1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/02494a549a53981e33b33616d0386823.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CC%7EMflGiCGdehEtwjv%7E6D87TUeyV4EvBhE00GdyihWae1hB8AAHUBsjAOrtw0XXcP3VD7k-QQuwkUYVVcs4NvNWkESFVs5Cj11SwVsTqNFTXv%7ESlBg6yHeK9Vs8zrRGoBXUw5Cht-4G6A7%7EPZFPNd66LMwRGtNAbb4p8KiYc01y1d-bCjjSYYeTu-OCV%7EGYR4X-PKBYbnA0viZgSIqjM29JdtKhP%7E2Dt2LK8vNrZSal7k8GAr1MRlS0rlnDUaC2hno-X1MIuGc7i24cRxSsO62DK2M00q2uObI4ZR7UBBTAZKyumYPgMkmh6jBDKY1usepYlSa6-GlEW%7EFB2r20AXA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
65c9cb2c29c28069c34ae1ed23f67831
PDF Text
Text
IN REPLY TO ONE OF
SPALDING.
BY LUKE GRIFFIN.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
1859.
�AN ADDRESS IN REPLY TO ONE OF MR. THOMAS
COOPER’S LECTURES.
[Seeing from advertisements that Thomas Cooper was to deliver a course
of lectures in Spalding, dn the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of January, I wrote to
that gentleman to allow me, for twenty minutes, on the first evening, before
10 20, to explain the position we stood in as opponents to orthodox
Christianity. Mr. Cooper replied, stating that he could not promise me
twenty minutes, especially on the first evening, when his lecture would be
very lengthy, because he would have to say as much in one evening as he
usually said in two. In fact, I gathered from Mr. Cooper’s reply, that if I
journeyed twenty miles to defend my principles, it would be more than
probable that I should not have an opportunity of being heard. The
remarks which I had prepared for the occasion were as follow;—]
Ladies and C-ENtLEMENy—I believe that no On© present this evening
froiild wish to occupy my place—to stand up in defence Of that which
Christians term ‘ Infidelity.’ Be that as it may, I consider it my duty
to be here, although, in many ways, my being here may injure me.
The principle upon which I act is not that of expediency. I don’t
always stay to inquire whether there will be any pecuniary gain from
what I do, but I first ask whether the act will be right; if so, I do it,
not caring so very much about the consequences. Now, my friends,
this evening I shall address you as the jury who will a true verdict
give according to the evidence brought before you. Many of you
have been in our law courts. There you have heard the plaintiff’s
counsel ably state a case, and call his witnesses to substantiate it;
everything has appeared so clear and straightforward on behalf of the
plaintiff that you have really thought that the verdict must be given
in his favour. But when you have heard the defendant’s counsel
state his case, and examine his witnesses, your views have been
entirely changed. Mr. Cooper for the plaintiff, is much better
qualified to speak than I am for the defendant, because he has had
years of experience, whilst I am quite a novice. Then many may
think it presumptuous in me to oppose a man like Cooper; be that as
it may, I deem it my duty to oppose him, and I feel confident that if
I do not succeed in gaining your verdict, it will be because of my
inefficiency, and not because I have undertaken the defence of a weak
or bad cause. I take it for granted that Mr. Cooper is honest and
sincere, and that however strange his conduct may appear to his old
friends, still his acts are those of an earnest evangelical Christian,
whose chief aim is to do his duty. Whatever I may say, I wish to
say courteously and kindly, so as to give no offence to any rightminded person.
Methodists, Baptists, and Independent's, I believe that your views
are injurious to the majority of mankind, inasmuch as they bring to
them fears which destroy that peace of mind necessary to the enjoy
ment of life. To the favoured few, to those who believe that they are
born again, the Bible doubtless brings glad tidings of great joy, for it
says that theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. But to the great mass
of men—to those having no spirit bearing witness with their spirit
that they are the children of God, to these the Bible, instead of
bringing glad tidings of gteat ji>y, brings tidings of the greatest
misery, for it says that they shall be cast into hell, there to remain
for ever with the devil and his angels. You may reply that the road
�3
to Heaven is open to ail, and if men will not enter in ajt the straight
gate, they must expect to perish, beeause they have only to repent
and to believe in order to be saved. Now, my friends, the great fact
is patent to us all that the masses don’t believe, and what is more,
there is every probability that notwithstanding all your preaching,
praying, and lecturing, they won’t believe; consequently, according to
your teaching, they must all likewise perish. I repeat, that these are to
them tidings of the greatest misery, and what is more, they are not only
lead to believe that they themselves shall perish, but from what they
knew of their forefathers, their souls are now where the worm dieth
not, and where the fire is not quenced. These thoughts to a sensitive
mind are very painful, and as I firmly believe that your views are
erroneous, as I totally disbelieve that a good God would punish His
creatures eternally, as I thoroughly disbelieve the Bible to be inspired
by God more than any other book, and as I am entirely opposed to
the doctrine that man is born totally depraved, I consider it to be my
duty to oppose you, and to make known to my fellow-creatures the
reasons I have for being what is termed a Disbeliever. In doing this
I believe that I am acting rightly, that I may be the means of rescuing
thousands from the hell of apprehension, and that I shall bring glad
tidings of great joy to the majority, because, if they believe and dis
believe with me, they will no longer be enslaved and intimidated by
the Bible. They will agree with the Secularist, that to do well is
sufficient, believe what you may. They will place reliance where
reliance ought to be placed—in good works, believing that if they
work honestly, faithfully, and usefully, that that will save them. In
all matters where positive truth cannot be arrived at, each party has
reasons for believing, disbelieving, or remaining neutral. One
argument or assertion made use of by some of you is, that supposing
Christianity be not true, still it matters little, and will produce no
evil in the end, and that, consequently, be it true or be it false, it is
foolish and useless to oppose it* We will look at this for a few
minutes. What does Christianity teaeh ? It teaches that there
exists a Being creator of all things, that this Being governs the
Universe, and, as the Governor of-the Universe, he will require an
account of the lives of men Whilst upon earth, and according to his
decision, one -part of the human family will enjoy endless happiness,
whilst the other part will have to endure eternal misery. What is
expected of men with regard to faith, it is allowed that not one-tenth
of the human race has ever possessed, and, therefore, according to this
teaching, nine-tenths of the human race will be doomed to everlasting
woe. Now, some persons think with you, that there are sufficient
reasons to believe this to be true, other persons believe with me, that
it is false. Very well. We will now suppose a somewhat parallel
case. A party in England have reasons to believe that the Emperor
of France will shortly rule in this country, and that all who obey
him he will reward with a life of ease and prosperity; but all who
disobey him he will doom to slavery. Then supposing that ninetenths of the population of England would disobey him and thus
become slaves, would it not be the duty of an opposite party, who
had reasons for believing that it was all false respecting the conquest
of this country by France, to disseminate their views as widely as
�4
possible, thus removing the fears of the disobedient and giving them
peace of mind ? The most orthodox Christian would say, certainly
those who believe these notions about the Emperor to be false ought
to oppose them—it is their duty to oppose them, and they will not
be doing their duty as men if they do not oppose them. Well, just
so it is with respect to Christianity. I believe that the Christian’s
views respecting God, eternity, and everlasting punishment, are
erroneous, and tend unnecessarily to intimidate mankind, consequently,
I think it my duty to oppose you as Christians, and I should be liable
to just censure if I did not oppose you. So much, then, fpr the course
which I have taken, and I think that you will allow that if I have
reason and the balance of evidence in my favour, that I am really
justified in what I am doing.
In this locality, had I seen religion subservient to good common
sense, I should not have been so public in my opposition. But when
upon every hand I hear preached doctrines threatening poor creatures
with the most excruciating punishments, I think it my duty to inquire
upon what basis these doctrines rest. I have no particular wish to
interfere with the superstitious notions of men, so long as these
notions simply console them; but when they produce benumbing
terror, and incommodious fear amongst my friends and neighbours, I
think that I should be highly culpable longer to hold my peace. I
have no relish myself for passing my life in perpetual dread, and I
consider myself justified in furnishing others with the means of
escaping from the agony of mind under which they groan. Again,
from the observations which I have so often heard from ministers and
from Christians generally, I know that in their sermons they assume
the absolute truth of their doctrines, and they urge that all, even those
who are logically opposed to them, are so opposed because their deeds
are evil, and because they wish to live in sin and wickedness. Believing
that these assumptions are false, believing that there are many honest,
industrious, truthful Freethinkers who are as good husbands, fathers,
friends, and citizens, as the most devout Christians, and believing that
these men have reasons for their rejection of orthodox Christianity
sufficient to satisfy any earnest mind, I boldly stand forward in their
behalf, and assert that they are conscientious in their disbelief, and
that, consequently, they are as deserving of the respect, esteem, and
goodwill oi their fellow-creatures, as those who call themselves
Christians. In whatever I have said, or may say, I appeal to your
moral sense, to those inward powers by which all good men claim to
be judged, and if you decide in accordance with the same, I shall be
quite satisfied with your decision.
The character of God as represented in the Bible, instead of creating
in me love, respect, or reverence, creates quite the opposite feeling.
Commencing with the first and second chapters of Genesis, we find
that an omnipotent and omniscient Being makes creatures, and places
them in a position with such a temptation which he knew would
cause their fall, and which he knew would bring misery to millions
then unborn. Moreover, the temptation was of that character that
until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit they did not know
good from evil, so the book says, and not knowing good from evil, it
would take a wiser person than myself to ascertain upon what grounds
�|
they could be held responsible for their actions. As Mr. Newman
argues, if a youth who had been carefully brought up were to fall by
the first temptation, the saying is, ‘ Behold the proof of the essential
depravity of human nature.’ But Adam fell by the first temptation,
what greater proof then of a fallen nature do you require than Adam’s,
as it came from the hands of the Creator ? If God has so acted with
man, and if angels also have fallen, why should not angels fall again ?
Hence, in heaven we have no guarantee that we may not become disobedient, and be cast away. If angels now are so constituted that they
cannot sin, why could not man have been so constituted, and thus have
saved much wretchedness ? As we read od in the Bible we find this
all-powerful God repenting that he had made man—yes, this all-wise
Being repents, and is grieved at the heart, and he shows his repentance
and grief by destroying all the human race with the exception of
Noah and his family. But in the choice of Noah and his family God
appears to have been truly unfortunate, for Noah was overtaken by
drunkenness, and his descendants to this time have been far from correct
in their conduct. Who can justify the partiality shown by God to
Abraham and his seed ? In what way were they deserving of that
partiality, especially the deceitful Jacob, who so cruelly robbed his
brother Esau ? Yet we are told that God loved Jacob and hated
Esau. The Bible also represents God as so inveterate in his hatred,
that he instructs Saul to smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling, camel and ass. To justify all this, Christians say that
God is the Governor of the Universe, that he must preserve the
harmony of his attributes, and that his perfect justice must be
satisfied before he can shew mercy to the transgressor. To this our
esteemed friend Thomas Cooper, some years ago, if not wisely,
effectually replies:—‘ I hear thee, priest! We know thy solemn and
mysterious croak well, old bo-peep behind the altar, where thou hast
stood for ages affrighting grown up children with horrible pictures
of a Divinity who, to preserve the harmony of his attributes, can
plunge millions into the flames of endless torture, and be happy him
self to all eternity; and who cannot admit any to share his happiness
that have offended him, unless blood be shed as an atonement! He
knows of the torture of hell’s helpless tenantry. He hears their
weeping and wailing, He sees their gnashing of teeth, and He knows,
of their remorse for guilt; but He is happy amidst it all. He cannot
forgive them, they must burn and suffer for ever, for He must pre
serve the harmony of his attributes.’ ‘ Strange harmony,’ continues
Mr. Cooper. ‘ Does the most reprobate man that ever existed possess
so horrible a nature ? What! be happy whilst helpless worms
writhe in endless agony ? Worms that he brought into- existence
without their will, who never asked to exist, and whom he knew
would tenant hell-fire for ever, whilst he was creating them.’ After
this forcible language from a man like Thomas Cooper, words from
me would be powerless. This is a true picture of the evangelical
Christian’s Deity, and, as I before stated, in him I see nothing to love,
respect, or reverence; but plenty to loathe, hate, and abhor. How
men who have correct ideas of the heavenly bodies—men who can
tell you the size of the planets, and can calculate the immense
�T* 1 • :.T
wm .*• >»•
' —* 7??^’-
*-• •*
•.•/■
* • • v ■■’.ThT*r ■ < *'••vMtafrk.a j
6
distances of many of the fixed stars from the earth, men who have for
years enjoyed a scientific education—how these men can believe the
God of the Bible to be infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, is a
puzzle to me. They cannot have thoroughly investigated the subject,
or if they have, there must be some powerful motives keeping them
from speaking their convictions.
Frankly I say that I don’t believe the Bible to be an infallible
guide, because my opinion is, that by following many parts of it, men
would be guided to do what their moral sense tells them is very
wrong. For instance, we believe it to be very wrong to make slaves
of our fellow creatures, still we find slavery sanctioned in the Bible,
and not only sanctioned, but strict regulations are made by God him
self relative to slavery. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, from the
44th to the 46th verse, we read, ‘ Both thy bondmen, and thy bond
maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round
about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover,
of the children of the strangers that do sojourn amongst you, of them
shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they
begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them for an inheritance after you to inherit them for a possession;
they shall be your bondmen for ever.’ What think ye to this, after
the Christian world has been declaring over and over again that the
Bible is a friend to liberty—liberty of the highest caste ? Why this
one passage will do more to convince slaveowners that slavery is a
divine institution, than volumes of anti- slavery writings will do to
convince them to the contrary. Again, were we in a foreign country,
and had borrowed of the natives various articles, we should think
that we were morally bound to return them. How would it be if we
were to consult the Bible first ? There we should find that the Lord
commands the Jews, upon leaving Egypt, to borrow of their neigh
bours, and to keep their neighbours’ gold, silver, and raiment. If we
acted according to this example, we should do what our moral sense
distinctly tells us to be wrong. Again, if I were going to send a
message by any one, I should think it right to choose some one who
would speak the truth; but, if I were to take the Bible as an
authority, I might send a liar with intent to tell lies, seeing that God
sent a lying spirit unto the prophets to deceive Ahab. What God
did surely I might do. If our soldiers wished to know how they
were to treat the Sepoys in India, by consulting the Bible, and
following the examples there given, they would slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling, because, as I have before told you, that
Saul was instructed by God so to act. If a man wished to put away
his wife, he must refer to Deut., c. 21, vv. x to xiv,andc. 24, vv. 1 and
2—and he will there find by the standard the easiest way of getting
rid of her. If any one be anxious for information respecting the
number of wives he may have, I would advise him to read the life
of Solomon. By following the example set by Solomon he may place
Brigham or any of the Mormon elders completely in the shade, saying
nothing of Solomon’s concubines. Do you want to know how to
treat your enemies upon your death-bed ? Turn then to the 1st of
Kings, c 2, vv. viii and ix, and you will there find how the man after
God’s own heart treated his enemies. He requested his son with
�7
nearly his last breath to bring down to the grave with blood the
hoary hair of one who had offended him.
If we examine the New Testament, we find many reasons why we
cannot accept its teachings as perfect. The story of the conception
by the Holy Ghost is far too dreamy an affair for us. No one in his
senses would credit the story if told now, respecting any young
married couple; but this has not much to do with the perfection of
the moral teachings. When we come to the sermon on the mount, we
find many things said there which we are told are the perfection of
wisdom, but which even pious Christians do not for a moment regard.
We are told to resist not evil, and if any smite us on the one cheek
we are to turn the other also. Who is there in this neighbourhood
who does not resist evil ? Does not every good man think it his
duty to resist evil ? And who turns the left cheek to the smiter,
when smitten on the right ? No one with whom I am acquainted.
Certain signs follow those who believe. Do they follow? Can
believers snow the signs ? Will they handle serpents or drink poison,
or can they by laying on of hands heal the sick? I am afraid not.
Remember these signs were to follow them that believe, and if he
that believeth not shall be damned is to follow as the punishment in
our day, why should not the signs of belief follow likewise ? If the
signs of belief had been the payment of tithes and church rates, and a
blind deference to the opinions of the priests, every man who professed
to believe would soon be tried by the standard of Christ. If a teacher
of morality were to say these signs shall follow them that are moral—
they shall not injure their fellow creatures, they shall pursue that
course which is useful, etc., it would be just and logical to say if
these signs did not follow, the man was not moral, and if it be just and
logical in the one case, it is so in the other; therefore, I say, if the
signs do not follow, according to the Bible, the man is not a believer.
The fact is, the more I study the Old and the New Testament, the
more I am convinced that the Bible is, like other books, fallible, full
of errors, translators’ errors, printers’ errors, and hundreds of errors
about which learned men have been and are still quarrelling—errors
which have divided men into sects and parties, and which have made
those who ought to have been friends the bitterest of enemies; but
the time I , hope will shortly arrive when all intelligent men will be
of the one opinion that conscientious .belief or disbelief ought always
to be respected.
Several persons, I know, will inquire what is my aim? They ask
me whether I expect my views to become popular, and whether I
think that all men will renounce their present belief in the Bible.
My answer is, that I do not expect that my views will very soon, if
ever, become popular, neither do I think that all men will very soon
renounce their belief in the infallibility of the Bible ; but my aim is
to give my neighbours some of the reasons I have for my disbelief,
agreeing with Mirabaud, that so far as my views have the sanction of
truth, they will gradually insinuate themselves into the human mind,
become familiar to its exercise, extend their happy influence on every
side, and finally produce the most substantive advantages to society.
And, in fact, these views have already, to a large extent, insinuated
themselves into the minds of thousands in this country, hence their
�8
indifference to the speculative theories of our evangelical Christians,
hence the apathy which we see amongst the congregations of our
churches and chapels. The moral nature of men and women rebels
against the infamous doctrine of eternal punishment, hence the
number of moral people in our towns and villages who lay no claim to
be religious—people who our preachers say are farther from godliness
than many of the worthless wretches who lay no claim to virtue, but
who weekly tremble at the denunciations of the pulpit. In point of
numbers openly professing to be disbelievers, we may always be
inferior to the Christian sects. We may probably never have a great
many declaring themselves chiefly devoted to Secular matters, for not
one in a hundred can see the benefit to be derived from openly
asserting an opposition to the Christian doctrines, at the same time
most can see a great loss in business and in social intercourse by so
doing; because, whilst the disbeliever is generally shunned, a man
who is known to be one of the greatest hypocrites and humbugs in
existence, if he regularly attend a place of worship, and nominally
profess to be a Christian, is taken by the hand and treated as a highly
respectable member of society. Besides, we cannot expect to influence
men the same as the parsons. We have no threats of hell or hopes
of heaven. We cannot, neither do we wish, to frighten people into
thinking as we think. We wish them honestly to inquire, and when
they are satisfied of the truth of their principles, we like to see them
faithful to them. Although our influence may not be so great in
society as yours, still, my friends, we have an influence; although our
hopes may not be so brilliant respecting a future state as yours, still
our principles have given us great relief; for believing none of the
stories about a future state, we have but few sources of anxiety on
that account. To use the words of Joseph Barker, I say, ‘It is
certainly no slight relief to the benevolent mind to be rid of the idea
of an angry and revengeful God, of a great savage devil, of an eternal
hell of fire and brimstone, and of countless hosts of fallen angels and
damned spirits weltering together in the burning pool, weeping and
wailing in infinite and hopeless agony. It is also no slight relief to be
at liberty to study nature, and to receive her revelations, without
being forced to reconcile them with the childish fancies of an indignant
and superstitious people. It is a great relief to feel ourselves at
liberty to despise old foolish and savage laws, to reject old monster
fables, and to judge for ourselves what is true, and just, and good, on
every subject.’ To those amongst you who wish to become thoroughly
acquainted with the weighty reasons brought by disbelievers,against
what is known as orthodox Christianity; I would recommend ‘ Parker
on Religion,’ Newman’s ‘ Phases of Faith,’ ‘ The Bible and its
Evidences,’ by R. Cooper, and the discussions between the Rev.
Brewin Grant and Mr. G. J. Holyoake. I think that the perusal of
these works will convince you that conscientious disbelief is possible
and justifiable.
--------These remarks are nearly word for word as I intended delivering
them at Spalding. If only twenty minutes had been allowed me, I
should have had somewhat to have condensed them. Upon the
whole I think the foregoing would have been a fair, honest, and
straightforward statement of the position we stand in as opponents to
Christian doctrines.
�
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
An address in reply to one of Mr. Thomas Cooper's lectures, at Spalding.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Thomas Cooper was a poet, Baptist and leading Chartist.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Griffin, Luke
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1859
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Holyoake & Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 (An address in reply to one of Mr. Thomas Cooper's lectures, at Spalding.), 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>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4957
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Free Thought
Thomas Cooper