposed infallible being with its non-fulfilment. Mr.
Voysey doesnot believein this prophecy, though hesays some of the Apostles
did; neither does he believe in some of the absurd representations in
Genesis as to the firmament, and the windows in heaven through which the
rain came. As a sensible man he is bound to reject those things which
science has proved to be fallacies ; but in clingring to the notion of im
mortality, and the idea of a God of universal benevolence, he plunges into
a sea of difficulties, from which Rationalism alone can rescue him.
Mr. Voysey’s second sermon is devoted to a consideration of the exis
tence of pain and suffering in the world, and an endeavour is made to re
concile that painful fact with infinite wisdom and universal benevolence. I
consider the effort a total failure, as all such efforts must be. You cannot
make the bad good by merely changing the name. Mr. Voysey, all through
his sermon, does violence to his better nature. He is like a fond son en
deavouring to palliate and gloss over the errors and shortcomings of an
erring father. He loves the idea of God, and clings to it with a fervency
that obscures his judgment. This is apparent notwithstanding thecandour
with which he states the difficulties of his case. He says the earthly life
of man displays thoughts and ways of God very different to what we should
have adopted for ourselves, and very different to what at first we should
have expected from a qood God. But he passes this over by remarking,
that God’s thoughts and ways are best after all, and that His purpose with
men is much higher than we dreamt of. This is begging the whole ques
tion. The first duty of the Deist should be to prove the existence of a
Being possessed of the attributes be assigns to him. The manifestations of
nature, and the lives of all men, contradict the assumption of universal
benevolence. To maintain otherwise, is to violate all reason and logic.
We cannot conceive of any one being cruel and kind at the same time, in
the sense claimed for a God. Doctors daily and hourly cause pain to their
patients in their efforts to save their lives or to restore them to health. The
parallel of divine wisdom will not hold. No surgeon amputates a limb, if
he can save the sufferer without doing so. When he operates, it is because
he has no alternative. Deity is represented as making the evil or pain in
the world as well as the good, and he surely had a choice.
Language has no meaning, if it is not to designate that which causes
pain and misery and suffering, as evil ; and that which secures human
happiness, as good. Mr. Voysey says, God’s ways are higher than our
ways, “ because pain is necessary to change, decay, and death ; and change,
decay, and death are,in their proper order, necessary to succession.” This
is the order of nature, and the Atheist accepts it as such; but he does
not say that “pain, decay, and death,” are better than life, health, and
happiness. If he had the power, he would banish pain utterly from the
world. Mr. Voysey says, “ I know that it can easily be answered by saying,
‘why does not God produce succession without death, decay, change,
and pain?’ This I cannot answer; but I do think we might justas
well ask, ‘ Why does not God make earth a cube, instead of a sphere?’ ’’
Our preacher is quite right when he says he cannot answer this unanswer
able query, and he would be consistent if he stopped there, but he attempts
to do that which he confesses he cannot do. when he goes on to argue that
the reason why God does not prevent pain and misery' in the world, is be
cause his ways are wise, and calculated to promote man’s highest happi
ness. I do not see that the question, “ Why does not God make the earth a
cube instead of a sphere ?” is any solution of the difficulty. Mr. Voysey’s
argument is, that a good God has made men miserable, but he intended to
�r>
A Moral Governor of the Universe,,
make them happy We find the earth a sphere, and it does not concern ns
o inquire why it is so ; bur if any one were to ’argue that it was intended
made round!qUaFe
’
™ 8h°Uld haVe the right t0 ask wb? ™s
Mr. Voysey enters into the question of immortality; but his ideas of a
th me Mr V aU iCbaS.°f ?°d’ are peculiar t0 the P™
conceives
th .
n’ °yS?y sP®aks of a “ future life of progress for man.” The or
thodox, who are the vehement proclaimed of a life after death, talk of its
being a state for the “just made^/^i.” But Mr. Vovsevsays hat
death"1
V161"6 would be no Progress, and "that therefore
and all th»?
this future life of progress, is “ a transcendent^,
of 1
, P»PmruS U3/Or 11 and leads t0 n maX be looked upon af part
the nevt p m
?fcourse tbis P,an of pain and death is carried on in
the next world! And if it be so, will not man be suffering, and sighing
7lng through all eternity? A cheering prospect, certainly, for the
I nman race, who are asked to believe that all things are arranged for
thi?earthedg00d/fi,^0” What 1 can jQdge Of tbelife of most people on
for ever and ever"
”"
t0
Sighed f°r’ t0 be PerP0t“ated
If death is a blessing to man, why is the instinct of life implanted so
strongly in him? “Divine wisdom” has made him regard death as the
greatest calamity that can befall him and his. Every hospital and every
doctor is a standing protest against this “ transcendent
And if pain
is wisely ordained to lead to death, why is pain so disproportionate among
suffering humanity? Why should not the smallest amount of pain tf
all afoAe suffice for this happy result? This p'an, like every plan that
ca"be imegmed by man for God, must fall far short of ideal perfection.
Mr. Voysey devotes some consideration to the question of the influence of
pain as a corrective of man’s evil passions. But he also sees that there are
numberless instances in which pain has done no possible good-in which
it has simply been wanton, aimless, profitless woe, as if it had been in
flicted by a blind and savage Being, who tortured for torture’s sake In
the case of shipwreck, we not unfrequently see examples of both kinds ot
result from the mflicti n of pain. The same catastrophe, the same appalling
terror, ennobles some and debases others-makes some brave, others
craven-some generous, others selfish. To all this Mr. Voysey remarks
These apparent anomalies are to be explained, not by laying the
blame of the evil on the presence of pain, but by taking into account the
complex nature and various stages of man. What does him good at one
stage, is fatal at another—what exasperates him at one stage, subdues and
raises him at another. We, none of us, think of objecting to the sun
Which is the very source of all life on earth, because under some circum
stances, exposure to its rays is certain death The varied effects of pain
must be accounted for by taking also into consideration the different cir
cumstances and conditions of the men who are exposed to it.”
How comes it that Mr. Voysey, who is an earnest thinker, overlooks the
fact that the same Almighty Benevolence for which he is pleading, made
the one organisation which receives pain as a chastening and elevating
chastisement, and the other which becomes brutalised under its influence—
and yet,it wasintended to improve each in the same degree? Does Mr
Voysey g argument remove one difficulty from his path? Neither is hfe
illustration about “ objecting to the sun ” a happy one. We do object to
the sun in all countries when we find his rays hurtful to our health and
happiness; m the same way that we object to too much rain and to too
�J Moral Governor of the Universe.
7
much drought, and all inclement seasons. The elements the world over are
at times the enemies of man, and regard him not. Who object more to the
elements than orthodox Christians, who are perpetually putting up prayers
to heaven for fine weather, for rain, for protection from storms, for good
crops in bad season ? Man’s life, both on land and sea, is a ceaseless strife
with the forces of nature. The lightning conductor is a protest against the
electric currents in the air, which, singularly enough, frequently strike
churches and destroy worshippers, but seldom or never visit gin palaces or
dens of infamy and vice!
This sermon concludes with the declaration that man’s thoughts are like
God's thoughts, when man, in his devotion and love to his children, in
flicts pain and sorrow upon them for their good. “ And we know, too,”
itsays, “that children always love those best who do not let them have
their own way, and who inflict pain upon them for their good.”. This is
not true, and if there is such a thing as blasphemy in the world, it is this
lowering of God to the level of imperfect man. Those who inflict pain
upon their children are not the best parents, but those who train even
stubborn and wilful natures by loving watchfulness and tender care.
Harshness never begets love, and never will. The adult who cherishes an
affection for his severe parents, does so, not for their severity, but for some
other quality. Let every man and woman ask his or her own heart if this
is not so.
Mr. Voysey’s God is the maker of all the misery, pain, disease, suffering,
and death in the world, and these sermons were preached in order to show
that all is designed for a wise purpose and for man’s highest happiness, and
therefore man ought to love and adore the hand that smites him. But does
man do so? Doe3 Mr. Voysey himself ? Which does he admire most, the
lovely Alpine valley, or the fearful avalanche which suddenly overwhelms
the smiling village?—the gentle breeze and the rippling sea, or the howling
wind and the heaving ocean that wrecks the stout ship and engulphs her
living freight?—the bloom of health on the cheek of his chi d, or the pallor
that shows the presence of the fell disease which is stealing its young life
away ? Human nature must be entirely changed, before it can be made to
love that which causes it pain, whether inflicted by man, or by a supposed
supernatural Being.
Mr. Voysey devotes two sermons to the question of “Sin,” in which he
appears to me to use extraordinary arguments. Take this as a specimen:
“There is no such thing as darkness. It is not a thing at all. Light
is something. Where light is not we call the darkness - just as where
nothing is, we say there is emptiness. God does not create emptiness. It
is absurd to say that that which is nothing can be made. So God did
not create darkness, for darkness is only a word, and nothing more—a
word by which we express the absence of light.”
Now if this is logical, what was the use of the previous sermon on “Pain?”
If there is no such thing as darkness, as darkness is but the absence of
light, surely there can be no such thing as pain, for pain is but the ab
sence of pleasure. There is nothing in the world that may not be reasoned
out of it, if words are thus to be juggled with. Berkeley’s idea of
“no matter ” is lucidity itself after this. Darkness is as palpable to the
senses of all sane persons as daylight, and therefore for all rational pur
poses one exists as much as the other. From Berkeley’s theory that only
ideas exist, and not matter, it would follow that man does not exist,
for he surely is matter as much as anything we see about us. He
womd have only the idea of his own head; but it is as bad as knocking
�8
bVndte^
A Moral Governor of the Universe.
a P°st - louring to compre-
gieVonT 1 All\t\V7’tiOn 1 take °n thIS qUe8tion a fal,ac!o“s 0^ Mo
tions to that theory whiSai^for 6o^uniC°n<Te V*
°bjec"
thherataheoryinSSI T
mi“d the ^^StuVeTe^gtin“
the ills that flZh' h • ge Hep-ps says that agony aQd calamity, and all
goodness.” The Rev^'cLTerv's^'endow? hit Ddty wkh
to whmta"d PerfeClbeilevo,ence- To s“^ain his position, he has recoup
to what may, without offence, be termed an elaborate attempt at self
world/’7 eadeavourinS t0 show that “ t^re is no absolute evil in the
nn^n6 f?S’ ,read‘nS these sermons, that they are utterly valueless as
no one who wishes to regulate his life by the light of facts as thev relllv
exist, can ever admit the truth of the propositions laid down As before
»bmred, .t >„ell-deoep,l„„ r„m beginning t0 end, .rising7,“„ th. d«X
of the preacher to reconcile the irreconcilable. Denying facts in order to
Sen alTnd
faCtS wil1 rema*
sphe of the
genial, and people will believe them, whoever may declare to the contrary
T J "y.tbatt the earth moves does not stop its revolution round the sun7’
Materialists are accused of obstinacy, or something worse for not
thfiCevP?Sn % l”dea; BUC th6y 6nd k diffic“lc t0 malfe a selection. ?
they go no farther than this small island, they meet with so many
differing and contradictory conceptions of the unknown source of natural
phenomena, that they are compelled to pause, and, in presence of the pro
found ignorance which prevails on the subject, they suspend the assent to
any representations that are upon record. Even believers accuse one
another of holding ‘‘inadequate” conceptions. Some believe in Special
Providence; others reject that idea, asserting that God himselfis bound by
the laws of the universe, and cannot alter them. The real difficulty that
strikes an Atheist is, not for man to form an adequate idea of God • but
for man to form a God adequate to the desires of men. All known id^as of
T-e’ty are so confused, so contradictory, or so repulsive, that the thought
ful Atheist rejects them; and being totally unable to comprehend the"in
comprehensible, he is virtually “witnout God in the world.”
EBICE ONE PENNY.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
Jtt ®enimpattt.
AUSTIN HOLYOAKE,
Jfeb Jpril
1M 1874.
(Reprinted by permission from the National Reformer.)
When my brother Austin Holyoake was born I was a boy ten
years old, wondering very much at arriving at that age. I had
been for some time acquainted with a soldier who had served m
India. A traveller is always fascinating to a youth, and 1 per
suaded my father to take him into his employ, that I might see
more of him. His name was Austin Graves. I thought Austin
a pretty name. It was associated with stories Graves told me,
and I persuaded my mother to give his Christian name to my
new brother. The family choice lay in a different direction.
My father was named after King George, and I was named after
him and one of my sisters was named after Queen Caroline.
One of my Australian brothers, as we call them, bore the name
Horatio, after Nelson. Royalty and patriotism, as well as piety
had adherents among us. Another brother was named Rowland
after the first politician I came to read of and admire—Rowland
Detrosier. At that time news came of his premature death, and
the first public subscription I ever joined in was in that for
Detrosier’s family. I believe I pleaded for both names to be
given to that brother, and I got my eldest sister to help me, who
in her kindness was always ready to side with me, but my mother,
whose will prevailed as to names, would not listen to one so out
landish as Detrosier. She was a dear, insular, English soul.
My father left names to her, and her decision was final. My
brother now dead, came to be named Austin after the manner
I have stated. It is curious how death brings old things to mind.
During the forty-seven years of Austin’s life, I never remember
telling him this, nor am I aware whether he knew it.
My business connection with my brother a happy portion of
my life with him—extended from 1845, less or more, until 1862.
For me to give any adequate idea of what manner of man he
was, and with what devotion he promoted public ends, I must
�2
say a word about that period, for the only praise that men do not
forget is that of facts; certainly acts are the most lasting- eulogies
of the true.
6
After the Bristol and Gloucester imprisonment of two of the
■editors of the Oracle of Reason, we had to carry our printing
operations to London ; and I invited Austin, then a very young
man, to come to London ; and subsequently made him a partner
with me on the express condition that we never incurred any
debt without the knowledge and consent of each other. In
those days all our bill-heads bore the name of “ Holyoake
Brothers,” and. it was my desire and intention that we should
ultimately publish together under that pleasant name. But I
took care not to involve my brother in the unknown responsi
bilities of the Fleet Street House, which I subsequently opened,
where all I possessed, or received, or earned, alike were con
sumed. My brother well knew this, for the ^250 given me
after the Cowper Street debate, and all subsequent sums, were
all paid away, through his hands, in maintaining the Freethought
organisation there. It seems fair to mention these facts, because
they prove the. gallant and untiring co-operation he rendered in
those unrequiting days. The errors of the affair in Fleet Street
were my own. I attempted too much ; I promised too much ;
I trusted too much. Things, however, which we did serviceably
together, were often as much his suggestion as mine, and the
willingness and resource with which he executed whatever
belonged to his departments, and the labour he volunteered for
public objects, won for him the personal regard of all who sought
or accepted the service of that House. When on one happy
morning towards the end of our occupancy, ^ 250 were given
me by an unexpected friend, for my. personal use, I remember
with what honest pride he concurred in its being paid away to
such creditors as remained; regardless that it would not leave me
anything to divide with him, as would have been his right, had
anything remained in my hands. Looking through the window as
«we spoke, and seeing the largest creditor we had on the opposite
side of the street, I gave him £60. and told him to go out and
give it to him, which was done in the street, and thus ended
that obligation. Often, in after years, my thoughts have recurred
to his honest speech of that morning ; and when I looked, a few
days ago, on his cold and silent face, as he lay in.his coffin, the
memory of that speech came back afresh, as I ’ thought how
many, who believed more than he, had less of his honesty of
spirit, which must be the best recommendation to man or God.
The same course I took with pecuniary I took as respects
political responsibility. When we issued Felix Pyat’s letters on
�“ Parliament and the People,” information was given to the
Goverment that it was my act, and applications for summonses
were against me. The Exchequer writ for publishing unstamped
newspapers wfe? issued also against me. It bears my name alone.
Rudio took with him to America my cloak, which my brother Austin
kept under t-he counter, at hand for six weeks, for me to put on
in case of my apprehension, as I had experience of the discom
fort of spending a night insufficiently clad, in the Cheltenham
Station House. But though I took care that no one was left
liable for my acts, my brother was quite as ready as myself to
share any risk of this kind, had it been necessary, and deserves
as much credit as though it had fallen to him. Though I deemed
it base to do anything for which another might have to answer,
my brother never cared for a moment if by any accident of law
or rancour he was involved. His courage was undoubted. I
always regarded him as capable of anything that ought to be
done. His position at the head of the printing department,
and representative of me in the publishing, was entirely indepen
dent. Whenever I spoke in public about our connection, I
always said so, and any honour showed to him was a new plea
sure given to me. Long after we were separated, I sent him for
publication my high estimate of him, and whenever I wrote of
him in public it has been to his honour. I say this to show that
it is not his death alone, but his life, that inspires the words of
respect and regret I write now. A great merit of his was, that
he would do whatever he could to cause Freethought to com
mand influence. He cared for its future credit more than its
immediate success. He would work day or night to do, within
needful time or with greater taste, something or other we thought
useful to issue. I should never have attempted what I did at
Fleet Street had I not been sure of his co-operation ; and all I
take most pride in of what was done there, could never have
been accomplished without his aid. It never occured to him to
evade work, nor to ask himself how little he might do of that
which outside publicists asked him to help them in ; his first
thought was how much more could he do, and how much better,
if possible, than it was being done. Military or social enter
prises were alike to him, if promise of help appeared in them for
those who struggled for independence; whether patriots, or
women, or slaves. My brother entered into everything within
his range, and gave time to everybody. His value and his mis
fortune was, that he thought more of what he could do than of
himself, and so wore himself out by generous exertions before
his time; and whatever may be given now in the way proposed
since his death, for the benefit of his family, has been over and
�over again earned by him, in a way that may fairly be recognised
rather as an act of justice than of charity.
’
°
Parts of his “ Sick Room Thoughts,” the last thing he wrote,
are proof that he had increasing and original power, and, had he
reserved to himself more leisure, he had the capacity of doing
greater service than he had already rendered. The last time I
saw him I told him that opinions we had maintained together
were now meeting with admission in quarters were neither he
nor I expected to live to see their truth recognised ; and I re
peated to him that the Bishop of Manchester had recently-said
that “he did not himself believe that mistakes which did not
arise from perversity of the will, but from incapacity of under
standing, or it might possibly be from the truth never having
been put before the mind very wisely or philosophically —he did
not believe that mistakes of a speculative kind—mistakes in doc
trine or in dogma, even if they were upon what were sometimes
considered vital points, would shut a man out of the Kingdom
of God.......... It was his distinct belief that heaven would be for
feited by no man on account of his theological opinions, unless
those opinions had had a mischievous influence upon his con
duct, and he had allowed the speculations of his brain to blind
and distort the directions of his conscience.” My brother had
a conscience as pure as any priest’s, and needed no external
assurance to satisfy him that following conscience was security
for self-respect and peace of mind ; but I knew he would be glad
to hear that prelates took courage, and followed their consciences
too, and that the differences between honest men were diminish
ing day by day. My brother fulfilled the observation of Spinoza,
that “ a free man thinks of nothing so little as death, and his
wisdom is to think of life, and not of death.” To my mind my
brother did not think .enough of life. The base care of yourself,
which leads to refusing stout help to others who need it, is cer
tainly to be despised; but some regard to the conditions of a
man’s own life is reasonable, and even commendable, if he is
good for anything. After Death had looked in upon my brother,
and given him fair notice of calling again if pretext arose, I
could hear of him being two hours in close, hot lecture-rooms
at night, and afterwards setting out miles over country in an
open vehicle ; and later he would be in the chair at an enerva
ting, crowded meeting when he ought to have been in bed. But
this was his way. His thoughts were to the end with this world.
The last book I sent to him was “ Prince Florestan,” which I
had mentioned to him, and it was the last read to him. His
“ Sick Room Thoughts ” showed that he thought more of
theology than I do. In mv opinion the time has come when we
�s
should give our main strength to superseding error, since it is
never destroyed until it is replaced by new truth. But we all
know that ignorant Christians think that the truth of opinions> is
best seen by what a man thinks of them in the face of deat,.
As Miss Cobbe has said, in a generous notice of my brother s
death in the Examiner, many Christians imagine that the sound
ness of their case will be most favourably seen when disease has
weakened a man’s power of examining it. My brother did as
conspicuous a dying service as man ever rendered, in correcting
the impression that Christian error could not be seen to be error
in death as plainly as in life. Clear, calm, patient, knowing we
that death was waiting near at hand, he shot a bolt, as it were,
from the other side the grave, at superstition’s strongest popular
pretension. He was free of all ostentation ; but when a thing
had to be done, he had the dash in him which did it. He iulfilled Professor Blackie’s prescription of conduct:—
“Wear your heart not on your sleeve,
But on just occasion
Let men know what you believe
With breezy ventilation.”
And he did this with his last breath, when few men think of
doing anything.
He will be long and honourably remembered as one oi the
forces on the side of Freethought progress among the people.
I sometimes think that Death, presiding at the great portal
through which dead nations have passed, is -wearied at times at
the monotony of admitting the commonplace crowds, whom
io-norance and vice, ambition and baseness, silliness and sin, so
copiouslv deliver there—and himself delights to allure noble
travellers to his dominions by holding out to them the high
temptations of truth, or freedom, or heart, or genius, or duty, or
service ; and thus he makes his kingdom richer as he makes us
poorer here.
.
Geo. Jacob Holyoake.
SICK ROOM THOUGHTS.
dictated
shortly
before
HIS DEATH BY AUSTIN
holyoake.
April 8th, 1874.
All those persons who have taken the trouble to read what I
have written in the National Reformer for some years past, and
also published in pamphlets, will know what my opinions
on death and immorality recently were. Those views were
formed when I was in perfect health, and after years of reflection
and enquiry. I am now about to state how my views remain
after protracted suffering.
�Christians constantly tell Freethinkers that their principle of
“ negation,” as they term them, may do very well for health ;
but when the hour of sickness and approaching death arrives,
they utterly break down, and the hope of a “blessed iriftaortality”
can alone give consolation. . In my own case I have been very
anxious to test the truth of this assertion, and have therefore
deferred till the latest moment I think it prudent to dictate these
few lines.
I was born of religious parents, my mother being especially
pious, belongingto that most terrible of all sects of the Christian
body—the Calvinistic Methodists. From my earliest childhood
I remember being taught to dread the wrath of an avenging
God, and to avoid the torments of a brimstone hell. I said
prayers twice a day, I went to a Sunday-school where I learnt
nothing but religious dogmas, and I had to read certain chapters
of the Bible during the week. My Sundays were mostly days of
gloom ; and I may sincerely say that up to the age of fourteen I
was never free from the haunting fear of the Devil.
About this period new light began to break in upon me.
Robert Owen and his disciples first appeared in Birmingham,
and attracted much attention. My eldest brother and sisters
went to hear the new preacher, and what they had heard
they came home and discussed. I listened with all the eager
ness of an enthusiastic boy, and from that hour my mental eman
cipation set in.
My belief in the infallibility of the Bible first gave way. Soon
after commenced my disbelief in the possession of any special
knowledge on the part of the preachers of the Gospel, of the
God and immortality of which they talk so glibly. But it was
years before I thought my way to Atheism. It cannot therefore
be said that I never experienced religious emotions.
For twenty years past my mind has been entirely free from
misgivings or apprehensions as to any future state of rewards
and punishments. I do not believe in the Christian deity, nor
in any form of so-called super-natural existence. I cannot
believe in that which I cannot comprehend. I shall be accused
of presumption in expressing disbelief in an idea which has
commanded the faith of some of the best intellects for centuries
past. This I cannot help. I must think for myself; and if each
of those great men had been asked to define his God, it may
safely be predicted that no two would have agreed. I may also
be reminded that “ the fool hath said in his heart there is no
God.” This would imply thought, and it is doubtful whether a
fool ever thought upon the subject at all; but his idea of a Deity,
if it could be got at, would no doubt be as coherent as most
�other men’s. Many fools have written and spoken as though
they had penetrated the secrets of the inscrutable, and many
wise men have lost their reason in endeavouring to solve the
insoluble jMhnd the world remains just as ignorant on the subject
as it did at the earliest dawn of civilization.
I do not believe in a heaven, or life of eternal bliss after death.
There is nothing in this world to induce me to give credence to
the possibility of such a state of human existence. Wherever
there are living organisms there are suffering and torture amongst
them; therefore analogy would go to prove that if we lived
again we should suffer again. To desire eternal bliss is no proof
that we shall ever attain it; and it long seemed to me absurd to
believe in that which we wish for, however ardently. I regard all
forms of Christianity as founded in selfishness. It is the
expectation held out of bliss through all eternity, in return for
the profession of faith in Christ and Him crucified, induces the
erection of-temples of worship in all Christian lands. Remove
this extravagant promise, and you hear very little of the Christian
religion.
An eternal hell seems to me too monstrous for the belief of
any humane man or sensitive woman; and yet millions believe
in it. Like heaven, it is enormously disproportionate to the
requirements of the case ; as man can never confer benefits
deserving an eternal reward, so it is impossible for him to com
mit sins deserving eternal punishment. The idea must have
had its origin in the diseased imagination of some fanatic; but
it has been cherished and improved upon by priests in subsequent
ages, till it is now incorporated in the creed of all Christian
churches. Father Pinamonti’s “Hell Open to Christians,” and
the Rev. Mr. Furness’s “ Sight of Hell, ” show to what a fearful
extent this diabolical idea can be used in warping and stultifying
the minds of the young.
As I have stated before, my mind being free from any doubts
on these bewildering matters of speculation, I have experienced
for twenty years the most perfect mental repose ; and now I find
that the near approach of death, the “grim King of Terrors,”
gives me not the slightest alarm. I have suffered, and am suffer
ing, most intensely both by night and day ; but this has not
produced the least symptom of change of opinion. No amount
of bodily torture can alter a mental conviction. Those who,
under pain, say they see the error of their previous belief, had
never thought out the problem for themselves.
I cannot conclude without expressing the gratification I have
received from my connection with the National Reformer. My
work on it has indeed been a labour of love, and my association
�8
therein, with my esteemed friends Mr. Bradlaugh and Mr.
Charles Watts, for the past eight years, has been of the most
harmonious nature. My regret now is, that I cannot do my full
share in the work the “ Trinity” have hitherto performed ; but
I must bend to inevitable fate, and content myself by knowing
that an abler and better man may be found to take my place.
However, of this I am sure, that my colleagues will never meet
with a more faithful and ardent friend.
To the true courage and patience of my dear and devoted wife
I owe my present tranquillity. In my little son and daughter I
have all a father’s hope and confidence, and it softens the pain
of parting when I contemplate leaving them with one who has
all the-----
Mr. Austin Holyoake commenced the dictation of this last paragraph a few
hours before he died ; but being soon exhausted, had to break off, and was not
able to resume it.—Ed. N.R.
ADDRESS BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
DELIVERED AT THE GRAVESIDE OF AUSTIN HOLYOAKE, APRIL 17TH,
1874.
“ Here we pay farewell tribute ,to the last remains of my
staunch friend and your most loyal brother, and true servant to
the cause of human progress.
Death came to him so slowly, yet so certainly and with such
constant menance, that it needed great courage to wait the end
so long and so bravely as he awaited. Around his grave we
are gathered, each reverently placing on his coffin our testimony
to his fidelity ; trusting that thereout our children’s memory
will weave an enduring wreath of immortelles to mark at least
his life even when his tomb shall be forgotten.
He has left us two legacies :—One the benefit of which inures
to all who desire thought, free, and true, this was the tendancy
of the labour of his life.
The other legacy involving some duty was an unwilling one,
he would not have left it us willingly as a burden, His last recor
ded words—broken short like some death-marking granite splin
ter—reminds us of this second legacy, his wife, his boy, his girl.
To-morrow can alone tell whether his little ones shall have
reason to be sorry that their father died believing that the party,
whose minister he had been, would try to smooth the life-path
his death has made forthem so rugged. Of the dead and to the
dead I can say nothing, a quarter of a century’s recollections
and fourteen years unbroken friendship are now in that grave.
He did well, he did his best,
No more weary—now at rest.”
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Does there exist a moral governor of the universe? an argument against the alleged universal benevolence in nature
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin, 1826-1874
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Stamp on title page: The Free Thought Depot Stationery Repository,80, Picccadilly, Hanley. Includes memoriam Austin Holyoake, died April the 10th, 1874 (reprinted from the National Reformer) (8 p.) Austin [1826-1874]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N308
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Does there exist a moral governor of the universe? an argument against the alleged universal benevolence in nature), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Free Thought
God
NSS