1
10
6
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9f6fab2c377f05ea4868a67f3353791d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sdqC%7EwsM9JOWvtfqIcTeE5pZjBwFFzMShdXEwZFYJ1d-AuW4wa4wCT66%7ELglZvcv75p7%7EODjwPMC%7EM4SsaVDNEnk7OnZRPIMYCSBr144QxactrGoth-0a%7Eg0bjZSeMLNncZr%7E47b25I9LZbwqedcEfG46o1JitSC6QJ59mZTTQsSs0S8FuustQTTZlT8V9x0uPGDwoZaozt7ulJUsFTpR2bPxT10Gn9NAPBnofG5GlbaXYb32ezLFB4wgp50wKRJ5580xvF8Gpj7Ug02XDSFoyVB5F293CbBPaV77YzUFlcVN3mY3spiZo2e5iLuKRfLQm6zLxiXmA3RuxVJJsz9Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7da33cca055c715ed6100afc887c6f5d
PDF Text
Text
t“V
<*W"
72
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL REFORMER ?
CHARLES WATTS'
( Vice-President 0/ the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Fourpence.
��WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL REFORMER?
' Although Thomas Carlyle has said that “ in these days it
is professed that hero-worship has gone out and finally
ceased,” thousands of the professed followers of Christ
idolise his memory to such an extent that they appear to
be entirely oblivious of any defect either in his character
or in his teachings. They regard their hero as having been
the very embodiment of truth, virtue, and perfection; and
those persons who are compelled to doubt the correctness
of these assumptions are regarded by orthodox believers
as most unreasonable and perverse members of society.
Probably the principal cause why such erroneous and
extravagant notions are entertained of one who, according
to the New Testament, was very little, if at all, superior to
other religious heroes can be accounted for by the fact that
the worshippers of Christ were taught in their childhood to
reverence him as an absolutely perfect character, and as
being beyond criticism. Thus youthful impressions
resulted in fancied creations which, in matured life, have
been accepted as realities. The Rev. James Cranbrook
recognised this truth, for in the preface to his work, The
Founders of Christianity (page 5), he observes : “ Our own
idealisations have invested him (Jesus) with a halo of
spiritual glory, that by the intensity of its brightness
conceals from us the real figure presented in the Gospels.
We see him, not as he is described, but as the ideally
perfect man our own fancies have conceived. But let any
one sit down and critically analyse the sayings and doings
ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels—let him divest his mind
of the superstitious fear of irreverence, and then ask him
self whether all those sayings and doings are in harmony
with the highest wisdom speaking for all ages and races of
�4
AVAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
mankind, and with the conceptions of an absolutely perfect
human nature, and I am mistaken if he will not find a very
great deal he will be forced to condemn.”
Even the sons of Labor, the apostles of Democracy, and
the advocates of Socialism appear disposed to adopt Jesus
as their Patron Saint. Conjectures are being constantly
made by professed modern reformers as to what the
Carpenter of Nazareth would say upon the many political
and social questions that agitate the public mind in this
the latter half of the nineteenth century. These hero
worshippers seem to overlook the apathy of Jesus in
respect to the evils of his own time. Of course, it is not
difficult for an impartial observer to learn why the name of
Christ is invoked to support the various schemes that are
now put forward to aid the regeneration of society.
However little Christianity is practised among us, it is
extensively professed, and it is thought by many a virtue
to assume a belief, whether there are sufficient grounds for
doing so or not. This slavish adherence to fashion is an
undignified prostration of mental freedom and independ
ence, and it is also a fruitful source of the perpetuation of
error. My purpose in examining the claims set up for
Jesus as a political and social reformer, is to ascertain
if the records of his life, doings, and teachings justify such
claims. If Jesus were judged as an ordinary man, living
nearly two thousand years ago, my present task would be
unnecessary. If we assume that such a man once lived, and
that what he said and did is accurately reported, he. should,
in my opinion, be considered as a youth possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavorable influences for
intellectual acquirements, belonging to a race not very
remarkable for literary culture, retaining many of the
failings of his progenitors, and having but little regard for
the world or the things of the world. Viewed under these
circumstances, I could, while excusing many of his errors,
recognise and admire something that is praiseworthy in the
life of “ Jesus of Nazareth.” But when he is raised upon a
pinnacle of greatness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom,
surpassing the production of any age or country, he is then
exalted to a position which he does not merit, and which,
to my mind, deprives him of that credit which otherwise he
would, perhaps, be entitled to.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
5
The contentions which it is my purpose to dispute are :
that Jesus was a political and social reformer, and that
his alleged teachings contain the remedies for the wrongs
of modern society. Before directly dealing with these
points it may be necessary to glance at the various aspects
of reform that have, at different times in our national
history, been presented to the community; also to briefly
consider the nature of the required reforms, and some of
the principal methods that have been adopted to secure
them.
In quite primitive ages important struggles took place
to establish greater equality in the conditions of life. In
the time of Moses, according to the Bible, the land, for
instance, was not merely the subject of “tracts for the
times,” but the laws and regulations relating to it were
practically dealt with. It did not, however, cease to be
property, and its inheritance was recognised as a rightful
thing. The stock-in-trade of many modern reformers is
the denunciation of those who “ add house to house, field to
field, and grind the faces of the poor.” If this condemnation
is one of the many features of Socialism, then Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel may, in this particular, be fairly
termed Socialists—a name foreign to their language and to
the ideas of their day.
The contention with some is, that Christ was a successor
to all these prophets, that he took the same kind of
objection as they did to the then existing state of things,
and that he used the same form of speech in denouncing
them. The general reply to this is, that Christ was, if
anything, only a prophetic reformer, not a real one. In
proof of this many facts in his alleged history may be
cited. For instance, he did not rescue the land from the
control of the Romans, who held it from the people very
much in the same way as landholders do now; he did not
attempt to render any aid to the laborers of Rome, who in
his day were resisting the injustice of the capitalists; he
did not deliver his brethren of “ the royal house ” from
their foreign rulers; he did not redeem the Jews from
their social evils, or restore justice to their nation. In a
word, he entirely failed to do the reforming work that was
expected of him. About the year 1825 the “Christian
Socialists of London ” called special attention to the question
�6
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
of land as regulated by Moses, and the living in common
by the early Christians; but no practical issue arose out of
the discussion. From that period down to the present
the same subject has been more or less agitated, and still
the matter is very far from being settled. Now, if it is
alleged that Christ sought to bring about a just settlement
of the land problem, then the existence of the present
oppressive land laws proves that he failed, and that his
most devout followers have been equally unfortunate.
If Christ had been a practical reformer, we should not have
in our midst the deplorable injustice, the wrongs, and the
inequalities that now afflict society. These evils and draw
backs—the growth of centuries during which Christianity
was in power—-will doubtless be lessened, if not altogether
destroyed; but the work will be achieved by a moral
revolution, inaugurated and conducted by men who will
possess ability and experience that it is evident Jesus never
had.
It must be borne in mind that there are two kinds of
revolution—one that is gradual and intellectual, and there
fore useful; the other that is sudden, born of passion, and
therefore often useless as an important factor in securing
permanent reforms. We know that every change of
thought, or condition of things, involves a revolution which,
if controlled by reason and regulated by the lessons of
experience, must aid rational progress, and tend to build up
a State, and secure its permanence. But there is another
kind of revolution, which is sought to be produced by
Nihilism and Anarchism, both of which aim at the
destruction of the State. I am not in favor of either of
these “isms,” believing, as I do, that in our present
condition of society some form of government is necessary.
Law and order, based upon the national will, and the
principle of justice, appear to me to be essential in any
scheme that is accepted for the purpose of furthering the
political and social progress of the world. Then we have
Socialism, which concerns itself with economic, ethical,
political, and industrial questions. The principal subject,
however, dealt with by Socialists is the accumulation
and distribution of wealth. State Socialism dates from
the time of the eminent French writer, Claude, H. Count
de St. Simon, whose works were published in 1831. He
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
tried to secure the amelioration of the condition of the
poor, and aimed at the organisation of labor and the
distribution of the fruits of industry, upon the principle of
every man being rewarded according to his works.
Socialism is, in fact, an attempt (whether it is the best that
could be made is with some persons a debateable point) to
regulate the social relations, making them more equal than
they are at present, either by individual combination, by
municipal or co-operative action, by a philanthropic policy
of the Church, or by the control of the State. This last
phase of the Socialistic scheme means the complete
regulation by law of the equality of individuals, the State
being the owner of the land, and of all the instruments of
industry that are at present possessed by individuals, public
companies, etc., who now regulate, in their own interest,
production and distribution.
Having thus briefly stated the general conceptions and
aims of political and social reformers, the next step is to
inquire in what relation Jesus stands to any or all of them.
Of course there is only one source of information upon the
subject at our command—that of the four Gospels. From
these it will not be difficult to demonstrate that Jesus was
no mundane reformer. Although he was surrounded by
poverty, slavery, oppression, and mental degradation, he
made no effort to rid society of these curses to humanity.
As John Stuart Mill observes, in his work upon
Liberty (pp. 28, 29), in referring to Christian morality:
“I do not scruple to say of it that it is, in many im
portant points, incomplete and one-sided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings, not sanctioned by it, had contributed
to the formation of European life and character, human
affairs would have been in a worse condition than they now
are.”
Professor Huxley, in the Nineteenth Century, No. 144,
pp. 178-186, points out that Christians have no right to
force their idealistic portraits of Jesus on the unbiassed
scientific world, whose business it is to study realities and
to separate fiction from fact. The Professor’s words are :
“ In the course of other inquiries, I have had to do with
fossil remains, which looked quite plain at a distance, and
became more and more indistinct as I tried to define their
outline by close inspection. There was something there—
�8
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
something which, if I could win assurance about it, might
mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as
long as I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So has it
been with me in my efforts to define the grand figure of
Jesus as it lies in the primitive strata of Christian litera
ture. Is he the kindly, peaceful Christ depicted in the
catacombs 1 Or is he the stern judge who frowns above
the altar of Saints Cosmas and Damianus ? Or can he be
rightly represented in the bleeding ascetic broken down by
physical pain of too many mediaeval pictures ? Are we to
accept the Jesus of the second or the Jesus of the fourth
Gospel as the true Jesus ? What did he really say and do ?
and how much that is attributed to him in speech and
action is the embroidery of the various parties into which
his followers tended to split themselves within twenty
years of his death, when even the three-fold tradition was
only nascent ? .... If a man can find a friend, the
hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in
the Jesus of any or all of the Gospels, let him live by faith
in that ideal. Who shall, or can, forbid him ? But let
him not delude himself that his faith is evidence of the
objective reality of that in which he trusts. Such evidence
is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of science
as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts, at
present, to very little.”
Equally emphatic are the remarks of John Vickers, the
author of The New Koran, etc., who, in his work, The Real
Jesus, on pp. 160, 161, writes: “Many popular preachers
at the present day are accustomed to hold Jesus up to
admiration as the special friend of the poor-—that is, as
the benefactor of the humble working class, and their
representations to this effect are doubtless very generally
believed. But a greater delusion respecting him than this
can scarcely be imagined ; for, however much he may have
been disposed to favor those who forsook their industrial
calling and led a vagrant life, his preaching and the course
which he took were prejudicial to all who honestly earned
their bread. He did nothing with his superior wisdom to
develop the resources of the country and provide employ
ment for the poor; all his efforts were directed to the
unhinging of industry, the diminution of wealth, and the
promotion of universal idleness and beggary. It was no
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
9
part of his endeavor to see the peasant and the artisan
better remunerated and more comfortably housed, for he
despised domestic comforts as much as Diogenes, and
believed that their enjoyment would disqualify people for
obtaining the everlasting pleasures of Paradise. A
provident working man who had managed to save enough
for a few months’ subsistence he would have classed with
the covetous rich, and required him to give away in alms
all that he had treasured as the indispensable condition
of discipleship. On one occasion he is said to have
distributed food liberally to the hungry multitude; but
the food was none of his providing, since he was him
self dependent on alms. Moreover, the recipients of his
bounty were not a band of ill-fed laborers returning from
work/not a number of distressed farmers who had suffered
heavy losses from murrain or drought, but a loafing crowd
who had followed him about from place to place, and
spent the day in idleness. Such bestowment of largess
would only tend to produce a further relaxation of
industrial effort; it would induce credulous peasants, to
throw down their tools and follow the wonder-working
prophet for the chance of a meal; they would see little
wisdom in plodding at their tasks from day to day, like
the ants and the bees, if people were to be fed by
wandering about trustfully for what should turn up, as the
idle, improvident ravens (Prov. vi. 6 ; Luke xii. 24).”
Many eminent Christian writers maintain that Jesus was
a social reformer, because he is represented as having, been
in favor of dispensing with the private ownership of
property, and also of people living together, enjoying what
is called “ a common repast.” Professor Graetz, in the
second volume of his able History of the Jews, devotes a
chapter to the social practices which prevailed at the time
when Jesus is alleged to have lived. On page 117 he
states that Christianity was really an offshoot from the
principles held by the Essenes, and that Christ inherited
their aversion to Pharisaical laws, while he approved of
their practice of putting their all into the common treasury.
Further, like them, Jesus highly esteemed self-imposed
poverty, and despised riches. In fact, we are told that
the “ community of goods, which was a peculiar doctrine
of the Essenes, was not only approved, but enforced.............
�10
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
The repasts they shared in common formed, as it were, the
connecting link which attached the followers of Jesus to
one another; and the alms distributed by the rich publicans
relieved the poor disciples of the fear of hunger; and this
bound them still more strongly to Jesus.” But Graetz
also adds that Christ thoroughly shared the narrow views
held by the Judaeans of his time, and that he despised the
heathen world. Thus he said : “ Give not that which is
holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you ” (Matt. vii. 6). If this is “ Christian
Socialism,” it is far from being catholic in its nature. The
Socialistic element of having “all things in common ” was
limited by Christ to one particular community ; it lacked
that universality necessary to all real social reforms. It
was similar to his idea of the brotherhood of man. Those
only were his brothers who believed in him. He desired
no fellowship with those who did not accept his faith;
hence he exclaimed : “ If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them,
and cast them into the fire, and they are burned ” (John xv.
6); “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou
hast given me ” (John xvii. 9); “But he that denieth me
before men shall be denied before the angels of God ”
(Luke xii. 9); “ He that believeth not shall be damned ”
(Mark xvi. 16). This may be the teaching of theology, but
it is not indicative of a broad humanity, neither would it,
if acted upon, tend to promote the social welfare of mankind.
. Professor Graham, M.A., of Belfast College, contends, in
his work, Socialism: Olcl and New, that Christ taught
“ Communism ” when he preached “ Blessed be ye poor,”
when “ he repeatedly denounced ” the rich, and when he
recommended the wealthy young man to voluntarily
surrender his property to the poor. The Professor also
says: “ In spite of certain passages to the contrary,
pointing in a different direction, the Gospels are pervaded
with the spirit of Socialism ”; but he adds : “ It is not quite
State Socialism, because the better society was to be
brought about by the voluntary union of believers.” He
admits, however, that “ the ideal has hitherto been found
impossible; but let not any say that it does not exist in
the Gospels—that Christ did not contemplate an earthly
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
11
society.” Now this last point is just what could be fairly
urged, if the Gospels were trustworthy. There can be no
reasonable doubt that the disregard of mundane duties
would be the logical sequence of acting up to many of the
teachings ascribed to Jesus. For instance, he said, “My
kingdom is not of this world ” (John xviii. 36). “He that
loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in
this world shall keep it unto life eternal” (John xii. 25).
“ I am not of the world ” (John xvii. 9). “ Take no. thought
for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink; nor
yet for your body what ye shall put on. . . . Take there
fore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take
thought for the things of itself ” (Matthew vi. 25, 34). “ If
any man comes to me and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life, he cannot be my disciple ” (Luke xiv. 26).
“Everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands,
for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall
inherit everlasting life” (Matthew xix. 29). Even the
disciple who wished to bury his father was advised by
Christ to forego that duty of affection, for “Jesus said,
Follow me ; let the dead bury the dead.”
The fact is, Christ was a spiritualiser, and not a social
reformer. If he had been to his age what Bacon and
Newton were to theirs, and what Darwin, Spencer, Huxley,
and Tyndall have been to the present generation ; if he had
written a book teaching men how to avoid the miseries of
life; if he had revealed the mysteries of nature, and
exhibited the beauties of the arts and sciences, what an
advantage he would have conferred upon mankind, and
what an important contribution he would have given to
the world towards solving the problems of our present
social wrongs and inequalities. But the usefulness of Jesus
was impaired by the idea which he entertained, that this
world was but a state of probation, wherein the human
family were to be prepared for another and a better home,
where “ the wicked cease from troubling and the weary
are at rest.”
We have thus seen the views of the scientist, the
historian, and the professor, upon the subject under con
sideration ; it will now be interesting to learn what one
�12
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
of the successors to the apostles has to say in reference
to the same question. B. F. Westcott, D.D., the present
Bishop of Durham, in his work, Social Aspects of Christianity,
says : “Of all places in the world, the Abbey, I think,
proclaims the social gospel of Christ with the most touch
ing eloquence. ... If I am a Christian, I must bring
within the range of my religion every interest and difficulty of man, ‘ for other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ ”
This is not by any means correct, for many other
“foundations,” which have nothing to do with Christ,
have been laid, and upon them systems, some good and
some bad, have been built. For instance, there are
Individualism, Socialism, material standards of progress,
unlimited competition, and the application of science.
These are “ other foundations ” that men have had apart
altogether from Christ. But the solution to present social
evils, Dr. Westcott considers, is to be found only in the
Christian faith. He says : “ We need to show the world
the reality of spiritual power. We need to gain and
exhibit the idea that satisfies the thoughts, the aspirations,
the aims of men straining towards the light.” He admits
that science has increased our power and resources; but, he
adds, it “ cannot open the heavens and show the glory of
God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” Of
course it cannot; for science has nothing to do with
the impossible, or with the wild speculations of theology.
In the Social Aspects of Christianity, as presented by the
Bishop, it would be difficult, indeed, to recognise the
principles of true Socialism. Moreover, as it is admitted
by him that science has increased our “power and
resources,” it is a proof that Jesus must have been a poor
reformer, when we remember that he did nothing what
ever to aid this strong element of modern progress.
From the references which I have here made to some of
the ablest writers of to-day, it will be seen how Jesus is
estimated by them. I now propose to analyse the various
statements which, according to the Four Gospels, were
uttered by him, that have any bearing upon the political
and social questions of our time. It will then be seen
whether Christ has any claim to be considered a political
and social reformer.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
13
That the political views held by Jesus were exceed
ingly crude is evident from the circumstance recorded in
Matthew xxii. It is there stated that, on finding a coin of
the realm bearing the superscription of Caesar, Jesus
declared that both Caesar and God were to have their due.
The very pertinent question put by the disciples afforded
a good opportunity for some sound advice to be given upon
the political subjection in which the people to whom Christ
was talking were living. They were in bondage to a
foreign power, and were anxious to know if it were
“lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not.” Instead of
returning a clear and intelligible answer, Jesus replied in
words which were evasive and meaningless, so far as the
information sought for was concerned. If he had any
desire to alter the then existing political, relations, or. to
suggest any improvement, he might have given a practical
lesson upon the duties and obligations of the ruled to the
rulers. Another opportunity was lost when, Pilate having
asked Christ an important question, “ Jesus gave him no
answer” (John xix. 9).
Subsequently, however, Jesus recognised the “divine
government,” for he said : “ Thou couldst have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above.”
(John xix. 11). He also, having stated, “My kingdom is
not of this world,” added : “ If my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews.” Christ s notions of government
were similar to those of St. Paul, who said: “The
powers that be are ordained of God. . .. . and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation (Romans xiii.
1, 2).
Now, in the very face of these scriptural utterances, we
have men to-day who allege that Christ is their hero of
democracy. The belief that he ever intended to. improve
the government of this world by secular means is utterly
groundless. His negligence in this particular cannot be
explained away by saying that society was not ripe for
reform, and that Jesus lacked the power to revolutionise
the institutions of his time. There is truth, no doubt, in
the latter allegation, for the power of Christ for all practical
work seems to have been very limited indeed. He did not
attempt any political reform, as other men in all ages have-
�14
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
done; he did not make honest endeavors to inaugurate
improvements which, under happier circumstances, might
have been carried out. There is no evidence that Christ
ever concerned himself with such reforms as civil and
religious liberty, the freedom of the slaves, the equality
of human rights, the emancipation of women, the spread of
science and of education, the proper use of the land, and the
fostering of the fundamental elements of human progress.
His language was : “ Behold the fowls of the air : for they
sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns ; yet
your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much
better than they ? And why take ye thought for raiment ?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil
not, neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you, That
even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of
these. Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field,
which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall
he not much more clothe you, 0 ye of little faith ? But
seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Christ’s declaration that his kingdom was not of this
world may be taken as a reason why he made no adequate
provision for secular government; but those who worship
him assert that his plan is the only one that can be success
fully adopted to secure the desired reforms, and that he
really did contemplate a better state of society on earth
than the one that then obtained. Where is the evidence
that this was so 1 Not in the New Testament, for it is
nowhere recorded therein that such was his mission. With
him the question was : “ For what shall it profit a man if
he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?” Even
Renan, who is so frequently quoted by Christian advocates
as extolling Jesus, admits that he lacked the qualities of a
great political and social reformer. In his Life of Jesus
Renan says that Christ had “ no knowledge of the general
condition of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with
science, “ believed in the devil, and that diseases were the
work of demons” (pp. 79, 80); he was “harsh” towards
s family, and was “no philosopher” (pp. 81-83); he
“went to excess” (p. 174); he “aimed less at logical
conviction than at enthusiasm”; “sometimes his intolerance
of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and apparently
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
15
absurd” (pp. 274, 275); and “bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart” (p. 278.)
But let us further consider what it is said that he taught
in reference to life’s social requirements, and also what was
his estimate of the world and the things of the world.
Under any system conducted upon rational principles the
first social requirement is to provide for sufficient food,
clothes, and shelter; for to talk of comfort and progress
without these requisites is absurd. Now, it was about
these very things that Jesus, as it has already been shown,
taught that we should take no thought. In Matthew (c. vi.)
special reference is made to the Gentiles who did take
thought as to the necessities of life ; but other people were
not to be anxious upon the subject, “ for your Heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things,” and
a promise is given that he will provide them as he
“ feedeth ” “ the fowls of the air.” Poverty and idleness
were essentials to Christ’s idea of a social state, as is proved
by his advice to the rich young man, to whom he said:
“ If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor” (Matthew xix. 21). In John (vi. 27) it
is also said : “ Labor not for the meat which perisheth.”
What wealthy Christian will sell what he has and give to
the poor, and thus carry out Christ’s idea of social duties ?
And if the toiling millions did not labor for their meat,
they would get but little of it. It is not overlooked
that Jesus said to the young man, “and follow me”;
which meant, I presume, that he was to join the Chris
tian society in which they had “all things common”
(Acts iv.). But this state of existence could only be
maintained by giving up all one’s possessions and adding
them to the general stock. If all did this, the stock would
be soon exhausted. And the point here to be noted is, that
in Christ’s scheme no provision is made to provide for a
permanent mode of living, except by prayer or miracle.
Surely it must be obvious to most people that a
communion of saints, fed directly by God, could not be any
solution of the social problem for those outside such
communities Besides, there is little prospect of outsiders
being made partakers with the saints, unless God the
Father draws them unto Christ (John vi. 44); but no one
can go to the Father except by Christ (John xiv. 6).
�16
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Thus our chances of admission into the Christian fold are
very remote, for if we are admitted it must be through
Christ, to whom we cannot go unless the Father draws us ;
but then we cannot go to the Father except by Christ.
This is a theological puzzle, which must be left for a
“ Christian Socialist ” to unravel if he can.
The belief that a social condition of society is sustained
by an invisible power, where no labor is performed, and
where no interest is taken in its progress, or in the dignity
and personal independence of its members, is the height of
folly. It implies the destruction of all human institutions,
and the substitution of a “divinely-ordered state of
things,” such as some of Christ’s followers allege they are
now hourly expecting. Well might the late Bishop of
Peterborough say : “ It is not possible for the State to
carry out all the precepts of Christ. A State that
attempted to do so could not exist for a week. If there be
any person who maintains the contrary, his proper place is
in a lunatic asylum ” (Fortnightly, January, 1890).
The Sermon on the Mount, or “in the plain,” as
stated by Luke (vi. 17), has been called the. Magna Charta
of the kingdom of God, proclaimed by Christ, although it
has never been made the basis of any human government.
Its injunctions are so impracticable and antagonistic to. the
requirements of modern civilisation that no serious
attempt has ever been made to put them in practice.
It may be mentioned that the genuineness of the “ Sermon ”
has been boldly questioned. Professor Huxley writes:
“I am of opinion that there is the gravest reason for
doubting whether the Sermon on the Mount was ever
preached, and whether the so-called Lord’s Prayer was
ever prayed by Jesus of Nazareth” (Controverted Questions,
p. 415). The Professor then gives his reasons for arriving
at this conclusion.
The Rev. Dr. Giles, in his Christian Records, speaking of
the Sermon on the Mount, says : “ There is good ground
for believing that such a collective body of maxims was
never, at any time, delivered from the lips of our.Lord’;
and Milman declares that scarcely any passage is more
perplexing to the harmonist of the Gospels than this
sermon, which, according to Matthew and Luke, appears to
have been delivered at two different places.
�*S-'
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
17
Mr. Charles B. Cooper, a very able American writer,
aptly observes: “If this discourse is so important, as
Christians profess to believe—the sum of all the teachings
of Jesus, and the sufficient source of all morality—it is
curious that Mark and John knew nothing about it, and
that Luke should dismiss it with such a short report.
Luke, omitting the larger part of the matter, takes only
one page to tell what occupies three pages in Matthew;
and to find any parallel to much of Matthew we have to go
to other chapters of Luke and to other occasions. In
addition to which, they disagree as to whether it was given
on a mountain or in a plain.”
Taking a broad view of the teachings as ascribed to
Christ, I should describe most of them as being the result
of emotion rather than the outcome of matured reflection.
They are based upon faith, not upon knowledge, trust in
Providence being the cornerstone of his system, so far as
his fragmentary utterances can be systematised. In my
opinion, the idea of his being a political and social reformer
rests upon an entirely mistaken view of the union of what
are termed temporal and spiritual things. Examples of this
maybe seen in such injunctions as “Love one another ”
and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The first was
clearly applicable to the followers of Christ, for he
expressly states, “ By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples” (John xiii. 35); and the second command
applied only to the Jewish community, not to strangers
who lived outside. These injunctions did not mean that
those who heard them were to love all mankind. Christ
himself divided those who were for him from those who
were against him. To the first he said, “ Come, ye blessed
of my father ”; to the other, “ Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
It has always appeared to me to be remarkably strange
that Christ should be regarded as the exemplar of universal
love. Neither his own words, nor the conduct of his
followers, justify such a belief. It is, of course, desirable
that a social state of society should be based upon love and
the universal brotherhood of man. This is the avowed
foundation of the religion of the Positivists, their motto
being, “Love our basis, order our method, and progress
our end”; but no such commendable features are to be
B
�18
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
found in the Gospel of Christ, or in the history of the
Church. Jesus declared that his mission was only to “the
lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew xv. 24).
Moreover, the conditions of discipleship which he imposed
would, if complied with, exclude the possibility of love
among all men (Luke xiv. 26); as would also his avowed
object of breaking the peace and harmony of the domestic
circle (Matthew x. 34, 35). It may be said that such are
the contingencies attending the belief and adoption of a
new religion. Be it so; but that only shows the futility
of the contention that Christ established universal brother
hood. It is absurd to argue that he did so, when we are
told in the Gospels that his mission was to the Jews only
(Matthew xv. 24); that he would have no fellowship with
unbelievers (Matthew xv. 26); that he threatened to have
his revenge upon those who denied him (Matthew x. 33);
that he instructed his disciples to “go not into the way of
the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not” (Matthew x. 5); and, finally, that he commanded
those disciples, when they were about to start on a
preaching expedition, that “Whosoever shall not receive
you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that
house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I
say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for
that city” (Matthew x. 14, 15). Shaking the dust from
the feet, be it remembered, was an Oriental custom of
exhibiting hatred towards those against whom the act was
performed. And surely the punishment that it is said was
to follow the refusal of the disciples’ administration was
the very opposite of the manifestation of love. This
accords with the non-loving announcement that “ the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the
glory of his power” (2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9).
These references ought to be sufficient to convince any
one that Jesus cannot be reasonably credited with a
feeling of unqualified love for the whole of the human
race. His conduct, and the general spirit of his teachings
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
19
towards those who differed from him, forbid such a
supposition. His injunctions, if acted upon, would annul
the influence of the ancient maxim of “ doing unto others
as you would they should do to you.” Certainly he failed
to set a personal example by complying with this rule, as
his harsh language to those who did not accept his
authority amply proves. It is reported that Jesus said
(Matthew v. 22), “ Whosoever shall say Thou fool shall be
in danger of hell fire”; yet we find him exclaiming, “Ye
fools, ye fools and blind” (Lukexi. 40; Matthewxxiii. 17).
He advised others to “Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you,” while he himself addressed those who were not
his friends as “hypocrites ” (Matthew vii. 5); “ye serpents,
ye generation of vipers ” (Matthew xxiii. 33). We may
here apply Christ’s own words to himself: “I say unto
you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy
words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned ” (Matthew xii. 36, 37). In Luke (vi. 37)
he counsels us to “forgive, and ye shall be forgiven ”; but
in Mark (iii. 29) it is stated, “He that shall blaspheme
against the Holy G-host hath never forgiveness, but is in
danger of eternal damnation.” The unfortunate point here
is, that we are not told what constitutes blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost.
From these cases, and there are many more in the
Gospels of like nature, it is clear that Jesus taught one
thing and practised another—a course of conduct which
his followers have not been slow to emulate. But such an
inconsistent trait of character disqualifies those in whom it
is found from being the best of social reformers. Example
is higher than precept.
Whatever may be urged in favor of Christ’s supposed
“ spiritual kingdom,” his teachings have but little value in
regulating the political and social affairs of daily life, using
those terms in the modern and legitimate sense, inasmuch
as he has given the world no practical information upon
either the science of politics or of sociology. The affairs of
this world had but little interest with Christ. With him
pre-eminence was given to the soul over the body. We are
not to fear him who can kill the body only, but rather fear
him “ who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell ”
�20
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
(Matthew x. 28). Here we recognise the great defect in
Jesus as a societarian reformer. He treats this world as if
it were of secondary importance, and he furnishes no useful
rules for its practical government. True he says, “ Blessed
are ye poor,” and “Woe unto you that are rich but what
does this amount to ? These empty exclamations will not
abolish pauperism, neither will they produce the organisation
of honest industry, whereby human wants can be supplied
and social comforts secured. Would it not have been
better if Jesus had devised some plan whereby poverty
should become extinct ?
To talk, as Professor Graham does, about producing a
better state of society by a “ union of believers ” is, in my
opinion, folly. How is it to be done ? Every member of
“ the union ” would have to live on the alms of the wealthy
members. It would, in fact, be a society of the destitute
supported by voluntary contributions. Surely no sane
Socialists ever proposed to divide mankind into two
classes—z.e., paupers and those who feed them. We know
what the result of such a policy was in the case of the
Church. As the Professor says, the Church obtained the
funds of the rich in return for certain considerations which
were supposed to affect them in this world and in the next;
and out of such proceeds the clergy distributed bread to
the poor and kept something better for themselves. Thus
Europe for centuries was infested by fat, idle monks . and
an army of miserable beggars. A more detestable condition
of society to men of honor and independent spirit never
existed. Yet this “ Christian plan ” finds favor, as we have
seen, in “ the Abbey,” and is really the necessary outcome of
Christ’s mendicant teachings. For did he not allege that
the poor were blessed, and that “ ye hath the poor always
with you” (Matthew xxvi. 11)? If he contemplated that
the period would arrive when “it should be impossible for
men to be poor,” why did he not give some practical
instructions to hasten its advent ? This would have been
a o-rand contribution to social reform. But his overwhelm
ing anxiety about another life was, with him, the “one
thing needful,” and to it every other consideration had to
give way.
.
I am quite unable to understand how anyone can mistake
the obvious meaning of the parable in which the rich man
u-*** yMita
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
21
appears in hell and the poor man in heaven (Luke
xvi. 19-26). The only assigned reason is that the one was
well-to-do in this life, while the other suffered privations.
This is no justification for either of the men being where
they are represented to have been. For poverty is no
virtue, neither is it a crime to be rich. Men of wealth can
be worthy characters, and poverty may be allied with
much rascality. The wrong does not consist in possessing
riches, but rather in the misuse of them; and, therefore, to
be poor does not seem the highest qualification for future
bliss, and to be rich is not a sufficient cause for anyone
being excluded from an abode of happiness. But this
parable is another illustration of Christ’s exaltation of
poverty. He even dispatched his disciples on a mission of
propaganda, without scrip, money, or purse, to beg their
way through the world (Luke x. 7-10). Is this the highest
model that can be given for a mission to the poor ? It is
thought so little of to-day, even by professed Christians,
that they never adopt the plan suggested by their
“ Master.” They may preach “ Blessed be ye poor,” but
they have no desire to be one of them. They read the
warning, “Woe unto you that are rich; for ye have
received your consolation ” (Luke vi. 24); but they appear
to be exceedingly comfortable with their material consola
tion. “ A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” and
they are consoled more with the riches of this world than
with the chance of having a harp in the next. In the case
of the rich young man (Luke xviii.) it is true Christ
advised the giving up of private property; but it is also
true that the advice was not deemed practical, for the
young man “went away sorrowful” (Matthew xix. 22).
Supposing he had accepted the advice, he would then
have swelled the ranks of the poor unemployed, and
thereby have become the recipient rather than the bene
factor, although it is recorded that “it is more blessed to
give than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). The giving up all
one’s possessions would be as injurious to a community as
the amassing of wealth by the few is pernicious.
What is required is a social arrangement whereby all
members of the community shall have their fair share of
the necessities and comforts of life ; and this arrangement
Christ did not understand, or, if he did, he made no effort
�99!
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
to bring it into force, and consequently he lacked the
elements of a true social reformer.
There is an incident recorded in Luke (xii.) which shows
that Christ refused to say anything upon the subjects of
property, civil rights, and law and government. “ One of
the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother,
that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto
him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you ?”
Here Jesus had an opportunity, as a social reformer, to
give the world an important lesson upon the duty of one
man to another; but he did not avail himself of it. He
acted more like a modern lawyer would do, who, when
asked by a stranger to give him advice, would reply: “I
am not your appointed solicitor ; if you want information,
you must consult your own legal adviser.”
The parable of “ the rich man who set up greater barns,”
related in Luke (xii.), is another illustration of Christ’s
defective teachings in reference to the affairs of this life.
The man in the parable proposed to enlarge his premises so
that he might be able to put by increased stock of fruits
and goods, and thus be in a position to take his “ ease, eat,
drink, and be merry.” There does not appear to be any
great crime in this, for he lacked room wherein to bestow
his fruits, etc. (v. 17). Surely there could be no serious
objection to making such careful provision for “a rainy
day.” Such conduct is frequently necessary to the advance
ment of personal comfort and general civilisation. Have
not Christians in all ages, since their advent, done the
same thing, when they have had the opportunity ? Layingup treasures on earth, although forbidden by Christ, is
often an effective precaution against starvation, and against
being in old age the slave of charity. But for doing this
very thing the man was told : “ Thou fool, this night thy
soul shall be required of thee ; then whose shall those
things be which thou hast provided ?” (v. 20). Jesus then
said, “ Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat,” etc. Here we have the prominent
Christian requirement of making the duties of this world
subservient to the demands of a future existence put forth
by one who is claimed as being a model social reformer.
If it is alleged that Christ meant that the man in the parable
should have distributed his fruits and goods rather than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
23
store them up, the reply is, the account does not say so.
Why did not Christ, instead of making heaven the principal
consideration, point out the evil influence of the monopoly
of wealth upon human society ? The social problems cannot
be solved by indulging in speculations as to another world,
of which we have had no experience. The principle sought
to be enforced in this parable is evidently that the soul is
of more importance than the body, and that heaven is of
greater value than earth. Thoughtlessness of the things of
time is directly encouraged by reference to the ravens :
“ For they neither sow nor reap; which neither have store
house nor barn; and God feedeth them ” (v. 24).
It is worthy of note that Jesus never once intimated
throughout his career, either by direct statement or
illustration, that this world was the noblest and most
desirable dwelling place for man, and that it was the home
of social felicity and mutual happiness. His heart and
home were in his Father’s house, whither he went to
prepare a place for his followers, to whom he gave a
promise that he would come and receive them unto
himself (John xiv. 2, 3). So little did Christ understand
the philosophy of secular reform that when he condemned
covetousness (which was very laudable upon his part) it
was because he thought it interfered with the preparation
for inhabiting “mansions in the skies,” rather than in
consequence of its effects upon homes on earth. He
entirely overlooked the agencies that promote human
comfort. The means that have been employed to produce
and to advance civilisation received from him no matured
consideration. If every word attributed to him had been
left unuttered, not one feature of modern progress would be
missing to-day. Let anyone carefully read, with an
unbiassed mind, the four Gospels, and then ask himself the
questions : What philosophic truth did Jesus propound ?
What scientific fact did he explain ? What social problem
did he solve ? What political scheme did he unfold 1 The
New Testament does not inform us. On the contrary,
while other men, with less pretensions than himself, were
active in giving the world their thoughts upon these great
questions, Jesus remained silent in reference to them. It
is no answer to say that to deal with the subjects was not
his mission. For, if he came simply to talk about another
�24
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
world, at the sacrifice of the requirements of this, then my
contention is made good that, whatever else he was, he
certainly was no political and social reformer.
It appears to me that the gospel of Christ is a very poor
one for any practical purposes, inasmuch as it never deals
with the material comforts of human beings. It does not
suggest any means by which the poor could obtain that
power by which they could secure the amelioration of their
sad condition. It is not here overlooked that Christ is
credited with saying that those who sought the “Kingdom
of God ” should have food, drink, etc., added unto them
(Luke xii.). But, unfortunately, experience teaches that
such a promise cannot be relied upon, for it is too well
known that many of those persons who occupied much of
their time in seeking the kingdom of God remained
destitute of the necessaries of life. It was during the
prevalence of this superstitious belief, and of an un
reasonable reliance upon Christ, that personal misery and
intellectual sterility prevailed throughout the land. For
many generations the indiscriminate followers of Jesus
failed to give the world any new thought, or to establish
any new political or social institution; and from the
Church nothing of practical secular value emanated during
the fifteen centuries of its uninterrupted reign. This,
however, is not all that can be fairly urged upon this
point. The followers of Christ not only failed to originate
any social scheme for the good of general society them
selves, but they did their utmost to crush those who did.
It appears almost incredible that such persistent efforts
were ever made to extinguish every new thought as those
recorded of Christians, when they had the power to do as
they pleased. New books were despised and destroyed,
and new inventions were said to be the work of the Devil.
True happiness cannot co-exist with physical slavery and
mental serfdom, and yet, it must be repeated, Jesus did
nothing to remove these evils. His apathy towards the
institution of slavery is the more strange if we accept the
authority of Gratz, that Christ was connected with the
Essenes, and that, to some extent, he founded his system
upon theirs. By that community slavery, we are told,
was prohibited ; yet we read that both bond and free were
one in Christ Jesus. Is not this striking evidence that
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
25
Jesus had no intention to seek the removal of this inhuman
blot from the history of our race 1
Those persons to-day who desire to establish a relation
ship between Socialism and Christianity dwell with much
persistency upon Christ’s views as to the division of
property. But let us see what are the facts of the case.
Jesus told those who were willing to leave their homes,
families, and lands for his “ sake and the Gospels ”
(Mark x.), that they should receive “an hundredfold” of
each in this world, besides “ eternal life in the world to
come.” Now, this is ridiculous in the extreme ; for what
possible advantage could it be to any one to have his or
her relatives multiplied a hundredfold ? Besides, where
could Christ get either a hundred mothers to replace
every one that had been forsaken, or a hundred acres of
land to compensate for each one that had been given up ?
And even supposing he could do this, what becomes of the
theory of despising landed possessions ? Moreover, if the
smaller number and quantity were a drawback, the larger
must be more so. Further, there is but little self-denial
involved in parting with ten acres of land to secure a
thousand. It is really surprising that the Jews did not
“ catch on ” in this matter. Probably they saw that it
was all a sham, because Christ had no means of keeping
his promise. Where were the houses, land, etc., to come
from ? Evidently Christ had none, for he appears to have
been entirely destitute of all worldly goods, having “ not
where to lay his head” (Matthew viii. 20). Would not
such an augmentation of property be antagonistic to the
principle Jesus taught on another occasion, when he said
“ lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ”
(Matthew vi.) ? No marvel that his friends thought he
was “beside himself” (Mark iii. 21), or that the Jews
considered “he hath a devil, and is mad” (John x. 20),
and that “ neither did his brethren believe in him ”
(John vii. 5). If any man at the present time dealt with
the question of property in the same way as Christ is here
represented to have done, he would not be regarded as a
social reformer, but rather as a man whose intellect was
far from being brilliant, and whose ideas were exceedingly
confused. Christ’s reply to the high priest, who asked
him the question, “ Art thou the Christ, the Son of the
�26
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Blessed?” (Mark xiv. 61), is, to my mind, clear evidence
that he was neither the political nor the social Messiah
that some persons allege him to have been. His reply
was, “ 1 am; and he shall see the son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
Does not this accord with his statement, “ I am not of the
world,” and “ my kingdom is not of this world ” 1 Should
not this settle at once, as a fact, that the mission of Jesus
was not to be the founder of an earthly government, or
the promoter of a mundane social system ?
As to the idea that Christ will come, as he said, “in the
clouds,” that relates to the future, and has no bearing upon
the present inquiry, the results of which will not be affected
by either the fulfilment or the failure of that prediction.
The question is not what will be, but rather what Christ
did to entitle him to be classified as a secular reformer.
Professor Graham, as we have seen, admits that Christ did
not inaugurate State Socialism, but that he only proposed
a sort of friendly society among Christians themselves. In
doing even this, however, he showed himself sadly defective
in the knowledge necessary to a real reformer. There exists
to-day in this country an old-established Christian sect,
termed Quakers, who keep a common treasury for the
purpose of aiding those of their numbers who are in need.
But, be it observed, they fill their treasury by industry and
the result of laboring “ for the meat which perisheth,” the
very thing that Jesus forbade. The method of the Quakers
is a very charitable one, for it prevents their poorer
members from going to the workhouse, or from begging in
the streets, as other Christians are so often forced to do.
They are enabled, by this plan'of industry and of “ taking
thought for the morrow,” to preserve their dignity and
self-respect, and to receive all the advantages of assistance
without being branded as paupers, who have to forfeit
many rights in consequence of their poverty. This scheme
of mutual aid is not based upon Christ’s advice to “ forsake
all,’’.under the insane idea that they will be kept alive, upon
the same principle that the ravens and the lilies of the field
are; on the contrary, among the Quakers all who can both
“toil and spin.” Jesus, in his method, counselled no sort
of thrift, nor made any provision for the time of need.
There is no record, that I am aware of, that any society of
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
27
men ever lived upon help from heaven without labor, and
due care being taken for the requirements of life. Certainly
such a society does not exist in “ Christian England.”
The burden of Christ’s preaching was, “ Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” What was meant by this
kingdom it is rather difficult to decide, for it is variously
described in the Gospels. It is certain, however, that,
whether it signified the reign of peace and justice on
earth, or the appearance of Jesus “in the clouds,” neither
event has taken place up to date, although Christ said that
in his time the kingdom was “ at hand.” In Luke (xvii. 21)
it is stated “ the kingdom of God is within you ”; but that
does not quite harmonise with the description given of it
in Matthew (xiii. 47-50), where it is alleged that the
kingdom of heaven is “ like unto a net that was cast into
the sea,” which, when full, had the good of its contents
retained, and the bad cast away. “ So shall it be at the
end of the world,” when the angels are to “ sever the wicked
from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace
of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Now, if this refers to a condition upon earth, it is not a
very happy one. And in neither case is there any light
thrown upon the rational conduct of men, either politically or
socially. Besides, the repeated references made by Christ
to the approaching end of all earthly institutions render
the idea of his being a reformer of this world altogether
meaningless. The termination of mundane affairs was to
occur in the presence of those to whom Jesus was speaking
(Matthew xvi. 28). Whatever other texts may be cited to
the contrary, the meaning here is clear, that no opportunity
was to be given, and no provisions made, to reform the
political and social conditions of earth. Let any one read
the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and try to harmonise
the declarations there ascribed to Christ with the belief that
his mission was to reform the world, and the impossibility
of the task will soon be evident. True, in Matthew (xxv.)
works of utility are required to secure a place at the
“right hand” of God. But what does this involve?
Uniformity of belief (Mark xvi. 16), and only the relief,
not the cure, of poverty. No scheme was even hinted at
by Christ whereby the great army of the poor and
depraved should be impossible. He was inferior to the
�28
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
French philosopher, who aimed at providing a condition of
society wherein men should be neither depraved nor poor.
To put the matter concisely, what are the factors of
political and social progress ? Briefly, they are these:
The cultivation of the intellect, the extension of physical
and mental freedom, the recognition and the application of
the principle of justice and liberty to all members of the
community, regardless of their belief or non-belief in
theology, the knowledge and application of science and
art, the organisation of labor and the proper cultivation of
the soil, the possession of political power, the under
standing of the true value and use of wealth, and, finally,
the persistent study of, and the constant struggling against,
the numerous evils, wrongs, and injustice that now rob life
of its comforts and real worth. These are the agencies
that all men, who claim to be political and social reformers,
should support and cultivate. Not one of these originated
with Jesus, and throughout his career he never availed
himself of these essentials of all progress. Thus, to
designate him as the great social redeemer is entirely
unjustifiable. His very mode of living was the opposite to
that of a practical reformer. He was an ascetic, and
avoided as much as possible the turmoil of public life,
from which he might have learnt something of what was
necessary to adjust the social relations. Prayer, not work,
was his habit. In the day, and at night, would he retire
to the solitude of the mountain, and there pray to his
father (Luke vi. 12 and xxi. 37). So far did he believe in
the efficacy of supplications to God that he frequently told
his disciples that whatever they asked of his father he
would grant the request (Matthew xviii. 19 ; xxi. 22;
John xvi. 23). That this was a delusion is clear from the
fact that he prayed himself for the unity of Christendom,
that his followers might be one (John xvii. 21); yet from
his time down to the present divisions have always existed
among Christians. He distinctly promised that “What
soever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do” (John
xiv. 13, 14). Relying upon this, the Church for centuries
has been asking that unbelief should cease, and yet we find
it more extensive to-day than it ever was. The lesson
learnt from experience is, that all reforms are the result of
active work, not the outcome of prayerful meditations.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
29
With all these drawbacks in the character of Jesus, it is
to me marvellous how he can be accepted as a model for us
in the present age. But thousands of his devotees insist
upon claiming him as their Ideal, although they cannot
regulate their conduct by such a standard. Such persons
overlook the fact that, if the better parts of an Ideal are
marred by that which is erroneous and impracticable, it is
comparatively useless as a guide in life. That Christ’s
alleged teachings are so marred the Gospels amply testify.
His conduct, on several occasions, was such as his
followers would not attempt to emulate to-day. Such, for
instance, as his treatment of his parents (Luke ii. 43-49 ;
John ii. 4); his cursing of the fig-tree (Matthew xxi. 18, 19);
his driving the money changers from the temple with “ a
scourge of small cards ” (John ii. 15); his possession of an
ass and a colt, which evidently did not belong to him, and
riding upon both of them into Jerusalem (Matthew xxi.
2-11); his expletives to the Pharisees (Luke xi. 37-44); his
breaking up the peace of the domestic circle (Matthew x.
34-36).
Judged by the New Testament, Christ was certainly not
“The Light of the World,” for he revealed nothing of
practical value, and he taught no virtues that were before
unknown. No doubt in his life, supposing he ever lived,
there were many commendable features; but he was far
from being perfect. While he might have been wellmeaning, he was in belief superstitious, in conduct
inconsistent, in opinions contradictory, in teaching arbi
trary, in knowledge deficient, in faith vacillating, and in
pretensions great. He taught false notions of existence,
had no knowledge of science; he misled his followers by
claiming to be what he was not, and he deceived himself
by his own credulity. He lacked experimental force,
frequently living a life of isolation, and taking but slight
interest in the affairs of this world. It is this lack of
experimental force throughout the career of Christ that
renders his notions of domestic duties so thoroughly
imperfect. The happiness of a family, according to his
teaching, was to be impaired before his doctrines could be
accepted. So far as we know, he was never a husband or a
father ; and he did not aspire to be a statesman, a man of
science, or a politician.
Now, a person who lacks
�30
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
experience in these phases of life is not in the best
position to give practical and satisfactory lessons thereon.
Even in the conditions of life he is said to have filled, this
“ Light of the World ” failed to exhibit any high degree of
excellence, discrimination, or manly courage. As a son, he
lacked affection and consideration for the feelings of his
parents. As a teacher, he was mystical and rude; and as a
reasoner, he was defective and illogical. Lacking a true
method of reasoning, possessing no uniformity of character,
Christ exhibited a strange example—an example injudicious
to exalt and dangerous to emulate. At times he was
severe when he should have been gentle. When he might
have reasoned he frequently rebuked. When he ought to
have been firm and resolute he was vacillating. When he
should have been happy he was sorrowful and desponding.
After preaching faith as the one thing needful, he himself
lacked it when he required it the most. Thus, on the cross,
when a knowledge of a life of integrity, a sensibility of the
fulfilment of a good mission, a conviction that he was
dying for a good and righteous cause, and fulfilling the
object of his life—when all these should have given him
moral strength, we find him giving vent to utter despair.
So overwhelmed was he with grief and anxiety of mind
that he “began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” “My
soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even unto death.” At
last, overcome with grief, he implores his father to rescue
him from the death which was then awaiting him.
Christ is paraded as the one redeemer of the world, but
his system lacks such essentials of all reform as worldly
ambition, and reliance upon the human power of regenera
tion. If we lament the poverty and wretchedness we
behold, we are told by Christians that “the poor shall
never cease out of the land.” If we seek to remove the
sorrow and despair existing around us, we are reminded
that they were “ appointed curses to the sons of Adam.”
If we work to improve our condition, we are taught that
we should remain “in that state of life in which it has
pleased God to call us.” When we endeavor to improve
our minds and to cultivate our intellects, we are informed
that “ we are of ourselves unable to do any good thing.”
If we seek to promote the happiness of others, we are
assured that “ faith in Christ is of more importance than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER 1
31
labor for man.” We to-day have but a vague idea of the
extent of the influence such teachings once exercised over
the minds of those who believed them. These teachings
have permeated the minds of orthodox Christians, stifling
their reason and perverting their judgment, till they
cherish the delusion that the reasonings of philosophers,
the eloquence of poets, and the struggles of patriots are
all worse than useless unless purified by the “ Spirit of
Christ.” It is such delusions which foster the erroneous
and retarding belief that every thought which does not
aspire to the throne of Christ, every action which is not
sanctioned by him, and every motive which does not
proceed from a love for him should be discouraged as
antagonistic to our real progress in life.
It is contended by some that, although Christ did not
give detailed remedies for existing evils, he taught
“ general principles ” which would, if acted upon, prove a
panacea for the wrongs of life. This was not so, for his
“general principles” lacked the saving power that was
desired. What were those “ principles ” as laid down in
the Gospels ? So far as they can be understood, they were
as follows: Absolute trust in God ; implicit belief in
himself; reliance upon the prayer of supplication; disregard
of the world; taking no anxious thought for the morrow ;
encouragement of poverty, and contempt of riches;
obedience to the law of the Old Testament; neglect of
home and families; non-resistance of evil; that persecution
in this world and punishment in some other would follow
the rejection of Christianity; and that sickness was caused
by the possession of devils. These are among the leading
“ principles ” taught by Christ; and, if they were acted
upon, there would be an end of all progress, harmony, and
self-reliance.
But even if the “general principles”
propounded by Jesus were good, that would not be enough
to make him the greatest reformer. It is necessary, in
addition to knowing what is to be done, to have the
knowledge of how it is to be done. And this is just what
Jesus has not taught us. Principles do not aid progress
unless they can be applied ; and, whatever value his
teachings may have as matters of belief, they are incapable
of application in the great cause of political and social
advancement in the nineteenth century.
�32
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Judged from the Secular standpoint, the real redeemers
of the world are those who study the great facts of
nature, learning her secrets, and revealing her power and
value to the human family. While Christ devoted himself
to the mysteries of theology, such reformers as Copernicus,
Galileo, Bruno, and subsequently Newton, Locke, Darwin,
and a host of other servants of humanity, endeavored
to the best of their ability to ascertain the truths of
existence, and to vindicate the principle of freedom.
Copernicus and his immediate successors redeemed the
world from errors which for ages had been nursed by the
Church; Locke based his philosophy upon knowledge, not
upon the faiths of theology; Newton contended that' the
universe was regulated by natural law, not by supernatural
power; and Darwin exploded the Bible error of creation.
These redeemers rescued mankind from the burden of
ignorance and superstition that had so long prevented the
recognition of truth and the advancement of knowledge.
Shakespeare contributed more to the enlightenment of the
human race than Christ was capable of doing; Darwin far
surpassed St. Paul in bringing to view the great forces of
nature, and the Freethought heroes and martyrs aided the
emancipation of intellect to a far higher degree than either
the “Carpenter of Nazareth ” or the whole of his followers.
The power that has enabled these secular redeemers of the
world to achieve their glorious results was found, not in
perplexing theologies, but in the principles of Science and
Liberty—the true saviors of men.
�
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
Was Christ a political and social reformer?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
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 (Was Christ a political and social reformer?), 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>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1572
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
Jesus Christ
politics
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c432adbe2d3f700aefabdf1bdfad61ed.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gaDaRpNyRoQ-afMbRHx-Dthilo7ocg1xw3dA7FytP5UyLk1Wn6uq35u1e7-lxczm1QkZYiGQOJipJVzelR%7EFCm8zkfW1SZReFBZYp8JaevASqnlnBIV4yfozJ-kk7zlFccBiB9BErdXkEMR7SWe1%7E3n6uk4F3flLuYuF1okRFuMG0-324t1r7VnSn0YWBjb8OqRrbzBW7h2ZwM1YpWWrh%7ETY7PHIz7vdoz402GUPd6kzDchz60fnGd4mBqjqH-frUuBWrqRANyv-dQ5zJrFEBZpV2NEf3o7oERN0gOgeBNMPDtcy7nqD8AKm7Gxw48EMmweBu6M%7EJRloJcZXiWj-Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
caaacea1e50e0d51952dc29edd4ea822
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
Tracts for inquirers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Dickson, William Edward
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 62 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Contents: 1. Reform. II. Reform Illusions. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Williams & Strahan, London. Date of publication from KVK. Appendix giving various statistics and figures.
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
[1867]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5206
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
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 (Tracts for inquirers), 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
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
politics
Social Reform-Great Britain-19th Century
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7ea436ee3f2fb8f63b975f07e3566c5c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RvJCOPCUg19K6GcZC9lDxLyOpMly32GoxvwO5jK9gxHotbLt1lN16%7ELOROVMcLWmCWkon1OBhHL8%7EKb4CeuhYlX1emsiWZWwYNbIshdTJlw43oo%7EW-Q9FY1EUMRs8GJmi30FVGqBuXla6b4gASykTEjlFou%7EUmSkeuxDaZ0amW66dR3DkARO9YcHMocNZq49rasFJTpVGfNbqRBR18jYNr5rPGDju1CrdJYNEN6%7E%7EdzLSEElH4o3GN7ko3NylXODy9DN4FH7IXPqLYEAt-WJqZwxeeQdaKrxj7%7EGvI5tEagdfcH3o845b8Tsk0YbPqRkTB8OzglAYxFmS0hyPt4vSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7c91220210f793ef6ab4658719265f9c
PDF Text
Text
THE
SOCIAL EECONSTRUCTION
I
OF ENGLAND.
BY
H.
M.
HYNDMAN,
Author of “ The Coming Revolution
Book
of
in
Democracy,”
England,” “ The Text
etc.
LONDON:
WILLIAM REEVES, 185, FLEET STREET, E.C..
Office of “ The Christian Socialist."
�Reprinted from the “ International Review.”
i1
�THE
SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF ENGLAND.
On a former occasion * I gave a sketch of the social and
political position in England at the present time, and briefly
showed how the movement now going on below the surface
has been led up to for the past hundred years. Such a sketch
was necessarily rough and superficial. Nevertheless, it made
plain that in England, the richest European country, the mass
of the workers are in a miserable condition of poverty, and
uncertainty, with no security for continuous employment, even
at the low rate of wages they receive—badly fed, badly clothed,
badly housed. As matters stand, indeed, the great body of
the people are shut out from controlling their own political
business, without even the satisfaction of knowing that the
classes which monopolize the whole power in the State will be
at the pains to care for the wellbeing of the wage slaves, to
whose labor they are indebted for the luxury and indolence
they enjoy. The wealthy lower orders are really quite indif
ferent to the problems of the society they control, so long as,
at the expense of a little cheap philanthropy, they can bribe
the workers not to change the system. What can you expect
of men who have no wider range than the discounting of three
months’ bills, the balancing of yearly accounts, or the acquisi
tion of gain by legalized fraud ? The only hope of general
and permanent improvement for the many is in a thorough
• “ The Coming Revolution in England.”—(Wm. Reeves, 185, Fleet
street, London, price 6d.)
�4
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
social reorganization, conducted, with vigor and intelligence by
the producing class themselves. The vast wealth which is
now piled up by their ceaseless exertions, the powerful ma
chinery which increases the productiveness of labor and cheap
ens commodities, become, under existing economical conditions,
the direct means for insuring the subjugation of the workers
to those who own that wealth and control that machinery.
The majority of Englishmen are literally enslaved for life to a
class of their countrymen by their own production itself. This
is true of all nations where the laborers work under the
control of capital; but here in England there is a greater con
centration of land, capital, and machinery in the hands of the
few than elsewhere, consequently, the natural bent of the
capitalist system is less checked or diverted by other causes.
Until this carapace of monopolies, which crushes down our
people, is owned by the State—which will then simply be the
organized capacity of the workers, for the benefit of all—no
great change for the better can be brought about in the lot of
those who labor.
Now this, I dare say, will sound to many abstract, utopian,
all in the air. I don’t think it will when I have done. In
America even, where there is much virgin soil still unoccupied,
and rich lands to be purchased at what seem to us preposte
rously low prices, I can observe that every day the class
struggle between the wage-earners and the capitalists is coming
closer and threatens to be most bitter. With Americans, as
with us, new questions are being forced forward, and people
feel that there is something below more serious than the wellworn shibboleths of Republican and Democrat. What we
English have to deal with is, at any rate, far more a social
than a political problem. Who is “ in” or who “ out” matters
not a straw to those who have learned to labor but cannot
afford much longer to wait. Politics are, after all, merely the
�OF ENGLAND.
5
outcome of the method of production below, and he who stops
to consider them alone gets a superficial view of modern society
indeed. For the worst of it is that while we are talking events
are moving. Yet another generation is growing up under the
deplorable oppression which every man who feels for the
misery of his fellows must hate and strive to remedy. Another
succession of destitute workers—men, women, children of
tender years—are even now stepping into the places of that
food for capital which has just been shot into the pauper
graveyard.
I need scarcely insist upon the difficulties we have to face.
That our social arrangements and our political constitution
are altogether behind the extraordinary development of our
industry and commerce none can fail to understand. But
assuredly there is no patent plaster for all economical diseases
—there is no sovereign remedy for the people’s evil which can
be administered with confidence as an infallible cure. No.
Society is the growth of endless ages of evolution and revolu
tion, in the same way as man himself. We ourselves are, of
course, the creatures of our surroundings and our education
from infancy to manhood.
*
The individual can to a small
extent, as most think, modify his own character. Society can,
to a much greater extent, change the surroundings of the
present and coming generations by fostering those elements
which tend to bring about a rapid change. First, therefore,
we must apprehend thoroughly the ills we suffer from and
their causes in order that, as the existing mischiefs are swept
away, we may offer no impediment to the growth of a new and
better state of things from below.
By education we are most misled.
We so believe, because we so were bred :
The priest continues what the nurse began;
And thus the child imposes on the man.
—Dryden.
�6
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
What we have to-day, I repeat, is a class which owns all
the means of production, including the land on the one side..
Those who belong to this class escape, as a body, without any
sort of manual labor, and live in luxury far in excess of what
is beneficial even to them. On the other side is a class utterly
destitute of the means of production. Those who belong to’
this class are, therefore, obliged to compete with one another,
in order to gain the scantiest livelihood, and sell their force of
labor for miserable wages to the capitalists, who “ exploit ” it.
Hence increasing wealth and deepening poverty, production for'
profit and not for use, recurring industrial crises consequent
upon the socialized system of production and the command by
the individual of the whole process of exchange. Authority
carried to its extreme limit in the factory, in the workshop, in
the mine or the farm: laissez-faire allowed full swing in almost
every other department' of civilized life. Thus the wealthy,
who take care to maintain the strictest discipline where their
own immediate gains are concerned, howl loudly, in concert
with their hangers-on, that freedom of contract is being out
raged when they in turn are called upon to submit to some
sort of regulation in the interests of the mass of mankind.
Between the two classes, the capitalists and the proletariat—
the workers, that is, who are absolutely without means of sub
sistence, and dependent on their weekly wages for bread—
there are several gradations; but the antagonism between
those who employ and those who provide the force of labor
which renders surplus value is becoming more pronounced
every day. Events are manifestly tending toward the forma
tion of a party of the people which shall be in opposition to
Tory and Whig, Conservative, Liberal, and Radical alike.
*
* Those who desire to comprehend thoroughly the problems of our
existing civilization should study the late Dr. Karl Marx s masterly
work on “Capital.” It is no easy reading; but no man competent to
form a judgment will, I venture to say, rise from its second or third
�OF ENGLAND.
7
Within the past few months there has been increasing
evidence of this, and a few instances will not be out of place.
The Trades-Union Congress, which met in 1882 at Manchester,
fully bore out my views with respect to the uselessness of
trades-unionism to the rank and file of labor, so far as the
original programme or the main discussions at the meeting are
considered. Such political proposals as were formulated might
very well have been laid down, and I dare say were laid down,
by the middle-class Liberal caucus which has its headquarters
at Birmingham. From all sides the capitalist press poured
forth its congratulations to the managers upon their “ modera
tion.” The secretary was accorded an unanimous vote of
confidence, because he had given place to young Lord Lymington on a bill before the House of Commons dealing with a
matter which was supposed specially to concern the workers.
A delegate who had gone to Manchester with the express
purpose of proposing a vote in favor of manhood suffrage found
so little encouragement among his fellow delegates that he
absolutely thought it better not to bring his motion forward
this year. Altogether anything but a democratic assembly
one must say. Yet here, in this atmosphere of doubt, feeble
ness and trimming, a great step in advance was made. When
it was suggested by a delegate that an examination should be
made into the titles of the handful of gentlemen who have
taken possession of the soil of England, Mr. H. W. Rowland,
secretary to the London Cabmen’s Society, a well known tradeunionist, but also a member of the Democratic Federation,
boldly brought forward a resolution to the effect that no
perusal without the conviction that he has been in contact with one of
the greatest thinkers of our own or of any other age. The name of
Karl Marx is so well known as that of an agitator and revolutionist
that his position as a philosopher is sometimes overlooked. Future
generations will do fuller justice to his extraordinary capacity, industry
and fearlessness than we of to-day.
�8
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
measure short of nationalization of the land could be accepted
as a settlement by the working classes of England. This
measure is naturally opposed, both by landlords who see in it
the utter destruction of their wealth and territorial influence,
and by capitalists who, secretly aspiring to be land owners,
*
support what they call “ free trade in land.” Nevertheless,
and in spite of the efforts of some of the principal organizers
of the congress, the motion was carried by forty-nine votes to*
twenty-nine.
Now, of course, I am well aware that nationalization of
the land by itself and without a complete reorganization of
production in all departments would benefit the workers little,
if at all. Still, it is no small thing that the idea of the pos
session of the land of England—land in country and land in
towns, mines, parks, mountains, moors—should be held by the
people, for the people collectively, to be used and developed
as they see fit to ordain—it is no small matter, I say, that
such a reform as this should find acceptance at a wavering
congress of “the aristocracy of labor” in place of the middle
class tinkering for individual advantage which has hitherto
been forced upon them. For such a vote means that at last
the people of England are awaking to the truth that landlords
and capitalists together have robbed them of their heritage of
freedom and well-being; means, too, that no mere vestry
plans for bolstering up the old cut-throat individualism will
much longer blind the workers to their true interests as a class.
“Each for himself, and the devil take the hindermost,” is a
* In 1879, when Mr. Adam Weiler, the London joiner, brought
forward a similar resolution, he could not even find a seconder. So
that democratic ideas do move in these days, the ridicule and sarcasm
of the capitalist press notwithstanding. I may add that the collectivist
view, as opposed to peasant-proprietorship, is spreading through the
Highlands of Scotland as the only thorough remedy for the existing
land system. It was in the Highlands that the Sutherland clearances
and other similar infamous evictions were perpetrated.
�OF ENGLAND.
9
splendid motto for the employing class. For the wage-earners
it means a never-ending and hopeless struggle to keep out of
the slough of pauperism and crime.
If, however, the trade-unionists have adopted nationaliza
tion of the land, the colliers are again claiming to limit pro
duction and to curtail the hours of labour to eight a day.
The determination to lessen the output of coal in the York
shire coal-field, which is really the chief point in dispute
between men and masters to-day, is in every way more
important than any struggle about wages ; for it involves not
merely the right to obtain increased pay, but the right to
control production itself. Here at once, the whole economical
difficulty is placed before us, if we choose to work it out.
Grant the miners the right to say how much coal shall or
shall not be brought to the pit’s mouth within a given period,
and clearly the puddlers have an equal right to determine
how much ore shall go into the smelting-furnace, the iron
workers the right to fix how many bars or plates shall leave
the forge, the cotton-spinners, as they have also contended,
how much yarn shall be delivered per week, and so on through
the whole long series of manufacturing operations. Well, it
may be asked, why should not those who make all the wealth
decide as to the amount of any special form of it they choose
to expend their labor upon ? I say nothing to the contrary.
Far from it, I desire to see the laborers acting in concert and
producing for the general good. But that any particular knot
of producers should be allowed the power to limit their own
production without agreement or concert with their fellows in
other branches of trade would manifestly but confound still
further the present economical confusion. In this case again,
therefore, the workers will be slowly driven to look upon the
interests of their class—skilled and unskilled laborers alike—
as a whole, seeing that the action of one portion by themselves
�10
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
may disorganize the entire fabric as completely as the strike
of one section of workers may compel a whole factory to stand
idle. A few years ago, the strike of the unskilled dock-laborers
at Liverpool caused a complete congestion of the trade of that
great port for three weeks, and a withdrawal of engine-drivers
and stokers would practically suspend, for a time at least, all
rapid communication. In this complicated society of ours thewhole is, as it were, at the mercy of its parts; but let those
parts once be thoroughly combined on an intelligent compre
hension of their own joint business, and we have opened
up a new industrial era to mankind.
While such ideas are abroad, and such partial combinationsare going on among the workers in active employment, a little
cloud has arisen in another quarter. How to deal with
paupers has always been a great difficulty. Clearly, it is hard
that men or women who have fallen into poverty from no
fault of their own should be treated as criminals, set to pick
oakum, forced to do disgusting or useless tasks, merely, to keep
a few from coming for the scanty workhouse food out of sheer
idleness. This has been the system hitherto. Now anotheris growing up under the control of well-intentioned men, who •
evidently do not see, or do not care for, either the immediate
or ultimate result of their policy. In several workhouses the ■
paupers are now being employed on the production of useful
articles, not merely for themselves or their fellow-inmates, but
for sale in the open market, the paupers who do the work
receiving a certain proportion of the money obtained, in
addition to their keep. Now this is, of course, a great boon
to the poor people who have been driven to accept ’charity,
but are glad to find that they are not wholly useless
to mankind. The change in the appearance of the men and
women thus employed, as compared to what they were with
nothing but hopelessness and a pauper’s grave before them, is-
�OF ENGLAND.
11
•described as surprising.
Excellent every way, no doubt.
But now look at this admirable experiment from the outside.
The goods which these State-supported workers produce have to
be sold in the open market. Whatever they fetch over and
; above the mere cost of the raw material and carriage is so
much clear gain to the rate-payers, who have to pay for the
maintenance of the paupers in any case. Consequently, the
workhouse goods can always be sold cheap. How, then, does
it fare with men or women engaged in the same business who
have to pay rent, get food, and provide themselves with
■ clothing, out of the profits of their own hand-made wares ?
Very badly, as I can testify. More than one trade has been
• completely ruined by this workhouse competition, and many of
those engaged in it driven into the ranks of the neediest class
themselves. Such is the irony of our present social system.
Not a bit worse, however, than when the introduction of a new
machine, which should result in increased wealth for all, fills a
■ capitalist’s pockets, and sends hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
skilled workmen out workless on the labor market as unskilled
hands. The very people who rightly contend that this organi. zation of labor in the workhouse is far better than the shame
ful criminal treatment hitherto in vogue, shriek Socialism,
• Communism, and begin to call names when it is suggested
that labor and production need organization even more outside
the workhouse, and that were such organization carried out
• on a thoroughly sound basis, not only able-bodied pauperism
but able-bodied sybaritism might be done away. But this
< competition now set on foot, if, as is quite possible, it is carried
into the domain of machine industry, will compel the working• classes to insist upon some general understanding with regard
to rate-supported laborers, and thus, perhaps, lead by anothei’
route to the same great end of social cooperation. Mean
while, the field of State employment is extending every day,
�12
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
though, as in the post office, the lowest possible wages are
paid, and a profit is secured wherever attainable.
What, however, are the transition-remedies, as we may
call them, which may serve to help on our society to a wider
and nobler development ? Extension of the suffrage to the
whole adult population—the direct control by the electors of
the entire political system—the abolition of the monarchy
and the House of Lords—the prevention of bribery and log
rolling—these and similar reforms, no matter how thorough,
do but give the machinery whereby the people of England
may at length become masters in their own house. Mere
forms of government, nevertheless, afford no guarantee for
social progress. France has universal suffrage, and theancient nobility has long been overthrown. Yet the plebisciteestablished the stock-jobbing Second Empire, and now the
French enjoy a republicanised empire, where the right of the
workers to combine is put down with a high hand, as in the
case of the strike of the miners at Grand’ Combe, and else
where. In Germany universal suffrage gives the people a,
sultan, a grand vizier, and an army of janissaries—what else
are the Emperor, Prince Bismark, and the Junkerdom at
their command?—while the chief cities of the empire are in a
state of siege. In free Switzerland, also, the middle-class^
dominate completely under republican forms. In America
itself the pressure of capitalists “ rings,” the undue power
exercised by plutocrats who but yesterday were unknown men,
and the insidious corruption which creeps through the whole
body politic, threatens grave danger to the great Republic of
the West. There is no security, then, for the social improve
*
ment of the people at large in any political forms, unless those
who use them are imbued beforehand with just ideas, and aredetermined to exercise their influence for the general benefit.
Necessary as it is to sweep away the monopoly of Parliament,
�OF ENGLAND.
13
which, now keeps the working-classes from having any control,
it is even more necessary that this should be done with a
definite idea of policy for the future.
Here, then, are some of the measures which would at least
tend to secure for the rising generation better conditions of
existence and a clearer view of their own future course under
our present capitalist domination:
First—Free education, compulsory upon all, together with
the provision of at least one good meal a day for the children
attending the public free schools.
*
Second—The compulsory erection by municipalities and
county boards of healthy, well-built dwellings, in proportion
to the numbers of the working population, with gardens or
playgrounds in the immediate neighbourhood—such dwellings
to be let at a price to cover the cost of construction alone.
Third—Eight hours or less to be established as the regular
working-day in all factories, mines and workshops, the labor
of women and children being strictly controlled. The same
regulation to apply to all other employes where continuous
labor is exacted.
Fourth—All squares or private grounds in the neighbour
hood of great cities to be held at the disposal of the com
munity, and thrown open for their benefit.
Fifth,—That the railway monopoly should be at once put
* There are few stories more disgraceful in the long infamous record
of class greed apd class robbery than the seizure by the upper and
middle classes of endowments given by wealthy men in the past to
insure free education for the poor. The children of these classes have
quite ousted the poor from the endowed schools, and there seems little
hope of any redress whatever by peaceable and legal means. The
classes which stand out against free education do not hesitate for
a moment to grasp free education for themselves whenever and whereever they can do so at the expense of others. Even the universities,
which should belong to the country at large, have been turned into
middle-class establishments. Here again, who is going to look out
for the rights of the people—save the people themselves ?
�14
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
an end to, either with or without compensation, as may seem
advisable, the railways thus acquired being used to give the
greatest possible advantages in cheap transport to all classes of
the community.
Such proposals would seem to need little advocacy. Yet
not a single one of them is now before our parliamentary
wiseacres, nor do the working-classes appear inclined to force
them upon their representatives, so hopeless do they seem.
Yet who can doubt that compulsory education, now en
forced by many, if not most, of the school boards, should be
free? It is to the advantage of all that none should
grow up ignorant. Though education by itself does not pro
vide better “ hands ” for the capitalist, and, as we see in
China, may not change social conditions, such education as
can now be given, coupled with the general advance in all
branches of social science around, could scarcely fail to increase
the knowledge of the workers, and at the same time to
strengthen their power of combination. Noble Robert Owen,
who, early in this century, showed us the right path towards
education and industrial organization for the young, never
dissociated his educational system from good food, constant
pleasure, or, later, from physical industry.
*
The authority
* Robert Owen was the father of the factory acts, the most benefi
cent measures ever carried in England. Yet he wras himself one of
the largest and most successful manufacturers. He was also the
leader of modern utopian socialism. Needless to say that, when he
tried to develop his theories on a large scale, he was ridiculed and
boycotted. A philanthropist, he might be : a socialist—oh, horror !
Here is a passage from one of the writings of this truly great man:
“ Since the discovery of the enormous, the incalculable, power to
supersede manual labor, to enable the human race to create wealth by
the aid of the sciences, it has been a gross mistake of the political
economists to make humanity into slaves to science instead of making,
as nature intends, sciences to be the slaves and servants of humanity.
And this sacrificing of human beings with such exquisite physical, in
tellectual, moral, spiritual and practical organs, faculties and powers,
so wondrously combined in each individual, to pins, needles, thread,
�OF ENGLAND.
15
which he exercised over both parents and children at New
Lanark, though at first met by opposition, was in a few years
recognized by the people themselves as the greatest boon.
Similar authority must be now used on an extended scale for
the benefit of the children of the people whose parents too
often, from poverty or other causes, neglect the welfare of
their offspring in their most important years of growth.
Good food in childhood is even more necessary than good
education. Nothing is more certain, also, than that children
brought up to work under favorable conditions do not revert
to idleness if they can possibly help it. Unfortunately, here
comes in the miserable jobbery of our middle-class system
often entailing downright cruelty and robbery of food. If,
however, the workers once understand that the schools are
their schools, that they really pay by their labor for the food
and education provided, they will soon find the means to have
their children properly taken care of and those who neglect
them punished. Already the board schools have produced a
great effect, and the new generation of workers, imperfect as
their education still is, will be able to take quite a different
view of life from their predecessors. Health and education
together will give a power of resistance which can scarcely
fail to be fatal to the class injustice they suffer from.
But, secondly, what is the use of giving education unless
the home conditions of the people are changed ? Here is a
point of the gravest moment. According to evidence collected
by the trade-unions, the working-classes pay from one-fourth
tape, etc., and to all such inanimate materials, exhibits at once the most
gross ignorance of the nature and true value of humanity, and of the
principles and practices required to form a prosperous, rational and
happy state of society, or the true existence of man upon earth.”
In another place he asks where the increased wealth produced by
his two thousand five hundred work-people—equal to the amount
which could have been produced by six hundred thousand a century
before—went to. They did not get it; that he saw clearly.
�16
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
to one-third of their small wages in the shape of rent. , They
are liable to be sold out of all they possess and evicted into the
street if behindhand with payment, and they absolutely have
not, as in the United States, any lien on their tools to enable
them to work, or on the results of their own labors for what
may be due to them in wages. The lodging of the poor in our
great cities is, as I have observed before, horribly bad, and
very dear. True, artisans’ dwellings acts have been passed
and philanthropists have tried to do something. But the acts
are under the management of town councillors, aidermen and
the rest of the middle-class functionaries, who, elected as they
are, never for a moment consider that the health and well
being of the people constitute the real strength of the nation;
and the philanthropists in this direction, as in others, are really
of very small account in comparison with the work that has to
be done. As a general result, therefore, the overcrowding is
increasing in all our great centres of industry, while the
working-classes who must live close to their work have to pay
exorbitant rents to the very vestrymen and employers who
own the tumble-down dwellings and manage the parish. What
likelihood is there that those who make large profits out of
bad, unsanitary house-property will set to work in earnest to
bring sound, wholesome dwellings into competition at low rents
with their high-priced ramshackle hovels? What factory
capitalist will forego the advantage of being able to evict his
work-people from the cottages he owns, should they dare to
strike, unless some more powerful body undertakes to do the
business for the good of all ? So things drag on. Improve
ment for the upper and middle class: yet more overcrowding,
degradation and misery for the producers of wealth. Compul
sion, nothing but compulsion, can induce our monopolists to
act. And yet the so-called working-class leaders advise their
misguided followers to dissociate the trade interests of their
�OF ENGLAND.
17
dass from any political action. We all know that a well-built,
wholesome dwelling is absolutely essential to health and decency.
How can a woman bring forth healthy children surrounded
by such sights and sounds and smells as are to be found in the
courts and alleys of our great industrial centres ? How can
the children themselves become valuable citizens under such
conditions ? In the country similar compulsion is needed from
the same causes. There is more air and perhaps more water,
but the sanitary arrangements are utterly abominable in many
cases, and the overcrowding goes on there too. Nevertheless,
I repeat, the idea of compulsion revolts the middle-class mind,
and the vested-interest-mongers so far have had it all their
own way.
*
But if free education and the provision of food for children,
the compulsory construction of sound dwellings which shall be
rented at cost, savors of socialism, what is to be said of an
eight-hours-act ? Sir Stafford Northcote, the leader of the
Conservative party, and Mr. Henry Fawcett, the principal
middle-class economist and Postmaster-General as well as a
Badical, have both recently declared that “ freedom of con
tract ” is too sacred to be tampered with. Fancy freedom of
contract between a pauper and a plutocrat; between starving
women and children and factory lords and “ sweaters ”! The
thing is absurd. Our system of contract actually excludes
freedom, and well our capitalists know it. Yet we have made
* It is nothing short of exasperating to read through the answers of
witnesses and the report of the recent committee on artisans’ dwellings.
All the evidence goes to show that a thorough change of system is
needed, but no suggestion do we find to the effect that such a change
should at once be made. Marvellous indeed is the patience of our
people, when crowded together in attics and cellars; they can see the
west end of London almost deserted for at least three months in the
year, and could learn easily that, cubic space for cubic space, their dens
are more highly rented than the most fashionably-placed houses of the
well-to-do. Supply and demand, how good is it.
�18
THE SOCIAL EECONSTRUCTION
some progress in the restriction of this illusory freedom, and
neither Conservative statesman nor Liberal economist dare
bring in a bill to repeal those factory acts which happily
interfered with the excessive overwork of women and children
for the profit of the capitalist. Limit the hours still further
to eight hours a day, would not the women and children be
the better for it ? Yet if women and children are to work but
eight hours a day the work of the men stops too, so completely
is the whole of the great machine-industry dovetailed together.
Who will contend that eight hours’ work a day in the factory,,
in the mine, in the workshop, in the sweater’s den, is not
enough for any man or woman ? A horse can barely work
eight hours a day on the average of his strength. But the
difficulty is to prevent even the existing acts from being over
ridden. There are not nearly enough factory inspectors to
keep the capitalist class within the limits of the law. But
when Sir William Harcourt, the Home Secretary, was asked
not long since to appoint some more, he replied that any
addition to the number would be too expensive. Once more
the money interests of the few outweigh, with both the existing
parties, the life-and-death interests of the many.
To assume that railways and railway directors will ever be
controlled by the existing Parliament would seem to all who
know the strength of the railway interest in the House of
Commons a foolish assumption indeed. Our railway magnates
are almost as powerful as American Jay Goulds and Vander
bilts. They work their men such long hours in the signal
boxes, on the engines and at the points, that accidents fre
quently occur from this cause alone. The injurious monopolies
they have been granted by landlords and capitalists are sup
posed by them to be permanently valid against the whole
country. So long as debenture-holders and stockholders are
satisfied, what have the public to do with their business ?
�OF ENGLAND.
19
Such is the tone of the railway directors ; and Parliament, as
at present constituted, is merely a huge board for the protec
tion of vested interests.
The opening of squares and private parks to the inhabitants
of large cities is a much smaller matter than the others. But
here again the antagonism of class interests, the sharp social
separation, make themselves felt. Though the children of the
poor have nowhere but the crowded, airless thoroughfares to
play in, what right have they to intrude on the premises of the
wealthy ? A few running-over cases weekly cannot possibly
be pleaded as an excuse for bringing these unwashed youngsters
between the wind and our gentility. Well may nationalization
of the land, whether with or without compensation, seem
downright robbery to people who resolutely oppose a simple
reform like this.
Thus, even with regard to such measures as those mentioned
above, which only tend to improve the health, morals, educa
tion and general welfare of the nation as a whole, we are met
at once with a dead, dogged, brutal resistance by the classes
which live on the labors of others—a resistance, as I believe,
only to be overcome by force, or the threat of force, on the
part of the wage-earning class. Justice has too long been
appealed for in vain. Yet not one of these measures goes to
the root of the social difficulty of the time. They are all, as I
have called them, mere transition-remedies for some portion of
the misery which now we see. Can we wonder, then, that
daily, in England, the numbers of those are increasing who
hold that what we need is a thorough, organized movement
for the overthrow of a social system which enables the rich to
obstruct every reform that can really improve the lot of the
poor ? Is it any matter for astonishment that when admittedly
“ practical ” measures are postponed sine die, those who suffer
begin to consider what effect a thorough theoretical reconstruc
�20
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
tion might have on their condition ? Perhaps, after all, this
is one of the cases in which the whole is more easy to get than
the half.
Some there are, however, who contend that the workers
have themselves to thank for the hopeless state in which too
many of them are sunk. Their theory is that the poverty of
the great majority, in comparison with the vast wealth around
them is due to drunkenness, extravagance, want of thrift.
Who can deny that drunkenness exists ? But to what is it
due ? When I look around me at the social conditions in
which the workers live, when I take account of the fact that
there are so few opportunities afforded them for healthful
pleasure, when I note that the public-houses—there are far
too many of them, no doubt—are the only places where work
men can conveniently meet their fellows, I wonder that, as a
whole, the very poor should be as temperate, as saving, as
quiet, as contented, as they are. Misery drives to gin, as well
as gin to misery. And what are the figures? What is there
to show that the upper, the middle, the shop-keeping class, do
not drink quite as freely, and more expensive drinks in propor
tion to their means, than those who are directly laboring with
their hands ? There is no trustworthy evidence on this point
at all. But the temperance cry—good enough in itself, to a
certain length, at any rate, for all classes—serves the purpose
of the capitalist class to divert attention from the real causes
of the whole social depression which engenders the drunken
ness, the misery, the pauperism that they so hypocritically
deplore.
Take a hundred children at random from the middle class,
belonging to staunch members of the Blue Ribbon or Salvation
Army, and plant them from infancy in the miserable dwellings
which are inhabited by the very poor ; let them imbibe a little
gin with their earliest pap, hear oaths from their childhood,
�OF ENGLAND.
2X
and witness scenes of vice, or even crime, as they enter on
mature years. Will not a large percentage of them turn out
drunken, dissolute and worthless, be their parentage ever so
respectable, the sobriety of their whole kith and kin beyond
dispute ? Of course we know it would be so, and education
*
might do but little to mitigate the effect of this early training.Reverse the process, and take a hundred babes of the poor'
into such households as might be readily found for them, take *
care that they were surrounded by kindness, purity and plenty
of food for the asking, is it not certain that but a small per
centage would have a tendency toward what is bad, until
driven, perhaps, to desperation at a later period by the long,,
hopeless resistance to economical pressure which forces them
into the ranks of the needy and desperate ? To lecture and
denounce the drunken and extravagant, while maintaining as
beneficent, the system which is opposed to the best interests of
mankind at large, is to mistake the effect for the cause, is to
try to perpetuate the very mischiefs which we are endeavouring
to uproot. Much of the very drunkenness we witness is due
to the vile, adulterated drinks which are sold. But the brewers
and gin-distillers are the pillars of the State. Philanthropists
and members of Parliament, how shall they be effectively
assailed ? The publicans whom they employ but follow humbly
in their wake. The truth is, that though it may be advisable
to restrain the sale of intoxicating liquors (and the fanatics of
temperance are in their * ay doing some good), the social
w
arrangements themselves are really in fault, and drunkenness,like vagrancy, is due to social blundering.
Thrift, again, though good in itself, does but strengthen the
domination of the capitalists under our present system ; for the
savings of the workmen go into the general banking business,
and the workers, for the sake of a trifling pecuniary interest,
lose sight of the far more important interests of their class as a
�52
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
whole. The ^same objection applies to cooperation among
knots of workers. Those who take shares earn a profit which
they divide, thus becoming at once not mere benefactors of
^themselves and their families, but copartners with the men
who live upon the unpaid labor of their class. None can regret
the defects of the workers more than those who are striving
for a complete reorganization of society. If they were all
/temperate, thrifty, ready to combine, democrats would stand a
:far better chance of organizing side by side with them the great
■class struggle of the near future to certain and rapid victory
ffor the laborers. The hungry and the drunken, the dissipated
-and the brutal, may make riots and rebellions, but a class
^revolution, with a definite constructive programme, is far
beyond their grasp. For this reason, if for no other, any
attempt which may be made to reduce the standard of comfort
-should be vigorously resisted.
Before, however, the people as a whole can thorougly
'Organize their national production, or make common cause
with their class in other countries, they must clearly under
stand, in some degree at least, the history of the economical
-development which has brought about their present condition.
This is, unluckily, no easy matter even for the educated.
.Middle-class economists have succeeded in so thoroughly con
fusing men’s minds that it needs some effort to throw aside
their jargon, and to look upon events as they really have
happened and do now take place. According to them our
present form of production and exchange has been practically
the same throughout the ages, and society at all times may be
measured by the same standard. The difference, according to
them, is in size only, not in kind or degree. This is the exact
sreverse of the truth, though doubtless our whole civilization is
the result • of one long, continuous development, and portions of
■ our present growth may be traced into remote antiquity, side
�OF ENGLAND.
23
by side with very different social conditions—just as our great
machine-industries are contemporaneous with the miserableAustralian nomad, the American Red Indian, with village
communities in Asia, or feudalism in Japan. Historically
viewed, nevertheless, our existing system differs fundamentally
from any which has gone before.
England, for instance, during the Middle Ages presented a
very different appearance from the England which now we see..
That age of chivalry about which Burke grew so eloquent,.,
when it served his turn to denounce the principles he had
previously championed, formed a strange contrast to oursociety of to-day. But in no respect was the contrast greater
than in the manner in which what was needed for the purposes
of every-day life was produced and exchanged. The relationsbetween the various grades in that feudal society and theindividuals who composed them were purely personal. Pay
ments were made in kind, service was rendered on one side or
the other in accordance with personal obligation ; production
was carried on, in the first instance, at any rate, for individual,
use. A certain proportion of the crops was surrendered by the
agriculturists, not as rent, but as dues; not as a rate, but as a
tithe to be applied to purposes and arrangements which were
well understood by both parties. The nobles owed the same
allegiance to their superior, or monarch, that their own peopleowed to them. There were plenty of grievances, and we had
risings in England similar to those of the Jacquerie in France,,
though hitherto our historians have been at little pains to
work out the true character and details of these movements.
In the fifteenth century villenage and serfdom had come toan end, and the soil of England was in the hands of the
people themselves, subject only to the recognized dues orregular service in the field. The nobles were no more owners
of the land than the people or the monarch. Each class had).
�^4
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
its rights, subject to the performance of certain duties, which
were, as already said, purely of a personal character. At this
time the instruments of agricultural labor or of manufacture
were poor and rude, suited to the wants of the isolated
workers. The yeomen and life-holders produced for the needs
of their wives, children, families, and hinds. Those hinds
were themselves possessed of plots of ground. Day-laborers
formed a small, an unimportant, part of the population. The
cattle, sheep, pigs, geese, etc., all that made up the agricul
turist’s wealth, represented to him not goods which we should
sell and make a profit from, but actual substance which enabled
him and his to live in comfort or in rude luxury. The women,
the wife, the daughters, the hand-maidens, spun the wool of
the farm, or attempted rude embroidery in the same way for
.use or personal adornment; exchange was not thought of
until the wants of those around were satisfied, and only the
superfluity was actually brought to market. Everybody, or
almost everybody, in the poorer class owned his own means
of production, and the spinning-wheel of the matron, the
potter’s wheel, the rough smithy, the still rougher cobbler’s
shop, formed the manufacturing portion of this rural com
munity. Production for general exchange was almost un. known, each neighbourhood supplying most of its own wants.
In the towns exchange had already become more common,
but it was in no sense an exclusive business here as it had
. already become in Venice or Genoa, where also the first
. modern manufacture in its more extended sense found a footing.
This happy state of things for the many—happy it was
. according to old chroniclers—could not be of long duration.
. Already business for profit had obtained a footing, and goods
were being produced with a view to their exchange. The
middle-class had begun to gain ground, and soon became
- strong enough to obtain those laws against laborers some of
�OF ENGLAND.
25'
which have lasted to our own day. Meanwhile, the Wars of
the Roses impoverished the nobility, leading them not only to
discharge their retainers, but also to uproot from the soil those
who had a better right to it than they, in order that wool
might be grown for the increasing Flanders market. Through
out the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the process of
tearing off the hold of Englishmen from their own land went
on, while the needy peasants who were thus turned loose on
to the highways were forced by law into the control of themiddle-class, now possessed of the means of production and'
developing the system of small workshop manufacture. From
this to the preponderance of the capitalist farmer, growing
crops and cattle for profit on the land, and of the capitalist
over the whole domain of production and exchange, was an
inevitable transition. The landlord lost all sense of personal
connection with his people or their lands. He became merely
a sleeping partner with the farmer, the coal capitalist, the'
factory-owner in the exploitation of the agricultural laborer,
the miner, the factory-hand. Thenceforward the capitalist
has been the master of our modern society, production has
been carried on solely with a view to profit by exchange, the
workers have been regarded simply as ‘‘hands,” to be used to
the greatest possible extent for the enrichment of the capita
list. He, therefore, who, in England at any rate, strikes
merely at the landlords or the land monopolists tilts at wind
*
mills.
The private ownership of land was as inevitable a.
* In Ireland, of course, circumstances are different. There the
landlord has in most cases rack-rented the cotters direct. But peasant
proprietary under present conditions would only strengthen the gom
been men and small money-lenders. All over Europe and in India the
money-lender, in the shape of the Jew, the Soucar or the mortgage
bank is pressing upon the agriculturist. Even where the land is
“nationalized,” as over the greater part of India, the same blood
sucking capitalism goes on. The crops are mortgaged instead of the-
�26
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
portion of the evolution as the private ownership of the other
means of production up to a^d including the most complete
improved machinery, whether for agriculture or manufacture.
Control capital, and landlordism falls of itself; break down
landlordism, capital may be yet more powerful.
The effect of this development has necessarily been to
render the workers more and more the slaves of their own
production. First came the cooperative workshop where the
individual workman did his bit in forming a complete article,
only useful according to the social conditions of the times
when put together. This is the system which Adam Smith
has so glorified, though its result manifestly is to make the
worker “ a portion of a machine of which the parts are men.”
The employer sat by and took the product of the labor, for
which he paid only a small proportion of its real social value.
Here, at once, was a complete change of method. In place
-of the isolated worker owning his own means of production,
and owning also the product when complete, we have the
socialized worker who owns nothing but his bare force of labor
which is used in concert with others ; the entire product
belonging to the employer. As the cooperation extended
machines came in. These, too, naturally passed into the
possession of the capitalist. Steam motive-power followed
the same direction
*
The workers now no longer serve or
help one another as individuals; they themselves simply serve
land. Thus, as I say, nationalization of the land can only bs useful
to the people as a portion of a complete collective system of pro
duction which will include capital, communication, credit, and
machinery.
• The history of the extraordinary industrial development of Eng
land, from Hargreaves’ invention of the spinning jenny in 1764 on
wards, has to be yet fully written. Its effect upon the physical con
dition of the working classes may be studied in the terrible evidence
and reports of the various commissions as well as in those of the health
officers and factory inspectors.
�OF ENGLAND.
27
the machine through which they embody their force of labor’
in the commodity produced.
Now suppose a new machine invented which lessens theamount of labor, and therefore cheapens the goods. How'
does it work under our present system. The capitalist com
petes by reducing prices. His object is to undersell his fellows
as quickly as possible, but always at a profit to himself. Tcp
do this he must get a wider market and sell cheap too. Con
sequently goods are produced at high pressure until there
comes a glut, and the industrial army of reserve is increased
by the forced idleness of men who cannot sell their labor, owingto the introduction of new machines and the refusal of capital
to produce except at a profit. But there can be no profit
where there is a glut. Thence an industrial crisis, owing tothe fact that the socialized method of production revolts against
the individual system of exchange, to the injury of all.
“ Then follows a partial recognition of the social character
of production by the capitalists themselves; the great engines
of production, and the great highways of the country are taken
possession of, first by companies with many shareholders, then
by the State.” *
Thus, as the feudal nobility lost power by the very methodsthey used to strengthen and enrich themselves, so the middle
class is being in turn displaced by salaried officials, and in the
next stage of the organization of production will themselves be
useless.
What a waste of strength, then, it is for the workers tn
expend their funds in maintaining men on strike for higher
wages. Why, it is the wages system itself that crushes them,
and never will they, as a class, know what true freedom and
real independence are until they break it down. Let the
workers spend what money they can afford in obtaining control
* F. Engels.
�'28
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
•of political power for their class, and use this power, when
obtained, to take possession of the entire means of production.
This would benefit, not themselves alone, but even the idlers
and the vicious who now live upon their labor.
Can anything possibly be worse than the existing system ?
We have seen its effects upon the workers in the country
'where capital has most power. For them any change must be
beneficial. Necessary as this stage may be in the process of
human development, capital contrives to exact more labor,
..and to brutify the lowest grades of the population more com
pletely than any method of forced work known. But what is
the result to the soil, to our cities, to our general surroundings ?
England is now supplied with food and raw material from
•other countries; draws from them interest on capital lent. In
America wheat centre after wheat centre is worked to sterility
while we sweep the phosphates down into the sea which might
■fertilize our impoverished lands. In Australia the like process
is going on, to the permanent injury of the Continent. In
India—but the ruin of India by our capitalist system is an
.awful lesson by itself. Meanwhile, everywhere forests which
perhaps can never be replaced are cut down for fuel, for
sleepers, for timbering mines, regardless of the mischief
wrought to the climate and the next generation. Everywhere
the same rampant individualism, utterly indifferent to the
general good; everywhere the same furious greed for gain,
reckless of what may befall. And what of our cities ? Men
of artistic training see no hope of great art under our present
.social arrangements. Such a man as William Morris, the poet,
is driven to look below for some remedy for the hideousness
thrust upon him, as democrats are driven to look below for the
means of overthrowing the social miseries due to our system of
production. Monstrous factories and squalid hovels, blank, fea
tureless houses, and ghastly advertisements, elevated railroads
�OF ENGLAND.
29
and a net-work of telegraph, poles, such are the decorations of
our cities; one long vista of almost irredeemable ugliness, in
which each can vie with his neighbor in parading his indivi
duality in order that he may sell at a profit. Scamped build
ings, adulteration in every form, cheapness and nastiness and
ugliness in every direction.
*
And all for what ? All in order
that the few may live in luxury and the many exist as we
know. The loss to society by the mere cramping of human
intelligence cannot be estimated. What sense of beauty,
what exquisite artistic faculties, what power of invention may
not lie dormant in millions who may now have not a moment
left free from grinding and degrading toil ? The greatest dis
coveries and the noblest inventions have never been made for
gain. A Faraday, a Simpson, a Newton scorns to trade upon
the welfare of the mass of mankind. How many a great idea,
turned to account in hard cash by the capitalist, has been, as
it is, stolen from the poor enthusiast who worked for some
thing higher than mere greed.
* “ Why are cotton, potatoes, and gin the pivots of bourgeois so
ciety ? Because they need least labor to provide them, and they are
consequently at the lowest price.
“ Why does the minimum price decide the maximum consumption ?
Is it because of the absolute utility of these articles, of their intrinsic
utility, of their utility so far as they answer in the most useful manner
to the needs of the workman as man, and not of the man as workman ?
No, it is because, in a society founded on misery, the most miserable
products have the fatal prerogative of serving for the use of the greatest
number.
“ To say now that because things the least costly are most used
therefore they must be of greatest utility, is to state that the wide
spread use of gin, in consequence of the small cost of production, is the
-conclusive proof of its usefulness; it is to declare the potato to be as
nourishing to the working classes as meat; it is to accept the existing
state of things.
“ In the society of the future, when the antagonism of classes has
ceased, when there are no more classes, use will no longer be deter
mined by the minimum time of production ; but the time of production
devoted to an article will be determined by its utility.”—Karl Marx,
-Misere de la Philosopliie, p. 41.
�30
THE SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF ENGLAND.
But whether we like it or not, whether we try to help it on
or not, whether we shall live to see its victory or not, the
movement of the people goes steadily on all the same.
*
The
antagonism of classes is becoming too serious to be concealed
any longer. In England, where the causes of hostility are
deepest, the attempt at reorganization must first be made.
This is the revolution which, sooner or later, we have all of us
to face. That it may be brought about in a peaceful and
orderly manner every Englishman must hope ; that the domi
nant classes will be wise in time is the best that can be desired
for them. But the time is fast approaching when every man
must take his side, and strive for slavery with the landlord and
the capitalist, or for freedom with the people.
* Vous triompherez des tempetes
Ou notre courage expira ;
C’est en eclatant sur nos tetes
Que la foudre vous eclaira.
Si le Dieu qui vous aime
Crut devoir nous punir
Pour vous sa main resseme
Les champs de l’avenir.
It was this idea of Beranger’s I tried to express at one of our
great anti-coercion meetings in Hyde Park : “ And so, when we, the
small men of our time, pass unregarded to the rest of the tomb, this
holy consolation shall close our eyelids in their never-ending sleep—
that though our names be forgotten our memories will be ever green
in the work that we have done, and the eternal justice we have striven
for.”
��
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 social reconstruction of England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hyndman, Henry Mayers [1842-1921]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the "International Review". Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William Reeves
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1884?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T407
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
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 social reconstruction of England), 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
politics
Social change
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b579f14346fc93a8943c01306e7408a2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Gf6JLSdcVM-8vmzYBKkSTlEJ3HNoOivqo-l4cqSsLgqSMInwDxuHwHioAuh-7UX5s9HRFgt4zGjm6C47lRCGNaYA-6d6IOG%7EACp5VU0pOkkTOQjbrNiGgpd3fuBoIhXwT5ZjiWu4whOPKeh2Jd5dod6pT%7EijznrVk-qQ6JQ9iEq2wteDftyZUuNNFtx%7Evw1%7EvPW0PP5S1FtHJa7CdrIdEO3VMZSNbTnzgy42bXZ0e6HcCjhGhnSL45VuUSGQQipLS7gHfXJq9XdPva8g83PSVpLJzeH4wWNXR25CjrwOSQFyukQeODWuCz3wh8t0yTmd9uc922dds7zm4MBHsdozcA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0787ccf9e1ed5234467698658b965be8
PDF Text
Text
��������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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 political situation: an address delivered to a meeting of working men. August 24, 1868
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Guedalla, Joseph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Adhesive tape marks on first two pages. Joseph Guedalla was Vice-President of the Reform League. Printed by Judd and Glass, Phoenix Printing Works. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5204
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Socialism
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 political situation: an address delivered to a meeting of working men. August 24, 1868), 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
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
politics
Working Class-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7e25ead73e9ba53be892fa5398f957f4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hvdd7J%7E9Ju2y3Qdsg8-wqGSS2NsIepbVhXVAAl3evIULNhog--vR62IoVk2zLcrD3T7XvEgXvEwqDRBUgJYyL2Z-pviRIiKULz5-9K8rxuP3-OHbCaj5bpk5lrQ235LquMz9VGHwmUPUfIQnB77cYz38r-qMD6Vemxk56-QgGNBKNiiN1JYF-CATQ8BbnxeWm8WofxjnRMC%7Eer1COJvsUIYxMayc0KL7BzzftjoVTZvNbjJLDAdvcayMhqXk0A9ecvplRJV5yefZc76BGyUQ9ph1vaxQavr4uJtFamA5RoOdwQVMkP7WhTlDbglwlQc9NEVO07BKDadfh0NJX9pCXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1b7cd5a4b6b865a1ccb1df3f0ac27eef
PDF Text
Text
THE BOOK
FOR THE NATION
AND
THE TIMES.
BY
A CITIZEN U.S.N.A.
PHILADELPHIA:
WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN,
No. 606 Chestnut Stheet.
1864.
�Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1864,
By WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN,
In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States, in
and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Stereotyped by a New Process, at Martien’s Foundry,
No. 21 South 7th street, Philadelphia.
�TO THE PEOPLE
the Bnited states;
FROM MAINE TO TEXAS,
AND FROM OREGON TO FLORIDA;
OUR
GREAT
ONE
AND
AND
FREE REPUBLIC
INDIVISIBLE:
HOPING THEY MAY TEND
TO ITS STRENGTH AND STABILITY,
THESE PAGES
.
ARE AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED,
BY THE AUTHOR,
��THE BOOK FOB THE NATION.
Stop! my fellow-citizens, stop! Why be carried head
long, we know not whither, by the rapid current of these
excited times? Stop! and let us reason together. You
love your country, and fondly desire for it, honor, great
ness, and prosperity. But is it not for us to make it
honorable, great and prosperous? How can we expect it
to be such, unless we make it such? What do we need,
then, in order to be great and happy as a nation? Only one
thing; and that one thing is Goodness. All know that
we can never be truly great, without being good. With
out goodness, there may seem to be greatness for a time;
but the evil day is sure to come. Goodness is the very
soul and vitality of greatness, and of happiness. God is
infinitely great and happy, because he is infinitely good.
Let us, as a nation, be like him in the one respect, and
we shall be like him in the other. He is the fountain,
and the model, of all that is truly great and good; and
let it be our aim and ambition, to bring up our national
character to the resemblance of that exalted model.
Are we not a Christian people? We surely believe in
God. We believe that he is, and that he is our Sove
(5)
�6
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
reign Ruler. We believe that he is good, and that we
ought to be like him, and to seek his favor. But if we
refuse to listen to his voice, how can we be or do either?
If we refuse to be guided by his counsel, how can we be
like him, or he be pleased with us? To have our nation
conformed to him, and pleasing in his sight, it must be
our effort to mould it by his will. And now, when our
nation is heaving and shaking, and passing through this
great revolution, let us stop and consider what is the
matter; and what it really needs, in order to make it, in
all time to come, both prosperous and secure. If we love
our country, and would have it redeemed from all its
evils, how can we refuse to do this ? And if we love our
country, and desire its redemption, and enduring exalta
tion, how can we refuse the application to it, of those
principles of divine, eternal truth, without which every
nation must eventually totter and fall. “ For the nation
and kingdom, that will not serve the cause of right
eousness, shall perish.”—The mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it.
It is not for an avowedly Christian people, to turn
away from the subject with the impression that it is
merely religious; nor is it by any means such. Allimportant state matters are involved; matters compre
hending the best and dearest interests of the nation.
True, indeed, the subject embraces our duty to God, as a
nation, and has, therefore, its religious aspect; but has
none the less its political aspect also. Nor should any
be alarmed about a blending together of religion and
politics; as any such alarm would be quite irrational.
Because, without a constant blending of politics and reli
gion, it is utterly impossible for national duties to be dis-
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
7
charged. All duties owing to civil society are twofold in
their nature. Divine claims are involved, as well as human;
and their discharge is, therefore, a religious duty. In its
nature, the oath administered in our courts of justice, is
a solemn act of religious worship. Rendering obedience
to civil authority has its religious aspect, because God
requires it. And so also has the administration of civil
government; for it is his ordinance, and its officers are
the “ministers of God.” The notion of keeping separate
politics and religion, is silly and absurd; it is worse, for
it is wicked. Religion ought to be blended with politics
always and everywhere. That is, all state matters ought
to be leavened with religion, but religion ought never to
be leavened with politics. Men ought to be influenced,
not by sectarianism, which is not religion, but by “pure
and undefiled religion,” in all their management of state
affairs. The spirit and principles of this religion ought
to be carried everywhere, and men be ruled by them,
whatever they do, in their politics, as in all things else.
It is not at all improbable, that the effort to separate
religion from politics, has been in no small measure the
bane of our nation. If men lay aside their religion, and
disregard its claims, when engaged in politics, how can
they prosper? To suppose they could, would be absurd.
And a nation or people who attempt to do it, will be sure
to find out that there is something seriously wrong; and
they may have to pass through many calamities, before
they attain to a knowledge of the truth.
Our nation is now suffering under very serious afflic
tions. And at such a time as this, it would certainly be
proper in the people to earnestly inquire, why it is that
we are in this sad condition. When a people, in the
�8
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
midst of their calamities, remain stolid and indifferent,
careless about their cause, it indicates a reckless and
abandoned condition of society; and that their calamities
are not likely soon to cease, nor they themselves to be
much improved by what is passing over them. It would,
indeed, be indicative of a people not worthy of continu
ance as a nation, but destined speedily to become extinct.
Better things we hope, however, are in store for our
nation. We may fondly hope, that our end is not
approaching; that we are not to perish quite so abruptly.
We do not suppose that the mission, for which the great
Ruler raised up the nation, has yet been accomplished.
He raised it up for some great and good purpose, and
that purpose has^not yet been fully attained. We doubt
not the design was, that this land should be a land of
liberty, an asylum for the oppressed, a home for the
downtrodden of other lands. And such in some respects
it has hitherto been; and such in every respect, it has
yet to become, by the purpose and providence of God.
We look forward to the time when, as a nation, we shall
be exalted by righteousness, and be that “ happy people,
whose God is the Lord.” For this end we hope he is
now dealing with us, to make us such as he will approve
and bless, and perpetuate for good.
That the Almighty Ruler of nations hath a contro
versy with us, there are but few, we presume, who will
venture to deny. These great and sore calamities, which
have befallen the nation, are not the result of chance:
they are brought upon the land by the overruling provi
dence of God. We are assured by unerring authority,
that even a “sparrow cannot fall to the ground without”
his direction; and much less can a nation be convulsed,
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
9
as is ours, without his immediate control. We are
inured, too, that there is no evil with which men are
visited, but is sent of God. Amos iii. 6: “Shall there
be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” What
ever evil befalls a city or nation, the Lord sends it upon
that city or nation. The import of the whole Word of
God plainly is, that the Lord is the disposer of all the
affairs of both individuals and nations; and that the
calamities which befall either, are his visitations on
account of their sins—either for their punishment merely,
or else for both punishment and reformation. The same
infallible authority teaches also, that the Lord never
sends calamities upon nations, when they are innocent.
To suppose him doing so, would be utterly derogatory to
his righteous character. “ Will not the Judge of all the
earth do right?” So saith the Bible. And for him to
punish a nation, not for its sins, but while it is innocent,
just for its improvement, would be far from right. There
must be guilt, either by transgression or imputation, else
the infliction of punishment would be utterly unjust—
incompatible with all sense of right.
The doctrine has been advanced that the Lord is chas
tising us, not for our iniquity, but merely for our improve
ment, so as to fit us for a more exalted and useful position
among the nations. Those who do not see our national
sins, and yet believe in the overruling providence of God,
are necessarily forced into some such unscriptural posi
tion. Admitting that afflictions from God are upon us,
and not being able to see our ill-desert, it must be
assumed that he afflicts us merely for our good, and not
at all in the way of punishment. And men, by refusing
to see our national sins, may at length become quite
�10
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
unable to see them. A man, who persists for a long time
in keeping his eyes closed and refuses to see, may at
length have his sight so impaired that he cannot see.
And a man, who habitually, for a long time, closes his
eyes to the sins of the nation, may become so blind to
them, that he cannot discern them at all. And then,
when national judgments come, he cannot, of course,
understand the cause, and is ready to invent some theory,
even though it should be inconsistent with the Word of
God. But taking that Word for our all-sufficient and
infallible guide, we cannot hesitate to believe, that the
Lord never sends calamities upon innocent nations—never
afflicts but when they are guilty; though he may design
not merely punishment, but improvement also. And in
our present national calamities, we apprehend that both
punishment and improvement are his design—to bring us
to a knowledge of our sins, so as to confess and forsake
them, and thus turn to him, that He may turn to us, with
deliverance and abiding favor.
To be made sensible of our sins is what we, as a nation,
especially require, in order to realize that the hand of the
Lord is stretched forth against us in these calamities.
Indeed, these themselves might be sufficient to force con
viction upon every mind, that we have sinned against
Heaven, and in an aggravated manner, else, in the provi
dence of God, we should not be visited with such terrible
judgments.
By the pen of inspiration we have upon record, “ for
our learning,” the Lord’s dealings with a single nation.
And the whole history of that Israelitish nation proves
most clearly, that national calamities are the punishment
of national sins; and, also, that national repentance and
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
11
reformation are sure to be met by the returning favor of
the Lord, granting deliverance and peace. And from
Israel’s history, the great practical lesson to be impressed
upon all nations, in their calamities, is embodied in the
words—“ Come, and let us return unto the Lord ; for he
hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he
will bind us up.”—Hos. vi. 1. Whenever we, as a peo
ple, are brought to use this language in sincerity, it will
then be well with us; it expresses so fully that state of
feeling which is appropriate to a suffering nation. There
is the acknowledgment that the Lord has been forgotten,
and hence his claims and counsels disregarded; and that
their calamities are the inflictions of his hand: and also a
purpose to return to Him, with a recognition of his mer
ciful character—that he will pardon and bless all who
repent and obey. But evidently it is impossible for us to
be brought to a sincere use of this language, unless we
are led to understand our national sins. And our wish is
to aid in the acquisition of this indispensable knowledge.
While attempting to set forth the cause of the Lord’s
displeasure against us, it is the intention to speak of, not
individual, but national sins—the sins of the people, in
their national capacity. There are individual acts, and
there are national acts; there are individual sins, and
there are national sins. And both individual and national
sins may go to make up the guilt of a nation. Nor need
it be doubted that both have contributed to make up the
guilt of our own. National sins are those committed by
the people, in the transacting of national business; such
as adopting constitutions—voting for officers of govern
ment, whether high or low—enacting laws—interpreting
and executing laws. All such acts are national, because
�12
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
performed in the transaction of national affairs. And all
sins committed in these and such relations, are national
sins. Nor can we doubt that many and great sins have
been committed in all departments, in the management of
our national affairs; even from the laying the foundation
of our national system, and during the direction and
management of it ever since. We have sinned in the
adoption of our Constitution—we sin in appointing our
rulers—in the enactment of our laws—in our judicial
decisions—and also in the executing of our laws. But
the primary and radical sin is, no doubt, found in our
Constitution; and lays a foundation for the easy and
ready commission of all the others.
It will be the part of wisdom, then, honestly, consci
entiously, and in the light of divine truth, to examine
into the nature of this Constitutional and radical sin,
which doubtless entails upon us many others, and leaves
us so much exposed to the Divine displeasure. And if
we are willing to submit to a Scriptural examination, it
will probably appear that our great Constitutional and
radical sin consists in a kind of practical, national atheism.
Not avowed atheism, but latent, practical atheism—refus
ing to acknowledge G~od, and his sovereign authority over
us as a nation.
If we are a Christian people, how can we object to
being tried by the Word of God ? Our leading statesmen
and orators everywhere assume that the nation is Chris
tian ; and if such, how can we refuse to take Christ’s
law for our standard and test of character. A people
who believe in the Word of God, cannot consistently
refuse to be tried by that Word. And if we seek to
have the nation such as it ought to be, then must we
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
13
have it moulded by the Divine will, and if moulded by His
will it must be through the application of His Word. If
we, as a nation, despise the Word of the Lord, how can we
ever expect to be prosperous and secure ? “ The Lord
hath magnified his Word above all his name.” He has
honored it above all else, whereby he makes himself
known, and we ought to honor it too. As a nation,
we ought to honor the heaven-given Book of God, and
feel that we are honored by having the privilege. But
we have neglected it: we have slighted it: we have disre
garded its counsels, and set it at naught. This is one of
our national sins, and is recoiling upon our own heads.
See where we are now! What wasting floods of evil have
flown over our formerly God-favored land I and all
through the rejection of Iris Word, “ which is perfect, and
makes wise the simple.” This is our fatal Pandora’s box,
from which have issued the countless miseries now afflict
ing us as a nation. The leaven of divine truth would
have saved us. It will cause any nation to grow great,
stable, and enduring. It is the genuine balm to heal the
wounds of our torn and bleeding land. Why should we
hesitate to have recourse at once to its application. It is
the true and only remedy; and will save the nation from
the deadly maladies still wasting its vitality. Let us,
then, build upon this true foundation; having our Consti
tution and the Bible blended together, as the immovable
basis of our national fabric. The edifice will then be firm
and abiding—the Bible being imperishable, so also will be
our Constitution—assaults upon either will be assaults
upon both; and both will have the same Almighty defence
and shield.
But in order to the blending together of the Bible and
�14
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
our Constitution, the latter must be made to harmonize
with the former ; and this can be done only by the adop
tion of certain amendments, for which provision has been
made in the instrument itself. What they are, we learn
only from the Word of God, as this is the standard
by which the deficiencies of our Constitution are to be
ascertained. According to human authority, our Constitu
tion might be considered almost faultless, as it is doubtless
the best ever framed by merely human wisdom. But the
question is not what it ought to be in the estimation
of men, but what it ought to be in the sight of God. We
are not now treating of our responsibility, as a nation, to
men or other nations, but of our responsibility to God
himself; and hence, the standard by which we must
be tried is his Word, and not th'e views and expositions of
politicians and statesmen, however distinguished they may
be. The elaborate disquisitions, settled principles and
dogmas of learned and profound statesmen, are of no
weight, when brought into competition with the wisdom
and requirements of the Almighty. As we are not
discussing our duty to men or nations, but our duty to
God, so from God we must learn what that duty is—
measure ourselves by the standard of his Word. And it
is a standard of supreme and divine excellence. Had
our nation been framed and fabricated in all its parts, in
accordance with the pattern there exhibited, happy would
it be for us this day. Instead of being under the dark
cloud—under the anger and displeasure of a righteous
God, we should be sitting in the sunlight of his favor,
sweet peace and prosperity smiling around every habita
tion. For “ when a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh
even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And so with
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
15
a nation. When its ways please the Lord, he makes it
to sit in peace and safety, “ under the shadow of the
Almighty,” free from alarms within, and the assaults of
enemies from without.—“Blessed is that people whose
God is the Lord.”
But, alas! we are not that people; and with shame we
ought to confess it, that in the framing of our Constitu
tion, we have refused to take the Lord to be our God;
and have framed it without any reference, either to his
existence, his authority over us, or to his law. It has
been framed, in short, just as though there were no God.
“The fool hath said in his heart, No God.” The import
of the workings of his heart is, “No God.” The lan
guage or voice, sent forth by these workings, says, “No
God.” And such is the import of our Constitution. “No
God,” is the meaning of its voice—the signification of it,
from the beginning to the end. There is no God recog
nised in it, for the nation to look to for help, to honor, to
trust, or to obey! And, my dear fellow-citizens, may I
not appeal to your sense of propriety—is it desirable for
us to have a nation, that has no God?
The great and radical defect in our Constitution is, that
the sovereignty of God over the nations of the earth is not
acknowledged. The government of God over our nation,
is not recognised nor admitted in any way. The entire
instrument is drawn up in such a manner as to imply,
that in conducting the affairs of the nation, the govern
ment of God is to be left entirely out of the account. And
God is thus dethroned, so far as this disowning of his
authority can do it. And all our State Constitutions are
defective in the same way : none of them acknowledges
the government of God, as it really exists, as he main
�16
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
tains it over the nations. This, then, is the great primary
and radical sin of the nation. God’s government, as it
actually exists by his own appointment, is disowned and
set at naught by our Constitution, by all our Constitu
tions, and generally in the management of our national
affairs. Some may imagine that this can scarcely be pos
sible ; but let us calmly examine and see.
The Bible teaches very fully, that God hath established
a government over the nations; not merely over the indi
viduals who compose the nations, but over the nations, as
such. And the Bible as clearly teaches the nature of that
government. It is a delegated government—the govern
ment of the Son of God, in his mediatorial capacity—the
man Christ Jesus ruling over the nations, for the good of
man, and the glory of God.
The divine arrangement for the government of the
nations is clearly, fully, and forcibly set forth in the
second Psalm. It commences with a description of the
organized opposition of the nations to the “Lord and his
anointed”—God and his Son, the Messiah, the conse
crated, Supreme Ruler over all: “Why do the heathen
rage?” Though the heathen are mentioned, yet the
reference is not merely to the opposition of heathen civil
rulers; for the rulers of the Jews themselves are also
comprehended, as we are told in Acts iv. 27. Nor is
the language to be restricted to the events connected
immediately with the condemnation and crucifixion of the
Redeemer. Those events were only a continuation of
what is implied in the language; and until this very day,
there is still a continuance of the same. The language
of the Psalm had a significance and application, before
Christ came, and when he came, and still has its applica
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
17
tion until this present time. It is descriptive of the oppo
sition made to the “Lord and his anointed,” as these
were represented and shadowed forth by the theocracy
established in the nation of Israel. And so the prophecy
still has its fulfilment, in the opposition of the nations,
refusing to acknowledge and submit to Christ’s claims and
authority; and in various ways preventing the establish
ment of his reign of righteousness in the earth.
“ The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
take counsel together against the Lord, and against his
anointed; saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and
cast away their cords from us.” The rulers of all nomi
nally Christian nations have been, and still are, pursuing
this guilty course. Because, in framing Constitutions,
enacting laws, in the execution of laws, and in the whole
management of governmental affairs, they refuse to be
controlled and regulated by the authority of God and his
Christ. They “cast away their cords, and break their
bands asunder,” by refusing to recognise and submit to
the requirements of the divine law, and the rightful
authority of King Jesus, “the Prince of the kings of the
earth.”
And having described the organized opposition of the
nations, to God and his Christ, the Psalm proceeds to set
forth the arrangement which the Lord hath made with
his Son, for their government. He says, “Yet,” or not
withstanding this opposition, “have I set my King upon
my holy hill of Zion.” And he gives to him “the heathen
for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for his possession;” and also to “rule them with a rod
of^iron,” and to “break them in pieces like a potter’s
vessel.”
2
�18
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
Thus there is set before us the divine appointment of
the Lord’s anointed, the Messiah, the Son of God, in his
mediatorial capacity, to be the sovereign Ruler of the
nations. And the various Scriptures which teach the
same doctrine, are numerous and explicit. Some of them
are the following, Ps. lxxxix. 27 : “I will make him first
born,” that is, preeminent, above all others in authority,
as explained in the next clause, “higher than the kings
of the earth,” being invested with power and authority to
reign over them. Ps. ex. 1: “The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine ene
mies thy footstool.” He sits at the right-hand of the
Father, the place of supreme honor and authority over
all—He alone being excepted, who hath placed him there.
And there, we are told, “he shall strike through kings in
the day of his wrath;” and “judge among the heathen;”
and “fill places with the dead bodies;”—see the fulfil
ment in our own bleeding land!—and “wound the heads”
or chief ones “over many countries.” And in Ps. lxxii.
it is foretold of him, that “ He shall have dominion also
from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the
earth.” The import of which is, that his authority is
universal, over the whole earth. It is there said also,
“Yea, all kings shall fall do'wn before him: all nations
shall serve him.” Not merely people, but “kings” and
“nations;” so that civil rulers and governments ought to
acknowledge his sovereignty over them.
And what is foretold in the Old Testament is declared
in the New to have passed into actual fulfilment. For
instance, in Eph., first chapter, it is said that God raised
Christ from the dead, and “ set him at his own right
hand in the heavenly places; far above all principality
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
19
and power, and might and dominion, and every name that
is named; not only in this world, but also in that which
is to come: And hath put all under his feet, and hath
given him to be head over all to his body the church.”
Here, then, it is explicitly declared, that the man Christ
Jesus, after his crucifixion and resurrection, was exalted
to the throne of supreme dominion, and sways a sceptre
of universal empire over the wide creation of God. He
sits upon the holy hill of Zion, in the heavenly Jerusa
lem, exercising his delegated authority over all rulers and
nations of the earth. And the same doctrine is clearly
taught in Phil, ii.: “Wherefore God also hath highly
exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of those in heaven, and on earth, and under the
earth: and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” “Jesus Christ
is Lord,” that is, supreme and universal governor; and
the exercise of this delegated authority is to the glory of
God the Father. This supreme^ authority of Christ is
set forth again in Col. ii. 10, where he is declared to
be “the head of all principality and power.” And in
1 Pet. iii. 22, the same is emphatically expressed ; for it
is said of Christ that “ H<?is gone into heaven, and is on
the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and pow
ers being made subject unto him.” And so also, in Rev.
i. 5, he is declared to be “ the Prince of the kings of the
earth.” So that all earthly rulers are the subjects of his
universal dominion.
Thus we see that the prophecy contained in the Psalm
has its fulfilment in the exaltation of the man Christ
Jesus to the right hand of God; where he sits as king
�20
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
upon the holy hill of Zion, in the heavenly Jerusalem.
There is reference, no doubt, to the earthly mount Zion,
the seat and centre of the theocracy established over
Israel, and administered by the house of David. His
descendants were to occupy that throne; but the succession
terminated in the Son of David, the Messiah, “ the
Lord’s anointed,” with preeminence. And when he
came to the throne the seat of dominion was transferred
from the earthly to the heavenly mount Zion. The
nationality of God’s people then ceased, and their govern
ment was no longer to be circumscribed by the bounda
ries of a single nation. Their Prince was to rule over all
nations; but with a “kingdom not of this world”—not
with an earthly, but a heavenly reign; and hence, the
seat of his empire must be, not the earthly, but the hea
venly mount Zion. It is the same throne as that occupied
by king David ; but when it comes to be occupied by
“ Messiah the Prince,” the “ Governor among the nations,”
the seat of empire must be transferred to heaven: the
only suitable place for the throne of Him, whose “king
dom ruleth over all.” It is there, upon the holy hill of
Zion, that the Lord hath set his King; where he is to sit
and reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, that
is, till the end of time; the iast enemy, which is death,
being destroyed, by the resurrection of all the dead.
When he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father, and cease to reign, laying aside the crown and
the sceptre, and becoming subject to the Father; “ that
God may be all in all.” 1 Cor. xv. 26, 28.
There is no room for doubt, then, as to the nature
of that government which God hath established over the
nations. It is a delegated, mediatorial government, com
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
21
mitted to the hands of the man Christ Jesus, the Divine
Son of God, exercising the regal functions which pertain
to him as the “Lord’s anointed.” And this Godappointed, mediatorial government, all nations ought to
acknowledge and obey. The nation that does not
acknowledge the mediatorial government of Christ, does
not acknowledge the government of God; because this is
God’s government over the nations; and when this is
ignored, God’s government is ignored. But the rightful
authority of Christ over the nations is not acknowledged
in our Constitution; nor in a single Constitution of any
of our States.
Perhaps it may be assumed, that it is not incumbent
upon nations, in their national capacity, to make any such
acknowledgment. But in relation to this the Word of
God is very explicit. After the divine arrangement for
the government of the nations is set forth in the Psalm,
then comes the injunction, for all civil rulers to recog
nize it; and to act in accordance therewith; that is, as
civil rulers to have regard to the Lord’s authority; and to
engage in the discharge of all their official duties, under
a sense of their responsibility to Him. Here is the
injunction—“ Be wise now, therefore, 0 ye kings; be
instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with
fear, and rejoice with trembling.” The appellations—
“kings,” “judges of the earth”—comprehend all classes
and grades of civil rulers, from the highest to the lowest,
and under every form of civil government. And not as
private persons, but as rulers, WMkin ruling, it is enjoined
upon them to serve the Lord—to serve him in the adminis
tration of civil government, which he has ordained for
the good of men. And “with fear,” it is enjoined upon
�22
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
them to serve the Lord; fearing lest they should displease
him, by administering his ordinance in an improper man
ner, while discharging the duties of their office. They
are to discharge these duties under a sense of responsibil
ity to the Lord; remembering that at last they shall
answer to him for the fidelity maintained, in filling the
position to which they have been called. It is enjoined
upon them, too, to “rejoice with trembling.” They will,
and may rejoice, in the honor and emoluments pertaining
to the positions of authority, which in the providence of
God they are called to fill; but while they do thus rejoice,
they should not forget the danger there is of incur
ring the Divine displeasure, by any abuse or misuse
of the important trust committed to their hands. They
should “tremble” in view of their final reckoning with
God. Hence, then, it is evident that, as rulers, they are
to acknowledge the Lord’s authority over them, and to
make it an object to please him in the performance of all
their duties.
And that there may be no possibility of overlooking
the claims of “Messiah the Prince,” as the rightful sove
reign of all rulers, they are enjoined to “ kiss the Son,
that is, to render to him homage and submission—to
acknowledge his authority over them—to do him rever
ence ; and in the discharge of all their duties, to have
respect to his claims and prerogatives, and the require
ments of his law. And when civil rulers are required to
do this, in their official capacity, it is evident that these
duties are incumbent upon nations. Rulers are the repre
sentatives of nations, and the duties of the former are
the duties of the latter. And it ought to be carefully
observed, that the obedience to be rendered to the “ Lord
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
23
and his anointed,” is not required of persons in their pri
vate capacity, but only of rulers: teaching in the most
unmistakable manner, that this obedience is demanded of
nations, in their national capacity.
But, my fellow-citizens, is it not undeniably true, that
our nation has utterly refused to acknowledge the obliga
tion, or to render any measure of this obedience? On
the contrary, by the course pursued, we have said, “Let
us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords
from us.” We have disowned the restraints of the divine
law, and ignored the claims and authority of God and his
Christ. And for this high-handed rebellion', hath not
“the Lord had us in derision?”—hath he not “spoken
unto us in his wrath ?”—and “ vexed us in his sore displea
sure?” We have been wonderfully vexed, indeed; baf
fled, foiled, and disappointed in our efforts to suppress the
rebellion, and restore peace to the nation.
If we are a Christian people, we ought surely to see the
need of reformation in this matter. As a nation, we owe
a duty to the Lord Jesus, which ought not to be neglected,
but promptly and faithfully discharged. It will be for
the nation’s lasting honor and advantage. By divine
appointment, Christ is the Ruler of our nation, and how
can we claim to be Christian, if we in no way acknow
ledge him ? Is it not remarkable, that his claims upon
the nation have been so entirely overlooked, by the people
of the land ? that there should be so few to “ stand up for
Jesus?” Where are all his commissioned ambassadors?
Have they not a word to say in behalf of his just claims
to the nation’s homage? How is it, that while they are
zealous in urging his claims upon individuals, as a
Saviour, they neglect to urge his no less just and
�24
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
undoubted claims upon nations, as a Sovereign ? Perhaps
it is that the salvation of the former is involved; but so
also is the salvation of the latter. For “the nation and
kingdom that will not serve him shall perish; yea, those
nations shall be utterly wasted.” It is true, indeed, that
the eternal salvation of individuals is vastly more impor
tant than the salvation of nations ; but this will not jus
tify silence on the part of Christ’s ambassadors as to his
claims over the latter. And if they are silent as to the
rights and prerogatives of their Divine King and Lord,
“ the Prince of the kings of the earth,” who else can be
expected to speak out? or how can the nation be supposed
to understand its duty in this vital matter ? It is a vital
matter. The Jews said, “We will not have this man to
reign over us;” and see the terrible desolation with
which He swept their nation into utter ruin I We ought
to take the alarm, lest such may be our doom.
Are we Christians ? And would not Christians desire
to see Christ, their Lord and Redeemer, honored and
exalted by the nation? Would they not wish, that “the
glory due unto his name,” his rights and prerogatives,
should be given unto him in the state, as well as in the
church? Would they not rejoice, if their beloved nation
were to “bring forth the royal diadem, and crown him
Lord of all?” Would it be repugnant to their Christian
feelings, or to our republicanism, for us all to say—We
have no king but Christ, “the King of righteousness;”
that we acknowledge the authority of no prince, but
“Messiah the Prince,” “the Prince of peace;” that our
sovereign is, “the Prince of the kings of the earth;” and
to say, “The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Law
giver, the Lord is our King; he will save us?” We are
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
25
Republicans, and we want no king, but “the King of kings
and Lord of lords” to reign over us. And as a nation
we ought to proclaim it, and exult in the fact, that we are
subject to Him, whose “kingdom ruleth over all.” When
we formally take the Lord to be our King, then will our
government be like to that given of God himself to his
people of old; when he was their Sovereign, and human
rulers only officers under him, governing in his name, for
his glory, and the true happiness of the nation. Then,
indeed, would our national glory be truly great—glorious
in the eyes of the nations; for the Lord would be our
glory and defence. Of us it would then be said, “ Happy
art thou, 0 nation! Who is like unto thee, 0 people I
saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and the sword
of thy excellency! And thine enemies shall be found
liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high
places.”
And as we have not admitted God nor his claims into
our Constitution, so we transgress in another respect;
that is, in ignoring his teachings as to the true nature of
civil government. We hold it to be nothing but a human
institution—the ordinance of man—while his Word de
clares it to be the ordinance of God, and worthy of reve
rence as such. Our current doctrine oh this point is
embodied in the common maxim, so frequently uttered,
and so generally received, that in civil government, “ the
people are the fountain of power;” that all authority is
from the people themselves; that there is no power but
of the people. And in accordance with this, in our
national halls of legislation, the idea has been sneered
and scoffed at, that there is any “ higher law” than the
enactments of Congress. For, as all authority to rule is
�26
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION.
from the people, then the enactments of the people’s
representatives must be paramount and final. But on this
subject we are quite aside from the true foundation. Our
prevailing doctrine, however, that “the people are the
fountain of power,” no doubt had its origin among us, in
opposition to “the divine right of kings,” the darling
dogma of the old world’s despots. But while we repudi
ate their dogma, in their sense of it, we should not fly to
the opposite extreme, and deny that God is the fountain
of all legitimate governing authority.
In Romans xiii. it is expressly declared, that “There
is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained
of God.” By “the powers that be,” existing, established
civil governments are meant. Neither the usurped power
of pretenders, nor the power of organized rebellion
against an established government, is implied in the
phrase, “powers that be.” It is not the power of any
man, or any number of men, who may rise up against a
government, and assume the right to oppose it, that is
“ordained of God.” Such a power as that is only the
power of sedition, rebellion, treason; and this is not an
ordinance of God, established for the good of men. God,
for good, wise, and righteous ends, may in his providence
permit a rebellion to succeed; so that the issue shall be
the establishment of a new and independent government.
And then this new government will be the ordinance of
God, and as such ought to be conscientiously obeyed. But
the power of the preceding rebellion is not his ordi
nance, and has no divine warrant to exact obedience—no
man is bound to obey it “for conscience’ sake.” It is
evident that, though “the powers that be, are ordained
of God,” yet every existing power cannot claim the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
27
sanction of his ordination. A people in rebellion may
adopt a government for themselves, and regulate their
affairs by it; but they have not yet an established govern
ment. All they do amounts to no more than an attempt
to establish one: hence, what they call their government,
has no place among “the powers that be,” and “are
ordained of God.” It is evident, then, that resistance to
their authority is not resistance to the ordinance of God;
nor can they claim obedience on the same ground, as that
of an established civil government. Rebels, in the exer
cise of their usurped authority, will claim obedience, and
those in their power “ must needs be subject” to them; yet
“only for wrath,” but not “for conscience’ sake,” as they
have no authority from God to make any such claim. A
rebellion or revolution is purely an ordinance of man;
but God in his providence may permit it, and overrule it
for good.
Civil government is the ordinance of God, because he
hath appointed it for the benefit of men. And civil rulers,
we are told, are “God’s ministers attending upon this
very thing;” that is, dispensing God’s ordinance among
the people. From the highest to the lowest, in all depart
ments, from the President to the constable, each one is
the “minister of God,” and accountable to him for the
manner in which his ordinance is administered; and each
one will have to answer to God, for the fidelity with which
the duties of his office have been discharged. Men in
power may be so ignorant of the true nature of civil
government, and of their own official character, as not to
know that they are the “ministers of God;” but they are
none the less so, on that account. Men may administer
the ordinance of God in a very unworthy manner; they
�28
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
may prostitute and abuse it, and in the office they fill,
commit all manner of wickedness; but they are still “the
ministers of God;” and it is still his ordinance, which
they are abusing and prostituting to their base and wicked
ends: and hence their danger of having a terrible reckon
ing to render at last, to God, for their unfaithfulness,
while filling an office under him.
A civil government may be very defective, far from
what it ought to be; but it is none the less the ordinance
of God on that account. The government of Israel was
the ordinance of God when administered by Ahab and
Jezebel, though it was idolatrous, tyrannical, and wicked.
And so the Roman government was the ordinance of
God, when administered by the cruel monster Nero. And
on the ground of its being such, did the Apostle enjoin
obedience to it, on the part of the Christians to whom he
wrote. The defects of a civil government, constitutional,
legislative, judicial or executive, do not deprive it of its
character, as God’s ordinance; this it is still, though it
may be marred by blemishes both numerous and great.
Were we to assume that the defects of a government would
deprive it of its character, as God’s ordinance, it would
be difficult to decide when any government is such.
Because the questions would arise, what are the defects
which deprive a government of its divinely appointed
character ? and what degree of perfection must it have in
order to be his ordinance? And these are questions
which never could be settled; inasmuch as there is no
basis anywhere upon which to settle them. The Word of
God affords no such basis; and it would be vain to look
for it anywhere else. It is the Bible which informs us
that civil government is the ordinance of God, and it
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
29
prescribes no measure of goodness or perfection as essen
tial to the sustaining of that character. In speaking of
civil government it says, “ The powers that be are ordained
of God,” and, therefore, they are to be obeyed, “not
only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”
And as civil government is the ordinance of God, and
all officers of government are his ministers, and responsi
ble to him for the faithful discharge of their respective
duties; so all who enjoy the advantages of this ordinance,
ought to respect and honor it as such; giving to it that
support and encouragement which an ordinance of God
may claim as its due. None ought to disown or despise
it, because it does not please them, in the form in which
it has been established, or the manner in which it is con
ducted. The defects may be great and numerous, but it
is the ordinance of God, notwithstanding, and ought to be
honored and obeyed as such. And good men, by taking
active part in the administration of it, may do much to
have its defects removed—all that is wrong in it righted,
and all that is wanting supplied; so as to realize in its
administration what the ordinance implies—the best inter
ests of the nation, and the glory of God.
Yet though civil government is the ordinance of God,
it does not follow, that civil rulers are to be actively
obeyed in all that they enjoin; because they are fallible,
and may enjoin what is in conflict with the laws of God;
and then they are to be disobeyed, in order to render
obedience to Him. Though they are God’s ministers,
they have no authority from him to require the violation
of his law. When they do so, it is the authority of man
coming in conflict with the authority of God; and then,
it is evident that God ought to be obeyed rather than
�30
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
men.—Acts v. 29. But while on this ground civil rulers
may be disobeyed, it is not implied that they may be
resisted by force. Passive obedience ought to be ren
dered ; that is, suffer the penalty of disobedience to them,
rather than sin against God.
But though civil government is the ordinance of God,
it is in some respects the ordinance of man. And the
Scriptures recognize this. 1 Pet. ii. 13. “ Submit your
selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake:
whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors,”
&c. It is especially an ordinance of man in this, that
the people are the sole fountain of power, as to what
form of government they shall establish. God is the
source of authority as to the existence of civil govern
ment, but man the source of authority as to its form;
because God has not ordained any form. Men may estab
lish a pure Democracy, or a Republic, or a Monarchy, or
any other form, as may seem to them best. The people
are the only legitimate fountain of power as to this: for
in this there is no authority higher than themselves. It
is an ordinance of man, too, because men administer it;
and for men it has been ordained.
Now in this matter, with respect to the fountain of
power in civil government, it is wrong for us as, a nation,
to take from God his right and prerogative, by assuming
to ourselves what he claims as his. Such conduct must
be highly criminal in any people; and will not remain
unpunished. It is robbing God of his glory, and giving
it to others. May he not say to us as he said to Israel—
“ Will a man rob God ? Yet ye have robbed me. Ye are
cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me; even this
whole nation.” But, my fellow-citizens, should we not
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
31
cease to rob God ? Should we not fear the Lord—hearken
to his voice—cease to do evil, learn to do well, and “give
to him the glory due unto his name?”
And by recognizing civil government in its divinely
appointed character, dignity and value, and acknowledg
ing our authority to maintain it as coming from God, we
shall gain other important advantages. The tendency
will be to have the minds of all impressed with the value
and importance of civil institutions ; as having a measure
of sacred and divine authority and responsibility connected
with them. And in this way will be cherished in both the
rulers and the ruled, a proper estimate of the relative duties
to be discharged—as even in the presence of God, and to
be accounted for to him in the end. Nor can there be
any reasonable doubt, that an abiding feeling of this
kind would contribute very much to the proper and faith
ful discharge of these relative duties. And thus our
duty to God, as a nation, would redound exceedingly to
our own good order, stability, and peace.
There is still another respect in which we are culpable
as a nation. For as God is not in our Constitution, and
as we disregard the teachings of his Word, as to the true
nature of civil government, so also we transgress his law
in the choosing of our rulers. His word is very explicit in
describing the character of those who are to be chosen for
rulers. For instance, in Exod. xviii. 21: “Moreover, thou
shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear
God, men of truth, hating covetousness ; and place such
over them to be rulers.” 0 how different it would be
with us this day, had we been careful to choose such men
for our rulers in times past. If they had been able men,
fearing God, men of truth, never, never would the nation
�32
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
have been visited with the desolations of this terrible civil
war. Bad men in power, men of falsehood and dishon
esty, godless, unprincipled, perjured men, dragged the
nation into the devouring whirlpool of civil discord, car
nage, and death. It is the fruits of our own doings, in dis
regarding the requirements of God’s law as to the moral
character of our rulers. See, again, what that law says,
in 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3: “The Spirit of the Lord spake by
me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel
said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over
men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” Here is
the voice of God’s law—-for all times—and all nations—
and all people. And how careful the inspired writer is,
to state the authority by which the law is promulgated.
He says the Spirit of the Lord spake by him : and if pos
sible, to make it more forcible, that the Grod of Israel
said it. And, hence, men can have no way of evading
the force of the injunction, or plea to offer in extenuation
of their guilt, if they disregard its demands. The only
plea for disobedience, that any people having the Bible
could offer, would be that they were willingly ignorant
of the law, or if not ignorant, that they did not like to
obey it. For the law is so plain and pointed, that there
can be no doubt about its meaning and application. It is
God’s authority, and binding upon every nation, to
whom the Word of God comes. It is His law, as laid
down in the Old Testament, with respect to what civil
rulers ought to be; and the law in the New is not at all
different. All that is said, concerning civil government
in Rom. xiii., implies that rulers ought to be good men—
“Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil”
—“ He is the minister of God to thee for good”—“ They
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
33
are God’s ministers attending upon this very thing.”
Reason and common-sense teach, that if they are God’s
ministers, they ought to be good men, “just, and ruling
in the fear of God.” And in 1 Pet. ii. 14, the doctrine
is the same, namely, that rulers “ are sent for the punish
ment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do
well.” And thus we have the will of God expressly
^revealed, in both the Old and New Testaments, as to what
the moral character of civil rulers ought to be. If we,
then, disregard the will of God, so fully and clearly made
known, how can we, as a nation, expect to prosper?
How can we expect to escape the anger and displeasure
of the righteous Ruler of all, whose law we so defiantly
trample under our feet ?
And what, in all candor, has been our course in rela
tion to this matter ? Has it not undeniably been, to
leave the law of God entirely out of the account, when
proceeding to choose and appoint our rulers ? When
have we, on any occasion, in primary meeting, or political
convention, referred to the requirements of the divine
law, as to the moral character of the men to be chosen
and appointed? Truth must answer, Never! All are
aware, that the whole course has been to proceed in this
matter just as though there had been no such law in
existence. It must be confessed that we have chosen
and set over us in authority, characters the very reverse
of what the law of God requires—godless men, profane
swearers, drunkards, debauchees, gamblers, Sabbath
breakers, haters of God, revilers of his law, and scoffers
at his claims and his authority. There may have been
happy exceptions, but the rule has been to select men,
who have “no fear of God before their eyes.”
3
�34
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
The very places and practices associated with politics,
are forcibly indicative of the men’s character who are
usually chosen to manage our state affairs. If bar-rooms
and groggeries, lager beer, whiskey, and tobacco, were
favorable to the production of good civil rulers, we might
certainly boast of having such; for all these have no little
to do with their choice and elevation. It is notorious,
that in our large cities, the centres of influence, very
little can be done in politics, outside the shadow of a
tavern. If a man wishes to attend the primary meeting,
where the nominations are made, he will probably have
to visit the tavern. If he has to seek the assessor, that
he may have his name placed on the tax-list, where can
he find him and his books, but in the tavern? lie must
enter the nasty place, and have his olfactories assailed
with the combined stench of rum and tobacco, and his
ears greeted with the sounds of vulgarity and profane
ness, while seeking to have his name enrolled. And if he
desires to discharge his duty as a citizen, by casting his
vote, he must go at least within smelling distance of the
tavern, in order to have the privilege. And thus, appa
rently, the tavern is the all controlling power in our
politics—as if the inmates and the frequenters of the
tavern had the whole matter committed to their control,
and it were the prerogative of the tavern-men to manage
the all-important affairs of the nation!
A sad condition of things, indeed, that this ordinance
of God—civil government—should be so prostituted, and
given over to the hands of the godless and profane, to be
polluted and deformed with all that is degrading and
vile, and by the associations of its management, dragged
down to the portals of perdition! Why is it, that the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
35
God-fearing people of the land have suffered this heaven
given ordinance to be dishonored and trampled under
foot, without an effort to rescue and save it? May they
not well apprehend severe chastisement, through the mis
management of this very institution, which ought to have
been jealously guarded by them, so as to be made fruitful
in blessings to the nation ? Why is it, that the patriotic,
the virtuous, and the good, have allowed an institution of
such magnitude and vital importance, for the nation’s
safety, to be so debased and perverted, by such corrupt
ing and ruinous influences ? But, then, is it not just what
might have been expected?—the natural result of the
whole course from the beginning—adopting a Constitu
tion in which there is no God; erecting a government,
assumed to be without any divine warrant or authority;
and choosing our rulers in utter defiance of the express
injunctions of the divine law ? It is not now to be thought
strange, if our politics have become a byeword and
reproach; or that in us should be verified the declaration
of Scripture: “When the wicked bear rule, the people
mourn”—“ They would none of my counsel; they despised
all my reproof. Therefore, shall they eat of the fruit of
their own way, and be filled with their own devices”—
“Thus saith the Lord.”
But, have the truly Christian people of the land, no
interest in this whole matter of civil government? In
some respects, they show that they have; for they usually
manifest a lively interest in party politics. But have they
no zeal for the honor and purity of God’s ordinance—
civil government? Is it not both their duty and their
interest, to have such zeal, and to show it? Their party
zeal and diligence, they say, are to promote the good of
�36
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the nation. But have they to be told, that it is not the
success of a party, which will bless a nation; unless it be
a righteous party? Do they not know, that it is “right
eousness which exalteth a nation;” and that nothing else
will? Do Christians believe that they can benefit their
country by voting for party men, while they and their
men are both disregarding the counsels and claims of the
Most High? Are they so much engaged in advancing
the welfare of their country, as to lose sight of the neces
sity of having in office, “just men, ruling in the fear of
God?” If so, their whole course is glaringly inconsistent,
ruinous, and absurd.
It ought to be manifest to all, that a thorough and
radical change is absolutely necessary in this whole
matter. It is surely time that an effort were made for
the purpose of securing upright and virtuous men, for
every position, to conduct our state affairs. We ought to
have the best of men for our rulers, because we have the
selecting of them ourselves. Not like the citizens of other
lands, who have their rulers not by choice, but by chance,
as to the people, and must put up with them, be they good
or bad. But if we have not good rulers, we have no such
reason to assign. We make our rulers, and we ought to
make them good. If we do not, we do not deserve to have
such. And if we do not make good rulers, we show that
we are neither fit, nor worthy, to have the privilege of
making them at all. The complaint is often heard, that
we have such bad men for rulers; and yet we ourselves
have chosen these men, and placed them in power! When
we put bad men in office, how can we expect to be ruled
by good men? And when have we ever made it a point,
to reject the bad, and choose the good? Never!
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
37
Now, my fellow-citizens, we ought to seek for reforma
tion. We need a change. Wicked and unprincipled rulers
are a great curse to any nation. And if we are careless
about the moral character of our rulers, we shall certainly
be cursed with that curse. Our only safety is, to obey
the voice of divine wisdom, and change our political base
to the heaven-given platform—“ He that ruleth over men,
must be just; ruling in the fear of God.” Then, as a
nation, we shall be secure; and undoubtedly so.
But, my fellow citizens, let me put the question, in all
kindness and candor, Are we a Christian nation, or are
we not? If we are, where is the evidence? Is it in any
of our national documents? Is it in our Constitution,
which lies at the foundation of the whole structure ? Cer
tainly not. The name of Christ, or any allusion to him,
or his institutions, is not found in it from the begin
ning to the end. And do our national Acts contain the
evidence that we are a Christian nation? Can any
man point out where, in these Acts, it is to be found?
We shall very much rejoice to know where. Was it
when, to secure a treaty with an anti-Christian power,
our government formally declared, that as a nation we
were not Christian, for we had no religion? Did the
course pursued toward the pagan ambassadors from
Japan, evince that we were a Christian nation, when the
tendency of the government’s whole procedure was, to
leave the impression on their minds, that we had no reli
gion, no Sabbath, no sacred books, nor institutions; and
were not a Christian nation at all?
Shall it be said, that we have Christians and Christian
institutions in the land, therefore we are a Christian
nation. And so we have Jews and Jewish institutions in
�38
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the land; and, therefore, we are a Jewish nation. And
we have Mormons and Mormon institutions in the land;
and, therefore, we are a Mormon nation. Shall it he
said, that we have Christians for government officers, and
hence we are a Christian nation. And so we have Jews,
and Mormons, and Infidels, for officers of government;
and, therefore, we are a Jewish, Mormon, and Infidel
nation. It is evident, that such circumstances as these
do not give us naiz’onaZiiy; and do not make us any one
of the above, as a nation. It is our Constitution and
governmental Acts, which give us nationality; and if
these have not the evidence of our being a Christian
nation, it is nowhere. And, my fellow-citizens, is it
not a reproach to us, that we can point to no decisive
evidence of ours being a Christian nation?
And if not a Christian, so neither are we a Jewish, a
Mormon, nor an Infidel nation. And what, then, are we?
Are we a Pagan nation? No, not quite; only half such.
Ours is only a semi-pagan nation. Paganism consists in
disowning the true God, and putting idol gods in his
place. We do only the first, not the second. Our dis
owning of God, and his Christ, and his Word and author
ity, in our Constitution and Government, is only the one
side of paganism; and, hence, ours is only a semi-pagan
government. It is of that reign of Gentilism, spoken of
in prophecy, as antagonistic to Christ and his cause—
holding on to the civil power throughout Christendom,
trampling under foot sacred things, and prostituting even
Christianity, to the basest of secular and selfish ends.
But in the other semi-Christian nations, this has been
much more the case than in ours.
This semi-paganism of the civil governments of Chris
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
89
tendom, was revealed to both Daniel and John, as contin
uing for a considerable period. They both saw it as in
conflict with Christ’s kingdom, and as long hindering the
reign of righteousness and peace in these nations.
Daniel beheld it in the conflict between “the stone cut
out without hands” and the golden-headed clay-iron-toed
image, which received the shock of the stone upon its
feet. The “stone” undoubtedly symbolized the kingdom
of Christ, and not any earthly kingdom, or civil govern
ment; because it was cut out without hands;” which
implies that it was not man-made, but made by Him whose
“kingdom is not of this world;” and, hence, not any
earthly civil government; but the cause of righteousness
and peace—Christ’s kingdom, which is eventually to des
troy all pagan and semi-pagan civil governments over the
whole earth. And the smitten image symbolized the pagan
power, as concentrated and embodied in the Roman
empire at the introduction of Christianity. The strength
and the evil of the preceding empires, Babylonian, MedoPersian, and Grecian, were absorbed by it; and all in one
were shivered by the shock, and tottered to their fall.
But a considerable time was to elapse, before the final
extinction of the pagan element of these kingdoms, with
which the stone came in conflict.
This was made known in Daniel’s vision of the four
beasts, which came up out of the sea. The fourth of
these symbolized the Roman empire, which came into
collision with the kingdom of the “ one like unto the Son
of man”—“Immanuel, God with us,” the Messiah. And
both kingdoms for a long time were to occupy the same
territory, though antagonistic. The beast, with its
instruments of power, the “ten horns” and the “little
�40
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
horn,” the ten kingdoms of Western Europe, and the
Papacy, was to hold the civil power, even after the rise
of the Papacy, for a period of 1260 years; for the saints
were to “ be given into his hand, until a time and times,
and the dividing of time.” And thus paganism in the
state was to have power over the saints during all this
time: and at the end of it “ the saints were to possess
the kingdomthat is, the power of civil government was
to pass into their hands. It does not mean that the
saints will anywhere set up a civil government, separate
and distinct from other governments; but merely that
they will, in every nation and kingdom, be the leading
men in civil affairs; conducting the government in the
fear of God, in accordance with his revealed will: ruling
in righteousness, peace and love, for the glory of God
and his Christ, and the true happiness of the nations.
The same reign of righteousness, in state affairs, is set
forth in Rev. xi. 15: “ There were great voices in heaven
saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the king
doms of the Lord, and of his Christ”—“the Lord and
his anointed” of the second Psalm. “ Kings” and
“ rulers” now cease to plot against them; not wishing any
longer to “ cast away their cords,” nor to “ break their
bands asunder,” as formerly. Not the people merely,
but the kingdoms, as such, do this—“kissing the Son”—
“serving the Lord with fear,” and ruling in accordance
with the requirements of his Word. It is evident that
the great change in the kingdoms of Christendom, here
spoken of, is a change in the moral character of their
civil governments; for the “Lord and his Christ” reigned
over them previous to this change; but the kingdoms did
not recognize their claims, nor render obedience to them;
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
41
whereas now they do, and thus become the kingdoms of
the Lord, and of his Christ, by a voluntary, national
recognition of, and surrender to their authority.
The long continuance of semi-paganism, in the civil
governments of Christendom, is foretold in Rev. xi. 2.
The great Reformation in religion, which occurred in
Christendom early in the sixteenth century, when the
Bible became an open book for the use of the people, is
set forth in the tenth chapter. In the progress of that
vision the prophet himself is made a symbol—a represen
tative of the ministers of Christ: and in what he was
directed to do, is set forth the special work of the min
istry from the time to which the prophecy has reference.
He was to prophesy, or preach; to “ measure the altar
and the temple, and them that worship therein:” that is,
to define the true doctrine of the atonement, and to des
cribe the true people and church of God, in opposition to
the degenerate system which prevailed previous to the
Reformation. But the court without the temple he was
forbidden to measure, for it had been given to the Gen
tiles ; and the holy city they were to tread under foot
forty and two months, or 1260 years.
The things mentioned here, pertaining to the Jewish
dispensation, are all employed as symbols, having refer
ence to the Christian church. The temple in Jerusalem
was a type of Christ, or God incarnate. As the glory of
God filled the temple, and the Divine presence abode
there, so the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in
Christ. And accordingly he calls himself the temple,
saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up.” And hence, the temple and its worshippers
symbolize Christ and his people, who are in him by faith,
�42
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the true worshippers; “who worship the Father in spirit
and in truth.” The altar is the symbol of sacrifice, and
represents the doctrine of atonement. “ The court with
out the temple,” pertaining to the Gentiles, was the inter
mediate place, between the idolatrous world and the wor
shippers of the true God—the place where those who
were not his people, but professed a love for him and his
cause, might draw near, and enjoy an outward connection
with his people and his service; and, accordingly, it sym
bolizes the visible church under the gospel. Here, those
who merely profess to be his people, may enter in, and
take part in the services; and even direct, and rule, and
have the control. And hence this court was not to be
measured—the influence of Gentilism—until the end of
the time predicted, would prevent it from being what it
ought to be: pagan forms, irregularity, disorder, and
want of uniformity would prevail, and hinder its perfec
tion. The “holy city,” Jerusalem, was the city of the
Lord, and the capital of the nation of his people. There
were the symbols of the Divine presence; and thither the
tribes of the Lord went up to worship. And thus Jeru
salem represented the whole nation, and became the
^emblem of the heritage of the Lord; that is, his people,
as a whole. And, therefore, the “holy city” symbolizes
the people of God, together with their sacred institutions,
wherever they are found; and that is all over Christen
dom. Christendom, then, as the abode of God’s people,
and his sacred institutions, is the “holy city,” which the
Gentiles “tread under foot.” And as they were to tread
these under foot, it is evident they were to have the
dominion, wherever these are found. They could not
tread them under foot unless they had the power to do
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
43
it; and hence, in these lands, they must have the civil
government in their hands. Gentilism was to rule in the
Btate, throughout Christendom, forty and two months.
Paganism, in its nature, and semi-paganism, in its prac
tice, was, to fill the high places of civil authority; tram
pling under foot, destroying, and desecrating, holy people
and sacred things. And, accordingly, the former have
been persecuted, and the latter have been prostituted, to
strengthen the civil power, and advance the interests of
the state. Paganism in the state, desecrates and profanes
religion, for merely civil and secular ends. This has
always been the case, in the semi-pagan governments of
European Christendom. In their secularizing use and
abuse of religion and Christianity, they are far more
guilty than our government has ever been. Ours has
never persecuted the people of God; nor for the blood
of the saints, has it to be called to account. Sacred
things have not been prostituted to civil ends, as in the
other nominally Christian nations.
Though our government desecrates the Lord’s day in
its postal arrangements, and otherwise; yet we have not
employed religion for the aggrandizement of the state, as
has been the common practice with the semi-Christian
governments of Europe. They have all made use of reli
gion for merely selfish, worldly, state purposes; but we
have not. Paganism has always employed religion as a
mere state engine, to fortify and strengthen the civil gov
ernment; and the semi pagan governments of Europe have
always done the same. Wherever in Christendom there
has been a union of church and state, this has always
been the case. The civil has always used the sacred, for
the purpose of gaining strength, glory, and stability to
�44
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
itself; whether the church has been made preeminent,
and the state subordinate; or the state preeminent, and
the church subordinate—as exemplified in Italy and Eng
land. In the former, the recognized head of the church,
assumes to be the head of the state; and in the latter, the
recognized head of the state, assumes to be the head of
the church. But the design of the union, in each, is the
aggrandizement of the civil power, pertaining to them
respectively: the prostitution of sacred things for civil
purposes—the “holy city” trampled under foot by Gentilism; because it has the power in its hands, and uses all
for secular ends. But our government, notwithstanding
its defects, has never been guilty of prostituting the holy
religion of Jesus, as an instrument of state policy. This
results from the wise and scriptural arrangement of keep
ing the church and the state, as organizations, separate
and distinct from each other. And this is quite an ad
vance in the right direction. This not abusing of sacred
things for civil ends, is casting away a portion of the
semi-paganism, which is still retained by the governments
of Europe.
It is evident, then, that we are still partakers of this
semi-paganism, which maintains the ascendency in the
state, through all the nations of Christendom; and from
which it would assuredly be both for our honor and
advantage, to free ourselves entirely. As we have taken
the lead of the other nations in discarding one important
part of semi-paganism, let us go on unto perfection, and
cast away from us the remains of this plague and reproach
of the nation. All nations must be freed from it, either
by voluntary reform, or by the overturning judgments of
Ilim, “ who sits King upon the holy hill of Zion,” and
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
45
will “break them with a rod of iron, like a potter’s
vessel.” Let us, as a nation, bend and not break—bend
to the Divine pleasure, and not be broken by his power.
Let us reform more and more, not only refraining from
the abuse of sacred things, but also by conceding to them
that relation to the state which is their due. Would it
not, my fellow-citizens, be both our glory and our gain,
to keep, as a nation, in the advance of all other nations,
God-ward and Christ-ward, and thus upward; rising in
excellence, glory, strength and beauty; till we shall be
the admiration of them all: and they, copying our exam
ple, and emulating our moral greatness and grandeur, set
to their seal, that our free Republican institutions are
right, and we worthy of our exalted place among the
nations of the earth? But we never can appear in our
full majesty and glory, until we acknowledge the
sovereignty of the “Lord and his anointed” over us, and
submit to their counsels and dictation, in the management
of our national affairs. For “Thus saith the Lord”—
“ Them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise
me shall be lightly esteemed.” Well now, Americans, let
us honor Him, and He will honor us; He will exalt us
among the nations; and cause us to ride upon the high
places of the earth. Our light shall be seen from afar,
and hither shall they flock from the nations, both near
and remote, to share in the blessings of that “happy
people, whose God is the Lord.”
But I am aware, my fellow-citizens, that you are afraid
of a union of church and state; and justly so: for from
it have issued many monstrous evils. But we may do
our duty to God and his Christ, his Word and authority,
without any union of church and state; and without a
�46
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
national establishment of religion, or any of the evils
which result therefrom. If we were to have our Consti
tution amended by a prefatory article, acknowledging the
sovereignty of the Lord and his anointed over the nation,
and the paramount authority of his law over all human
laws, and our duty to submit to its requirements in the
choice of our rulers, and in everything else, there would,
in this, be no union of church and state, nor any national
establishment of religion. Nor would there be any neces
sity for adopting religious tests, in order to the holding
of office under the government.
Suppose such as Jews and infidels would be unwilling to
subcribe to, and bind themselves by oath to support such
a Constitution, in order to the holding of office, would this
be any serious loss to a Christian people ? If we are a
Christian nation, is it indispensable to have such as Jews
and infidels for our civil rulers ? Is there any circumstance
that requires it? But would not the rights of such citi
zens be interfered with, and withheld from them ? Pray,
where did they get their rights, to rule over a Christian
nation, the proper Constitution of which they would be
unwilling to support? Are the rights of a Christian
nation not paramount to the rights of a few Jews and
infidels, who may be dwelling in it ? Is it not the right
of a Christian people to acknowledge their Lord and
Redeemer as their Sovereign Ruler? Is it not the absolute right of the “Lord and his anointed,” to require
this acknowledgment of all nations ? and are the rights
of Jews and infidels higher than the rights of God
Almighty ? No man, nor set of men, can possibly have
any rights contravening the rights of the Lord God of
Hosts. There can be no rights, which would require the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
47
ignoring of what he enjoins. And as He enjoins it upon
nations to acknowledge his sovereignty over them, none
can have any rights which would prevent this. Those
objecting to it, would be utterly unfit to rule over a Chris
tian nation.
But while attempting, for the sake of reformation,
to direct attention to some of our chief national sins, on
account of which the anger of the Lord burns hot against
us, it were great unfaithfulness to pass unnoticed, the sin
of negro slavery. As we have now, in the providence
of God, ample evidence, that this is especially the sin,
for which his judgments are at present so heavy upon
us. Rebellion is the rod with which the Lord is chastis
ing the nation, and negro slavery is the cause of that
rebellion. So that our sin is now punishing us. The
nation supported and fostered the vile system, until it
became a great monster, and rose up to devour the nation
itself. And thus the nation’s iniquity recoils upon itself.
The nation’s sin is the nation’s plague; its crime, its
canker; its destroyer of men, the destroyer of its men.
We maintained slavery for the sake of gain; and now
slavery is causing us to disgorge that ill-gotten gain, with
terrible vengeance, and noted rapidity. The Righteous
Disposer of all things is now, in his providence, scattering
to the winds the wealth, which we made out of the bodies
and the souls of men. And thus our punishment points
so unmistakably to our sin, that it is only the wilfully
blind who cannot see it. And the manner, too, in which
the punishment is apportioned to the two sections of the
land, points clearly to the sin for which it is sent. The
whole nation suffers, North as well as South; and
therefore, the whole nation must be guilty: but the South
�48
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
especially suffers, and hence, the South must be especially
guilty. Slavery is the sin of the nation, because the
national government upheld it; but the greater measure
of the iniquity lay in the South, and now in the Lord’s
national retribution, the larger cup of his vengeance is
placed in their hands. The calamities of the Southern
people are exceedingly great, and their guilt is doubtless
in proportion: but slavery, with its concomitant evils, is
assuredly the overwhelming sin of that people.
That slavery has been the cause of the civil war, and
the resulting national calamities, is just as evident as that
the earth is lighted by the sun. We might as well doubt
that we have a war, as to doubt that slavery has been its
cause. The rebels certainly know what it was, that led
them to commence the war against the United States, and
they affirm that it was slavery. Their Vice-President,
Stephens, publicly declared, that their object in making
war, to cast off the national government, was to establish
a new government founded upon slavery—of which slavery
was to be the “corner-stone.” And he only avowed the
designs of his coadjutors, who commenced the war, and
persist in continuing it ever since. Look at the following
extract from the Richmond Examiner of May 30th,
1863, and see the corroboration of what we affirm:
“ If the Confederacy is at a premium, she owes it to
herself. And so much the better. We shall be all the
more free to run the grand career which opens before us,
and grasp our own lofty destiny. Would that all of us
understood and laid to heart the true nature of that career,
and that destiny, and the responsibility it imposes! The
establishment of the Confederacy is, verily, a distinct reac
tion against the whole course of the mistaken civilization
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
49
of the age. And this is the true reason why we have
been left without the sympathy of the nations, until we
conquered that sympathy with the sharp edge of our
sword. For '•Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ we have
deliberately substituted Slavery, Subordination, and G-overnment. Those social and political problems, which
rack and torture modern society, we have undertaken
to solve for ourselves, in our own way, and upon our
own principles. That, ‘among equals equality is right;’
among those who are naturally unequal, equality is
chaos; that there are slave races born to serve, master
races born to govern. Such are the fundamental princi
ples which we inherit from the ancient world, which
we lifted up in the face of a perverse generation, that has
forgotten the wisdom of its fathers; by those principles
we live, and in their defence we have shown ourselves
ready to die. Reverently we feel, that our Confederacy
is a God-sent missionary to the nations, with great truths
to preach. We must speak them boldly, and whoso hath
ears to hear, let him hear.”
Such is the monstrous doctrine of the leading rebels
on this subject; and in view of it, who can doubt the
design of the slaveholders in making the war? It is as
clear as sunshine, that they declare they made it for the
sake of slavery: and if made for the sake of slavery,
then, this was its cause. Those who deny this, make
these men to be public liars. The rebels at the South
openly declare that they made the war in behalf of sla
very, and though their advocates at the North, deny
that they did any such thing, yet, it is not difficult
to decide where the truth lies. Those who made it, know
the reason why, and when they say it was for slavery,
4
�50
THE BOOK FOB THE NATION.
there is then no room to doubt. And thus our punish
ment points plainly to our sin; as our sin is made the
avenging rod to afflict us. A righteous Providence com
pels us to understand, what that great special sin is,
for which he has visited us with these heavy calamities.
The people of our land have had their eyes sadly
blinded to the sin of slavery, by the fallacious reasoning
of the Bible advocates of that system. They have reassoned thus: The Lord allowed the Israelites to purchase
and hold slaves; and slavery existed also in the Christian
church in the days of the Apostles, yet they did not con
demn it; therefore, our system of slavery is no sin in the
sight of God. The fallacy of their reasoning lies in this,
that the conclusion is not contained in the premises. It
would not follow, that our system of slavery is no sin,
even though the Lord allowed slavery in both the Jewish
and Christian churches. Nor even if he had, in a specific
manner, authorized us as a nation to hold slaves, would
it follow, that our system of slavery is no sin; because
our system might be entirely different from what he could
approve. And it is evident, too, that though the Lord
authorizes certain things to be done in certain circum
stances, it does not follow that these same things are
right in all other circumstances. The Lord authorized
the Israelites to make war upon the Canaanites, and on
several other occasions; but it does not follow, that every
war is therefore right. But such is the nature of their
fallacious reasoning—because the Lord tolerated a kind
of slavery in certain circumstances, they jump to the con
clusion, that, therefore, our slavery is no sin!
These Bible advocates of slavery have thus deceived
the people, by professing to examine our slavery in the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
51
light of God’s Word, while they have never done any
such thing. They have contended for a mere abstrac
tion—a thing called slavery—and have justified it; but
our slave system they have not brought into the light of
divine truth at all. And they have thus thrown dust in
the eyes of the people, and deceived them exceedingly;
leading them into a false position, respecting this matter,
which is of such vital importance to the best interests of
the nation.
It is evident that the question relating to slavery,
which concerns us is, whether our slavery is a sin in the
sight of God or not. As to whether the Lord has or has
not allowed of slavery, is to us comparatively of no impor
tance. He may have done so, and we may be spending
our time in proving it, and that slavery, “per se,” is not
wrong; while our own horrible system of slavery may be
eating out the very vitals of our nation—“treasuring up
for us wrath against the day of wrath”—the day of God’s
righteous visitation upon the land.
If the Bible advocates of slavery had done their duty,
they would have examined our system of slavery, in the
light of the Word of God: they would have compared our
slave laws, and our slave practices, with the requirements
of that Word; endeavoring to know the truth, and set the
people right in relation to the whole matter. But they
have always avoided this. They have never tried to
investigate and expose the great iniquities of our slave
system; but, on the contrary, they have always endeav
ored to conceal them: thus blinding the eyes of the
people, and deceiving them as to the true issue in the
case. If they had honestly taken up our slave laws,
explaining what they forbid and what they require, and
�52
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
exposed the practices of our slavery—comparing all with
the requirements of the pure Word of God—the inhu
manity, barbarous cruelty, and filthy pollution of the
system, would have been so glaring, that a universal out
burst of indignation would have gone forth from the
people, dooming the odious system to a sure and speedy
end: for when our people know the truth and the right,
they act accordingly. But, of course, the leaders will be
followed, in both church and state. And thus the masses
have been deluded, as to the true character of the mon
strous system of oppression maintained in the land. But
those who have deluded them have the greater sin, and
have enhanced not a little our national guilt.
There is no small measure of guilt incurred by justify
ing slavery from the Bible, and at the same time, refusing
to try our slavery by the Bible. The result of this
course has been, not only to blind the eyes of the nation,
as to the wickedness of the system, but also to justify
the slaveholders, and lead them to believe they were
right; and thus to encourage and embolden them, even to
rise up in rebellion, for the purpose of fortifying and per
petuating this great evil. So that the present horrors
and calamities abounding in the land, may be traced,
in no small measure, to the fallacious manner of dealing
with the subject, by the Bible advocates of our slavery.
Had it not been for their influence, the people of the
South, and partially of the North, never would have set
tled down in the belief, that our system of slavery
is a “divine institution,” to be indefinitely perpetuated;
nor by this belief would have brought down the wrath of
Heaven upon the whole land. As long as the system was
viewed as an evil, to be remedied, and a remedy sought
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
53
for, the Lord, in his forbearance, spared the nation; but
when the system came to be advocated as good and right,
and no change to be desired, then He interposed with his
own avenging hand, to break up, and root out this great
evil, in a most effectual manner. This He did by visiting
slaveholders with judicial blindness, through which they
might “stumble, and fall, and be snared, and be taken,”
by adopting a treasonable policy, which would bring
heavy calamities on the whole nation, as a punishment for
this sin, and also utterly consume, and bring to a total
end, the cruel system, in the behalf of which, the treason
was concocted. But if the people of the land had been
taught correctly, by the proper application of the Word
of God to the system, they would have seen the evil, and
discovered a remedy also, instead of being led to provoke
the Divine displeasure, to come with such vehemence
against the nation.
Our slave system would not bear the slightest measure
of investigation in the pure light of the Divine Word. A
system, which dooms and degrades millions of human
beings, to the condition of brutes, can have no counte
nance from the God of justice, love, and truth; nor any
sanction from His holy Word. And that such is the
nature of the system, both in its laws and in its practices,
is just as true as that it exists.
The limits of these pages will not allow the citation
of slave laws, nor the enumeration of slave practices, but
the testimony is abundant, and can be produced at any
time, to prove, that our slave system, dooms and degrades
millions of human beings, to the same level as the brutes.
For instance, the laws of the system forbid the slaves to
learn to read, and as brutes cannot read, it makes the
�54
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION.
slaves like them, in this respect, and puts them both in
the same condition. Men and women, and sheep and
hogs, must all be alike—incapable of reading the Word
of God, or anything else! Our slave system, also, annuls
the divine institution of marriage, among slaves. tThe
laws of the system, do not recognize the relation of hus
band and wife among slaves at all, nor anything like the
institution of marriage. And the system thus consigns
men and women, to the condition of brutes, and compels
them to herd together like the cattle of the field. But
this is only in accordance with the spirit and operations of
the whole system, which make them chattels and things,
and not human beings.
And the practice of the slaveholders has been in har
mony with their laws; because it is common, when their
interests demand it, to “ put asunder” men and women,
who were living together as husband and wife, and were
really such by the law of God; but their system justifies
it, and they practise accordingly. Indeed, the very core
and vitality of our slave system is, to view and treat the
slaves as cattle, that is, to make money out of them, (rat
tle are well kept, fed and cared for, that they may be
vigorous, multiply, and be profitable; and our slaves
have generally been treated in the same manner, and
from precisely the same motives.
And as cattle are made articles of trade and commerce,
so are the slaves. In slave raising States, for instance
Virginia, it has been common for men to go out over the
country, and buy up men, women and children, just as
sheep and hogs are bought up, and drive them in a drove
into Richmond, to be sold to the highest bidder. And in
these, and many other respects, does the system doom
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
55
and degrade millions of human beings to the very condi
tion of the brute creation. And for men to appeal to the
Bible, to justify such a system, is simply an outrage upon
common-sense and decency; and a gross insult to that
just and holy God, who is the author of the Bible. How
preposterous I to appeal to the Bible, in justification of a
system, the whole tendency of which is, to make brutes
of the slaves, and barbarians of the slaveholders, as the
history of events has now fully verified. And when the
leading men in the nation, and chief guides in morality,
filling the highest stations, have been pursuing this course,
is it any marvel that the Lord is much incensed against
us, and his visitations heavy upon the land?
Now, my fellow-citizens, is it not time to consider these
things, and avoid being any longer deluded by sophistical
reasonings? If we want to know the truth respecting
our slave system, let us honestly seek to find out what it
is, and measure it by the infallible standard of the Divine
Word; so as to learn its enormous wickedness, and con
sign it to perdition, where it properly belongs. Surely,
if we are a Christian people, we cannot bear to deal with
any class of human beings, as our slave system deals
with our slaves. Nor would it be amiss to inquire what
our duty was, as Christians, to the Africans found in our
midst, when we became a nation. By English cupidity
and rapacity, the poor Africans were dragged here, and
slavery planted in the land. But when we became an
independent nation, we ought not to have set the seal of
our approbation, to the evil course of England, by con
tinuing the unrighteous system which she had introduced.
And as we were proclaiming ourselves “ the land of the
free,” it was especially inconsistent in us, to establish sla
�56
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
very as one of our institutions. We found the Africans
among us, and they were pagans; what, then, was our
duty, as Christians, toward these pagans? Was it our
duty to make slaves of them ? to oppress them ? to whip,
and buy, and sell, and to make money out of them, as
though they had been so many brutes ? Was this our
duty, as a Christian people, to these pagans? Every
one with any conscience knows the answer. How ought
a Christian people to deal with a handful of pagans found
in their midst, and in their power? Certainly, not in
cruelty, but in kindness. And is it kindness to make
slaves of them ? to make brutes of them ? to use them
merely for the purpose of turning them into money?
Ought we not to have dealt with them for their good, not
for our own? Christian magnanimity, Christian mercy,
and Christian justice, all say we ought. And was it the
duty of a Christian people to add to the number of these
pagans, with the view of making money? As there
never was a single one of them, shipped from the shores
of Africa for any other purpose. In every instance the
motive was the greed of gain. Many of the poor Afri
cans have been benefitted by it; for the Lord can bring
good out of evil, and has done so in this case; but this
does not render the authors of the evil one whit the less
guilty.
These pagans, brought here, were “strangers” in a
strange land, and they ought to have received the sympa
thy, protection, and help of a Christian people, with the
view of making them Christians, not slaves. Is it the
way in which Christians ought to treat pagan strangers,
to make slaves of them ? Very numerous are the injunc
tions to the Jewish nation, to deal kindly with the “stran
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
57
gers” found among them. And these injunctions are
applicable to us. For though we, as a nation, are gath
ered out of all lands, yet, as a white race, we are the
people of the land; the Lord having given it to us as our
inheritance: and the African is emphatically the “stran
ger in our midst.” He ought, then, to be treated by us,
with no less kindness, than was required of the Jews to
»the “stranger within their gates.”
In the Bible, the “strangers,” the “fatherless,” and
the “widows,” are classed together as objects of the
Lord’s special regard; whose cause he will vindicate; and
who are to be treated with much tenderness and compas
sion. We have our “strangers,” and of them there are
great multitudes of “fatherless” and “widows;” for our
slave system has made them. Multitudes of wives have
been torn from their husbands, and sold into cruel and
helpless bondage. Multitudes of children have been torn
from their parents, and doomed to serve under the lash
of hard-hearted and pitiless taskmasters. But these
“widows” and “fatherless” of the African “stranger,”
have a double claim. Nor are they forgotten of the Lord.
He hears their cry. Exod. xxii. 21—24: “Thou shalt
neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: .... Ye shall
not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict
them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely
hear their cry. And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will
kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows,
and your children fatherless.” A great cry, prolonged
for many weary years, has gone up to heaven from
the South land. And though these “fatherless” and
“widows, are dark colored, debased by oppression, and
despised, yet the Lord has heard their cry. And all over
�53
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the nation, we behold a terrible verification of this portion
of God’s holy Word. It is enough to make any thought
ful person tremble and be afraid ; and to teach all, that
it is a fearful thing for a nation to disregard the counsels
of the Most High.
How touchingly the Bible describes the sad condition
of these “strangers,” “fatherless,” and “widows!”—
“Behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they
had no comforter: and on the side of their oppressor
there was power; but they had no comforter.” Eccl. iv. 1.
And forcibly, too, it describes the cry which went up from
their broken and crushed hearts to heaven :—“ 0 Lord
God, to whom vengeance belongeth; 0 God, to whom
vengeance belongeth, show thyself. Lift up thyself, thou
Judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud. Lord,
how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked
triumph? They slay the widow and the stranger, and
murder the fatherless.” And though the Lord waited
long, that the wicked might repent, and cease from
violence and oppression, yet the cry of the helpless is
answered at length. The “Judge of the earth hath lifted
up himself,” and is rendering “a reward to the proud.”
The pride, and haughty, overbearing insolence of the
oppressor, is being returned into his own bosom—as
saith the Lord: “The people of the land have used*
oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the
poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger
wrongfully. Therefore, have I poured out mine indig
nation upon them ; I have consumed them with the fire
of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon
their heads, saith the Lord God.” Ezek. xxii. 29, Si.
Now, my fellow-citizens, we have, as a nation, a duty
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
59
to discharge, in relation to this evil system. Nor is it
merely to remove it; for it is rapidly being removed,
whether we intend it or not. We never could discover a
method by which to bring our slavery to an end; and
simply because we never were willing that it should end.
If the people of the land had sincerely desired its end, it
would have ended long, long ago. Because there has
been nothing on the face of the earth, nor under it, to
prevent its removal, but the unwillingness of the people.
But “the Lord, in righteousness, is now making a short
work” of it; and by his all-controlling providence, will
bring it to an end, and that before long. But we, as a
nation, should gladly concur, and devote our energies to
the speedy consummation of the just and blessed work;
rejoicing to have wiped away this foul stain, which has
been to us, such a provocation for the Lord’s anger, and
standing reproach among the nations. And, besides, we
ought, as a nation, before all men, and in the sight of
Heaven, acknowledge our guilt, in so long upholding a
system, of such enormous wickedness and oppression.
And, as a nation, too, protect and make provision for
those we have so long oppressed—the “harmless, land
less, and homeless” multitudes now cast upon our care.
And thus “break off our sins by righteousness, and our
iniquities by showing mercy to the poor;” that the Lord
may return, and heal our land, and bless us again, with
peace and prosperity in all our borders.
The sins of the inhabitants of the land might be
dwelt upon; for they are numerous and great. Such as
Sabbath desecration, drunkenness and falsehood ; derelic
tion of duty in the family—a sad want of family govern
ment; and, hence, a lamentable disregard of parental
�GO
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
authority: a reckless spirit of insubordination generally;
with national pride and self-sufficiency; but there is
ground to believe that all these, in a measure, spring from
our national forgetfulness of Grod—that this is the foun
tain whence flow these evil streams. And in order to
have healthful streams, we must purify the fountain;
casting into it the salt of divine and unchangeable truth,
concerning God, his law, his claims and supremacy over
us as a nation. We commenced to build aside from the
true foundation, and numerous evils must be the conse
quence. Let us begin anew, where we ought to begin:
recognizing the rightful authority of God over us, and
acknowledging our national subordination to that author
ity. This will be to begin at the beginning, and will have
promise of a happy continuance: it will be laying a
foundation for law, order, and stability, in every depart
ment of the social fabric. When the fountain is purified,
by a recognition of our proper relations to God and his
government, it will have a healing and saving influence
on all the streams of our civil and social life.
Our sorrowful civil war has been protracted, much
beyond our expectation when it commenced. A vast and
inighty power has been brought to bear upon the rebel
lion, to crush it: the slaughter and destruction of the
lives of our people have been fearful and distressing: the
prayers of God’s people have been ascending on both
special and ordinary occasions; but the Lord’s hand
is stretched out against us still. And why so? The
Book, that never mistakes, informs us why—“Behold,
the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save;
neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your
iniquities have separated between you and your God, and
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
61
your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not
hear.”—Isa. xlix. 1, 2. This is it, our iniquities have
separated between us and our God. He says to a nation
praying and yet transgressing—“ When ye spread forth
your hands I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when
ye make mapy prayers, I will not hear.” In such cases
it is not merely prayer that is required; it is this—
“ Wash ye, make you clean, put away the evil of your
doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to
do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow.” This is the remedy
which a God of infinite wisdom and loving-kindness pre
scribes; and if we adopt it, soon we shall realize the
advantage of being guided by infinite wisdom. Peace
will flow to us like a river, and prosperity like the waves
of the sea.
“Whatsoever things were writen aforetime, were writ
ten for our learning;” and see the case of Israel, when
smitten before their enemies on account of Achan’s sin.
Joshua and the Elders had recourse to, and continued in
prayer: but prayer was not what was needed.—“The
Lord said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou
thus upon thy face ? * * * * Israel hath sinned; thou
canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away
the accursed thing from among you.” This is what is
requisite in our case—to cease to do evil; and learn to do
well—to repent, confess our sins, and forsake them. A
great change is being wrought in our land; and let us all
see to it, that it be for the better; a thorough and radical
change, reaching to all our evils, and removing them; so
as to have ours that nation, which the Most High will
especially favor.
�62
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
The great struggle of the nations is coming on apace:
the judgments of the Almighty will soon descend; for the
“Lord is arising to shake terribly the earth”—to shake
the wicked, and wicked institutions out of it—“ to destroy
them that destroy the earth,” and in their stead establish
his own reign of righteousness and peace. And in the
great conflict the only place of safety for us, will be
“under the shadow of the Almighty.” In the conflict we
shall doubtless have to share; but let us see that we go
into it duly prepared. Not in the strength of national
pride, vainglorious boasting, and self-confidence; nor yet
relying upon armies and navies, though we may have
them. Of all this we have surely had enough; and
recently, not a few impressive lessons, teaching us the
folly and impiety of trusting in our own strength, and of
giving the praise to the mere agency, instead of to the
God of providence, who sent deliverance in the time of
need. Many instances might be noted, but let two suf
fice. The “Merrimac” came forth on her mission of
destruction to our navy, and ruin seemed inevitable, when
there was no help! But the God of providence brought
in the “Monitor,” just at the hour of extremity, and we
were saved ! Then the glory and the praise of the nation
were given to the Monitor; and so the Lord raised his
winds and waves, and sunk her deep in the quick-sands,
off the Albemarle coast! Afterwards the rebel ram
“Atlanta” came forth, purposing, and probably compe
tent, to destroy our fleets. But the unseen hand of a
friendly Providence fastened her aground; so that “gal
lant Rogers,” with the “Weehawken,” made a quick and
easy capture. Then the praise of Captain Rogers and
the Weehawken sounded out from the voice of the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
63
nation; and the Lord, from whom it was withheld, soon
brought to an end the agency of both. The good cap
tain he removed from earth, and with his mighty waters,
carried the Weehawken down to the bottom of the deep;
just at the very side of the cradle of rebellion! IIow
striking these providences of God! to teach us the folly
and wickedness of forgetting Him: refusing to acknow
ledge his timely interposition for our help: leaning upon
human strength and wisdom—“Thus saith the Lord;
Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh
flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”
“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence
in man: it is better to trust in the Lord than to put con
fidence in princes.” If the Lord be on our side, we
need not be afraid. And to have him on our side, let us
own him as the God of our nation, acknowledge his
supremacy over us, and regulate our affairs in accordance
with his will. How could we go into a conflict with the
nations, acknowledging no Giod, and having no Grod?
The time has now almost come, for the breaking up
and overturning of the nations, both pagan and semi
pagan. Semi-paganism is to be cleaned out of Christen
dom ere long: the reign of Gentilism must soon come to
an end; and it will be effected, either by national dissolu
tion or reformation. Let us take care, then, to be a
reforming nation, and not a broken and shattered, help
less wreck. If we do as we might and ought, we may
escape this doom; and, on the contrary, be “strong in
the Lord, and the power of his might.” Our peace with
other nations may not continue long. We have seen the
disposition of some of them towards us; and with some
of the European powers, we may have to reckon, for
�64
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION.
their mean, cowardly, and unrighteous treatment of our
nation, in the time of its sore trial and conflict for
national existence.
But whatever our relations may be with other govern
ments, let us be careful to secure good relations with
Heaven’s government; and then, for certain, the “strong
est power” will be on our side, and we shall gloriously
triumph over every foe. For, “In the name of the Lord,
we shall lift up our banners;” and, “In the name of
the Lord, we shall destroy them.” “One shall chase a
thousand, and two shall put ten thousand to flight.”
Then shall we be a truly great and happy people—per
manent, peaceful, and prosperous. For, “The work of
righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteous
ness, quietness and assurance for ever. And the people
shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, in sure dwellings,
and in quiet resting-places”—Isa. xxxii. 17, 18—having
verified in us the truthful saying—“ Righteousness exalteth a nation”—and we the happy people, “whose God is
the Lord:” Love, peace, and prosperity going forth
together, and joyously smiling over the face of our entire
broad land—the teeming millions, glad and harmonious,
in the full realization of the countless advantages dis
pensed by our glorious Union—one vast Republic of
Freemen, liberty-loving and happy, in our own institu
tions, in the boundless munificence of earth, and the
sweet approbation of Heaven!
�
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 for the nation and the times
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Morton, George [1832-1907.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Philadelphia
Collation: 64 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Published anonymously 'by a citizen U.S.N.A.'. Author believed to be the Rev. George Morton.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William S. & Alfred Martien
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5230
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Politics
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 for the nation and the times), 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
Christianity-United States
Conway Tracts
politics
Religion
Slavery-United States
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/383930c4c2eaf05ef6672e21cd4afe98.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vNFLVt9U%7EMy1VrQGRESwpl15CXc7%7E0UosPYowWXULMQpmsyTLcj82JbFH0oNUI6%7EcyjnFQcrei2p9kywnZKG2g%7EQ5TRYzA2NtDzU5%7EaZKjQLv3oaGkAhxNvX4yuu3lsXE0VAymf-161ptU1jQVWV86BFnHXS9XYttXiRBuG%7EvanXczqKna2GgKcK9c%7ENgRD%7ErvygH-zdvHGUH8AWcXYp3XlujgiHe6FgyMigNzEy9N3yDbN7iLWqOVsh886T8RTNTnttdPH3I6jrJ4Jzaznd9Jkiukx7WG7GBRcIFrz0jdbHVC21z49Nn3i9z-78aaniRIz-LPQYecIPuF0RExc2rw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0ff179ea40bba44eb90b791d079513ed
PDF Text
Text
PUBLICATION DE LA RIVE GAUCHE
LES
PROPOS DE LABIENUS
PAR
A. ROGEARD
HUITIEME EDITION
EDITION APPROUVEE PAR L’AUTEUR
BRUXELLES
CHEZ TOUS LES LIBRAIRES ,
1865
Tons droits reserves
��PROPOS DE LABIENUS
Ceci se passait l’an VII apres J.-C., la trente-huitieme annee
du regne d’Auguste, sept ans avant sa mort; on etait en plein
principat, le peuple roi avait un maitre. Lentement sorti de
cette vapeur de sang qui avait empourpre son aurore, l’astre
des Jules montait et versait une douce lumidre sur le forum
silencieux. C’etait un beau moment! La curie etait muette et
les lois se taisaient; plus de cornices curiates ou centuriates,
plus de rogations, plus de provocations, plus de secessions,
plus de plebiscites, plus d?elections, plus de desordre, plus
d’armee de la republique, nulla publica arma, partout la paix
romaine, conquise sur les Romains; un seul tribun, Auguste;
une seule armee, l’armee d’Auguste; une seule volonte, la
sienne; un seul consul, lui; un seul censeur, lui encore; un
seul preteur, lui, toujours lui. L’eloquence proscrite allait
mourir dans l’ombre des ecoles; la litterature expirait sous la
protection de Mecene; Tite-Live cessait d’ecrire; Labeon, de
parler; la lecture de Ciceron etait defendue; la societe etait
sauvee. Pour de la gloire, on en avait sans doute, comme il
convient a un empire qui se respecte; on avait ferraille un peu
partout; on avait battu les gens, au nord, au sud, a droite, a
�I —
gauche, suffisamment; on avail des noms a mettre au coin des
rues et sur les arcs de triomphe; on avait des peuples vaincus a
enchainer en bas-reliefs; on avait les Dalmates, on avait les
Cantabres, et les Aquitains, et les Pannoniens; on avait les Illyriens, les Rhetiens, les Vindeliciens, les Salasses et les Daces ;
et les Ubiens, et les Sicambres, et les Parthes, reve de Cesar,
sans compter les Romains des guerres civiles, dont Auguste eut
l’audace de triompher contre la coutume, mais a cheval seulement, par modestie. Il y eut meme une de ces guerres ou l’empereur commanda et fut blesse en personne; ce qui est le
comble de la gloire pour une grande nation.
Cependant les sesterces pleuvaient sur la plebe; le prince
multipliait les distributions; on eut dit que cela ne lui coutait
rien; il distribuait, distribuait, distribuait; il etait si bon, qu’il
donnait meme aux petits enfants au dessous de onze ans, contrairement a la loi. Il est beau de violer la loi, quand on est
meilleur qu’elle.
Pour les spectacles, c’etait le bon temps qui commengait. On
n’avait que l’embarras du choix : jeux du theatre, jeux de gla~
dialeurs, jeux du forum, jeux de l’amphitheatre, jeux du cirque,
jeux des cornices, jeux nautiques et jeux troyens, sans compter
les courses, les chasses et les luttes d'athletes, et sans prejudice
des exhibitions de rhinoceros, de tigres et de serpents de cinquante coudees. Jamais le peuple romain ne s’etait tant amuse.
Ajoutez que le prince passait frequemment la revue des che
valiers et qu’il aimait a renouveler souvent la ceremonie du
defile; spectacle majestueux, sinon varie, et qu’il serait injuste
d’omettre dans 1’enumeration des plaisirs qu’il prodiguait aux
maitres du monde. Quant a lui, ses plaisirs etaient simples, et,
si ce n’est qu’il donna peut-e.lre trop souvent la place legitime
de Scribonie ou de Livie, soit & Drusilla, soit a Tertulla, soil a
Terentilla, soit a Rufilla,soit& Salvia Titiscenia, soit a d’autres,
et qu’il eut le mauvais gout, en pleine famine, de banqueter
�trop joyeusement, deguise en dieu, avec onze comperes, deifies
comme lui, et qu’il aima un peu trop passionnement les beaux
meubles et les beaux vases de Corinthe, au point quelquefois de
tuer le maitre pour avoir le vase, et qu’il fut joueur comme les
des, et qu’il fut toujours un peu enclin au vice de son oncle, et
que, dans sa vieillesse, son gout etant devenu plus delicat, il ne
voulait plus admeltre a 1’honneur de son intimite que des
vierges, et que lesoin de lui amener lesdites vierges etait confie
par lui a sa femme Livie, qui, du reste, s’acquitlait avec un grand
zele de ce petit emploi; si ce n’est cela et quelques menus suf
frages, qui ne valent pas meme la peine d’etre mentionnes,
Suelone assure que, en tout le reste, sa vie fut tres reglee et a
I’abri de tout reproche. Done e’etait une heureuse epoque que
cette ere julienne, e’etait un grand siecle que le siecle d’Auguste,
et ce n’est pas sans raison que Virgile, un peu exproprie
d’abord, indemnise ensuite, s’ecrie que e’est le regne de Saturne
qui revient.
II y avait bien, ca et la, quelque ombre au tableau; il y avait
eu une dizaine de complots, autant de seditions, et' cela gate un
regne; e’etaient les republicains qui revenaient. On en avait tue
le plus qu’on avait pu, a Pharsale, a Thapsus, a Munda, a Phi
lippes, a Actium, a Alexandrie, en Sicile; car la liberte romaine
avait la vie dure; il n’avait pas fallu moins de sept tueries en
masse, sept egorgements, pour la mettre hors de combat; les
legions semblaient sortir de terre suivant le voeu de Pompee; on
avait done tue consciencieusement ces republicains toujours renaissanls; mais combien? Trois cent mille, peut-etre, tout au
plus; e’etait bien, ce n’etait pas assez; il y en avait encore. De
la quelques petiles contrarietes dans la vie du grand homme. Au
senat, il lui fallait porter une cuirasse et une epee sous sa robe,
ce qui est genant, surtout dans les pays chauds; et se faire entourer de dix robustes gaillards, qu’il appelait ses amis, et qui
n’en etaient pas moins pour lui une compagnie facheuse.
�6
Il y avait aussi ces trois cohortes qui trainaient derriere lui
leur ferraille, dans cette meme ville ou, soixante ans auparavant,
il n’etait pas permis d’enlrer avec un petit couteau; celapouvait
faire naitre quelques doutes sur la popularite du Pere de la
palrie. Il y avait ensuite Agrippa qui demolissait trop; mais il
fallait bien faire un tombeau de marbre pour ce grand peuple
qui voulait mourir. Il y avait encore le prefet de Lyon, Licinius,
qui pressurait trop sa province; il ne savaitpas tondre la bete
sans la faire crier; c’etait un administrateur ignorant et grossier,
qui se contentait de prendre l’argent ou il etait, c’est a dire dans
les poches, procedant sans facon, manquant de genie dans l’execution ; c’est lui qui imagina d’ajouter deux mois au calendrier,
pour faire payer, deux fois de plus, par an, 1’impdt mensuel a
sa bonne ville. Du reste, il faut reconnaitre qu’il partageait
equitablement avec son maitre le produit de son administration.
Les bonnes gens de Lyon, ne sachant comment s’arracher
celte sangsue de la peau, eurent la simplicite de demander a
Cesar le rappel de leur prefet, qui fut maintenu.
Il y avait encore certaine expedition lointaine dont on n’avait
pas lieu d’etre absolument tier; le malheureux Varus avait ete
betement se faire ecraser avec trois legions, Ia-bas, la-bas, par
dela le Rhin, au fond'de la foret Ilercynienne. Cela fit mauvais
effet. La guerre est comme toutes les bonnes choses, il ne faut
pas en abuser. Elie a le merite d’etre un spectacle absorbant,
la plus puissante des diversions, je le veux bien, mais c’esl une
ressource qu’il faut menager; il ne faut pas jouer trop facilement ce jeu insolent et terrible, qui peut tourner contre celui
qui le joue; et quand on est un sauveur, il ne convient pas d’envoyer trop leg^rement a la boucherie les gens qu’on a sauves;
voila ce qu’on pouvait dire; mais qui done y pensait? a peine
vingt mille m6res, etqu’est-ce que cela, dans un grand empire?
On sait bien que la gloire ne donne pas ses faveurs, et Rome
etait assez riche de sang et d’argent pour les payer. Auguste en
�fut quitte pour se cogner tout. doucement la tete centre les
portes, et pour faire une prosopopee qui, du reste, est devenue
classique.
Il y avait enfin Lollius qui avait perdu une aigle ; on pouvait
s’en passer; et, quant aux finances, une ere nouvelle venait de
s’ouvrir, la grande administration etait inventee, le monde allait
etre administre. Le monstre-empire a cent millions de mains et
un ventre, l’unite est fondee! Je travaillerai avec vos mains et
vous digererez avec mon estomac, voila qui est clair, et Menenius avait raison, et je n’ai que faire de Lavis du paysan du
Danube.
Si ce systeme entrainait quelques abus, s’il y avait de le'mps
en temps quelque famine, ce n’etait la qu’un nuage dans le
rayonnemqnt de la joie universelle, une note discordante qui se
perdait dans le concert de la reconnaissance publique, et tous ces
petits malheurs, qui d’aventure, ridaient la surface de l’empire,
n’etaient a vrai dire que d’heureux contrastes, et'de piquantes
diversions menagees a un peuple heureux par sa bonne fortune,
pour le reposer de son bonheur et lui donner le temps de respirer; e’etait comme l’assaisonnement du regal, juste assez pour
rompre la monotonie du succ&s, temperer l’allegresse et preve
nt la satiete. On etouffait de prosperite; il y a des bienfaits qui
accablent et des bonheurs qui font mourir.
Qui done, en cet age d’or, qui done pouvait se plaindre? Tacite dit que, sept ans plus tard, a la mort d’Auguste, il ne res
tart que peu de citoyens qui eussent vu la republique; il en
restait encore moins de ceux qui l’avaient servie: ils avaient ete
emportes par les guerres civiles, ou par les proscriptions, ou par
les executions sommaires, oupar 1’assassinat, ou par la prison,
ou par l’exil, ou par la misere, ou par le desespoir; le temps
avait fait le reste; il restait quelques esprits chagrins, quelques
vieillards moroses, et quant a ceux qui etaient venus au monde
depuis Aclium, ils etaient lous nes avec une image de l’empe-
�reur dans l’oeil, et s’ils n’en voyaient pas plus clair, on avait
lieu d’esperer du moins qu’ils seraient disposes A trouver belle
la nouvelle face des choses, et meme la plus belle de toutes,n’en
ayant jamais vu d’autre. Done la tourbe de Remus etait contente, et tout etait au mieux, dans le meilleur des empires.
En ce temps-la vivait Labienus. Connaissez-vous Labienus?
C’etait un homme etrange et d’humeur singuliere. Figurez-vous
qu’il s’obstinait a rester citoyen dans une ville ou il n’y avait
plus que des sujets. Comprend-on cela? Civis Romanns sum,
disait-il; impossible de le faire sortir de la. Il voulait, comme
Ciceron, mourir libre dans sa patrie libre; imagine-t-on pareille
extravagance? citoyen et libre, I’insense! Sans doute il disait
cela, comme plus tard Polyeucte disait : Je suis chretien ! sans
trop savoir ce qu’il disait. Le vrai, c’est que sa pauvre tete etait
malade; il etait atteint d’une dangereuse affection du cerveau;
du moins c’etait l’avis du medecin d’Auguste,de celebre Artorius,
qui appelait ce genre de folie une monomanie raisonneuse, et
qui avait ordonne de trailer le malade par la prison. Labienus
n’avait pas suivi 1’ordonnance; aussi n’etait-il pas gueri
comme vous allez voir, quand je vous l’aurai fait mieux connaitre.
Titius Labienus portait un nom honore deja deux fois par de
bons citoyens. Le premier Labienus, lieutenant de Cesar, l’avait
quitte, lors du passage du Rubicon, pourne pas etre complice de
son attentat; le second avait mieux aime servir les Parthes que
les triumvirs; notre heros etait le troisieme. Une ligne de Seneque le rheteur suffit deja pour nous faire entrevoir cette
grande figure, car nous y trouvons cette fiere parole de Labie
nus : Je sais que cequej’ecris nepeut etre lu quapres ma mort.
Orateur et historien de premier ordre, parvenu a la gloirc a
travers mille obstacles, on disait de lui qu’il avait arrache plutot qu’ofefemt 1’admiration, Il ecrivait alors une histoire dont il
lisait parfois, portes closes, quelques pages a des amis surs.
d
�9 —
C’est & propos de cette histoire que la condamnation des livres
au feu fut appliquee pour la premiere fois, sur la motion d’un
senateur qui fut lui-meme frappe, quelque temps apres, de la
peine qu’il avait inventee; et Labienus eut ainsi, le premier a
Rome, l’honneur, devenu commun plus tard, d’un senatusconsulte incendiaire. C’est ce que M. Egger appelle judicieusement « les difficultes nouvelles que le regime imperial fit naitre
pour l’histoire (1). » Le pauvre historien brule, ne pouvant
survivre a son oeuvre, alia s’enfermer dans le tombeau de ses
ancetres, pour n’en plus sortir. Il croyait son oeuvre aneantie;
elle ne l’etait pas. Cassius la savait par cceur, et Cassius, pro
tege par l’exil, etait, comme il disait lui-meme, une edition
vivante du livre de son ami, une edition qu'on ne brulerait pas.
Sans doute la mort de Labienus fut aussi folle que sa vie; un
livre brule, la belle affaire! est-ce qu’on se tue pour cela? Lc
senat ne voulait pas la mort du coupable, il ne voulait que lui
donner un avertissement; il fallait en profiter; mais cet 'hommc
prenait tout & rebours, et entendait toujours de travers, quand
il entendait. Il etait bien digne de figurer dans ce long defile de
suicides stoiciens qui venait de commencer, et parmi tous ces
heroiques niais, tous ces opposants systematiques et absolus,
enrages et absurdes, qui faisaient de leur mort meme un der
nier acte d’opposition, et s’imaginaient, en s’ouvrant les veines,
faire un bon tour a 1’empereur. Aucuns meme se tuaient uniquement pour faire enrager le prince, qui en riait avec ses
affranchis, et n’en etait que plus persuade de 1’excellence de sa
politique, en voyant que sa besognese faisait toute seule. Labie
nus etait de ceux-la ; vous voyez bien que e’etait un imbecile;
tel est l’homme dont nous voulons vous redire les propos, el
vous verrez que dans scs propos, comme dans sa vie et dans sa
mort, il fut toujours le meme, c’est a dire un incorrigible. C’etail
(1) Examens critiques, p. 92.
�— 10 —
un homme du vieux parti, puisque la liberte etait passee; un
reactionnaire, puisque la republique etait une chose du temps
jadis; un ci-devant de l’ancien regime, puisque le gouvernement des lois etait le regime d’autrefois; en un mot, c’etait une
ganache.
Il etait de ces mechants qui doivent trembler sous un gouvernement fort, pour que les bons se rassurent, et que la societe,
ebranlee j usque dans ses fondements, puisse se rasseoir sur ses
bases. Ce n’est pas tout, Labienus etait ingrat : en plein cesarisme, en pleine gloire, au milieu de cette surabondance de felicite publique et de cette fete immense du genre humain, il meconnaissait les bienfaits que repandait a pleines mains le second
fondateur de Rome, le pacificateur du monde; il avait a la fois
les passions aveugles et les passions ennemies qui font les
hommes dangereux et les citoyens funestes. Mais vous ne le connaissez pas encore. Sa passion manquant d’air et d’espace, dans
I’etouffement du principal, ne pouvant ni parler, ni ecrire, ni
agir, ni se mouvoir, il passait des heures entieres sur le pont
Sublicius, a voir couler le Tibre, immobile et muet, mais le
regard furieux, le geste menacant, la poitrine gon flee de l’esprit
des anciens jours, comme une statue de Mars vengeur, comme
un tribun petrifie. II est doux de dormir, disait Michel-Ange,
ou d’etre de pierre, tant. que durent la misere et la honte. La
bienus ne dormait pas, mais il etait de pierre, plus dur que le
roc du Capitole (immobile saxwri). La tyrannie n’avait pas prise
sur lui, et l’empire n’y pouvait mordre; c’etait un Romain de
la vieille roche, que rien ne pouvait entamer. Seul, debout,
comme Codes, entre une armee et un precipice, il defiait l’une
ct l’autre : il defiait Auguste et souriait a la mort. Dans tout
cela, il y avait du bon, si vOus voulez; mais a cote, quel caraclercdetestableet quel esprit mal fait! Octaveavaiteu beaufrapper une superbe medaille, avcc les trois mains entrelacees des
triumvirs, et cette sublime Iegende : Lesalut du genre humain,
�— 11 —
cela encore lui deplaisait; il pretendait qu’on l’avait sauve malgre lui, et il citait le vers d’Horace :
Quand d’etre ainsi sauvd je n’ai pas le dessein,
Au diable le sauveur, qui n’est qu’un assassin!
Le vieux Labienus etait de ceux qui avaient vu la republique;
ce n’etait pas sa faute; mais il avait la sottise de s’en souvenir,
la etait le mal. Il voyait maintenant un grand regne, et il n’etait
pas content. Il y a des gens qui ne le sont jamais. Il se croyait
toujours au lendemain de Pharsale; quarante ans de gloire lui
crevaient les yeux, sans les ouvri.r; il avait Fair d’un homme
qui fait un mauvais reve, et la realite pour lui n’etait qu’une
infernale vision. Il avait des etonnements naifs; il ne voulait pas
croire que e’etait arrive. Epimenide (qui dormit cent ans),
quand il se reveilla, etait moins etonne. Triste dans la joie
universelie, sombre au milieu de 1’orgie romaine, comme les
deux philosophes du tableau de Couture, il etait la et semblait
viyre ailleurs; e’etait un spectre dans une fete; vous eussiez dit
un mort echappe des tombeaux de Philippes, une ombre curicuse qui vient voir. Quelquefois un ami le plaignait; lui, plaignait son ami. Le plus souvent, tout seul, il grondait dans son
coin; il regardait passer l’empire. Il n’etait guere possible de
faire entendre raison a un pareil homme : il etait d’un autre
age, exile dans l’age nouveau; il avait la nostalgie du passe; il
n’avait rien appris, ni rien oublie; il ne comprenait rien a
, l’epoque presente; il avait tous les prejuges de Brutus, il etait
infecte d’opinions grecques qui n’etaient plus de mise a Rome
depuis longtemps. Il avait Fair vieux comme les Douze Tables;
il pensait encore comme on pensait du temps de Fabricius ou des
Camilles chevelus. Et puis des idees fantasques et d’incroyables
manies; surtout un gout bizarre, inexplicable, etrange : il aimait
la liberte! Evidemment T. Labienus n’avait pas le senscommun.
�— 12 —
Aimer la liberte! Comprenez-vous cela! C’etait une opinion re
trograde, puisque la liberte etait la chose ancienne; les hommes
nouveaux aimaient le regime nouveau. Il n’avait pas le sentiment
des nuances, ni la notion du temps, ni 1’intelligence des tran
sitions.
Le temps avait marche, les idees aussi; lui, restait plante la
comme un terme; il croyait encore a la justice, aux lois, a la
science et a la conscience; evidemment il radotait. 11 parlait du
parti des honnetes gens, comme Ciceron; il parlait de Senat, de
tribuns, de cornices, et ne voyait pas que tout cela etait fondu
comme neige dans le cloaque immense, et qu’il etait presque
seul sur le bord. Il comptait encore les annees par les consuls,
car Auguste avait laisse le nom pour faire croire a la chose, et
lui, esperait ressusciter la chose en conservant le nom. Il preparait des discours au peuple, comme s'il y avait un peuple; il
invoquait les lois, comme s’il y avait des lois; le principat n’etait
pour lui qu’une parenth^se de l’histoire, une page honteuse des
annales romaines, il avait hate de tourner la page ou de la dechi
rer ; il disait toujours que cela allait finir, et il le croyait; les
gens le croyaient fou, et il 1’etait, comme vousvoyez. Au demeurant, bonhomme; entete plutdtque mechant; incapable detuer
un poulet, et de souhaiter le moindre mal a un homme, si co
n’est a Auguste, et encore. Il etait si doux, qu’il etait d’avis de
ne l’envoyer qu’au bagne, tourner la meule, contrairement a
l’opinion plus commune de ceux qui voulaient le mettre en
croix. Il pensait d’ailleurs, avee les stoiciens, que lechatiment
est un bien pour le coupable; il est done vrai de dire qu’il souhaitait a Auguste leseul bonheur qui put lui arriver : l’expiation.
Un jour qu’il se promenait sous le portique d’Agrippa, il rencontra Gallion. Junius Gallion etait un jeune sage, comme La
bienus etait un vieux fou. C’etait un jeune homme serieux et
doux, instruil et elegant, poli, circonspect et prudent, un stoi-
�13
cien modere; espagnol et romain, citoyen et sujet, homme de
deux epoques et de deux pays, sang mele, opinion croisee, un
peu ceci et un peu cela; tournant parfois, comme Horace, ses
regards attendris sur le tombeau de la liberte, et les reportant,
non moins attendris, sur le berceau de l’empire; donnant une
larme a Caton, un sourire a Cesar; caractere bienveillant,
aimant un peu tout le monde, meme Labienus. Il etait frere de
Seneque, qui n’osa pas vivre, et oncle de Lucain, qui ne sut pas
mourir : on n’avait plus que des moi ties d’heroisme et des troncons de grandeur; peuple en ruines, avant ses temples; qa et la
encore quelques demi-Romains. Gallion faisait des vers pour le
favori de Mecene ; les critiques l’appellent l’ingenieux Gallion.
Enfin, ilavait de l’esprit, car il fut proconsul. C’est de lui qu’on a
nomme gallionistes les indifferents en matiere religieuse; il aurait pu etre un peu patron, du meme genre, en matiere politique.
C’est ce que lui reprochait Labienus. Et je crois que le sombre
promeneur allait passer sans se soucier de le reconnaitre; car
Labienus n’etait pas aimable; il n’etait guere plus affable que
ces fameux senateurs qui, fierement assis au milieu du forum,
regurent un jour si froidement les Gaulois. Aussi Gallion ne se
serait pas hasarde a lui caresser la barbe; mais le jeune homme
etait si content, si emu, avait si grand besoin de trouver quelqu’un a qui dire la grande nouvelle qu’il venait d’apprendre, il
etait si curieux d’en voir l’effet sur Labienus, qu’il l’aborda :
Bonjour, Titus! quid agis, dulcissime, rerum? comment te
portes-tu? — Mai, si l’empire se porte bien.
— C’est bon, on sait bien que tu es loujours de mauvaise
humeur; mais j’ai une nouvelle a t’apprendre. — Il n’y a pas
de nouvelle pour moi, tant qu’Auguste regne encore. — Allons,
je sais que tu es en colere depuis trente ans, et que tu n’as pas
ri une seule fois depuis le triumvirat; mais voici ma nouvelle :
les Memoires d’Auguste viennent de paraitre. — Et depuis
quand les brigands font-ils des livres? — Depuis que les hon-
�— 14 —
netes gens font des empereurs. — Helas! — Ainsi, mon cher
Titus, tu ne liras pas ces Jfe'moi'm? — Je les lirai, Gallion, je
les lirai, en pleurant de honte. — Et tu vas y repondre, les critiquer, faire un anti-Cesar, comme Cesar a fait un anti-Caton ?
— Non, Gallion, je ne veux rien publier sur ce sujet, je ne discute pas avec celui qui a trente legions; dans un pays qui n’est
pas libre, on doit s’interdire de toucher a l’histoire contemporaine, et la critique, en pareille matiere, est impossible. — Tu
ne veux pas eclairer le public? — Je ne veux pas contribuer a
le tromper, car, par le temps qui court, sur de tels sujets, rien
de ce qui parait ne peut etre bon, rien de ce qui est bon ne peut
paraitre. Je continuerai mon hisloire secrete, dont j’enverrai
les feuillets a Severus, en lieu sur; jesauverai la verite, en l’exilant. — Mais on assure que la critique sera libre; la tyrannic
donnera huit jours de conge a la litterature.—Ils ne pourront
donner qu’une fausse liberte, une liberte de decembre, c’est a
dire une liberte de carnaval, libertas decembris, comme dit
Horace; je ne veux pas en user. Je ne veux pas, en ecrivant
contre le livre, me trouver place entre la vengeance d’Octave et
la clemence d’Auguste, sans avoir meme le choix. Je ne veux
pas, comme Cinna, donner au drole 1’occasion de faire le raagnanime, et etre execute par une grace. Quant a louer Ie livre, je
ne le puis que s’il est bon, auquel cas, je craindrais d’etre confondu avec ceux qui le louent pour d’autres motifs. Il m’est
done aussi impossible de louer que de blamer. Et d’ailleurs, le
livre n’est pas bon et ne pouvait pas l’etre. Quand un homme
est assez coupable pour se faire roi, et assez sot pour se faire
dieu, je pense qu’il ne saurait avoir toutes les qualites requises
pour ecrire Fhistoire. Vous etes sur deja qu’il n’a ni bon sens,
ni bonne foi; alors qu’esl-ce qui lui reste? Il ne peut ni savoir
la verite, ni la dire, s’il la savait; alors de quoi sc mele ce
porte-sceptre? Et pourquoi s’avise-t-il d’ecrire? Un roi hislorien
doit commencer par abdiquer. Il ne Fa pas fait; mauvaissigne;
�Et puis, j’en ai lu des passages. II justifie les proscriptions et
fait l’apologie de l’usurpation. Cela devait etre. Et tu veux
Gallion, que jefasse la critique de cette oeuvre d’ignorance etde
mensonge, revetue de l’approbation de deux mille centurions, et
recommandee au lecteur par les veterans. La critique! c’est le
siege, que tu devais dire. Et tu ne vois pas, mon petit Gallion,
que c’est 1st un des meilleurs tours que le fils du banquier ait
joues aux fils de la louve, qui, helas! ne savent plus mordre,
commeleur aieule. Ah! Gallion, nous sommes degeneres, nous
sommes des Romains de decadence, tombes de Cesar dans Au
guste, et de Charybde dans Scylla; de la force dans la ruse, et
de l’oncle dans le neveu! Pouah! Non, je ne veux pas tomber
dans ce guet-apens litteraire, ni donner dans le panneau, ni surtout y faire tomber les autres; non, je n’ecrirai pas sur les
Mimoires d’Augusle. Le silence du peuple est la lecon des rois.
Labienus la donnera a Auguste.
Sois tranquille, d’ailleurs; si tu veux de la critique sur ce
petit morceau de litterature imperiale, si tu veux de fines appre
ciations, on t’en donnera; si tu veux de savantes dissertations,
il en pleuvra; si tu veux d’ingenieuses et piquantes observations,
des apercus pleins de nouveaute, des discussions elegantes et
Courtoises, soutenues d’un ton exquis par des gens du meilleur
monde, tu en auras; si tu veux de la controverse & genoux et
de la rhetorique a plat-ventre, et des epigrammes & surprise,
dont la pointe chatouille au lieu de piquer, et des morsures qui
sont des caresses, et des reproches sangiants qui font plaisir, et
d’adorables gentillesses adroitement glissees sous l’apparence
d’un jugement severe, etde jolis petits mots tout aimables, deli-,
catement enveloppes dans les plis d’une phrase feroce et rebarbative, et des bouquets de fleurs de latinite, et des flots d’elo
quence melliflue, et des arguments offerts sur des coussins de
velours, et des objections presentees sur un plateau d’argent,
comme une lettre par un domestique; rien de tout cela ne
�— 16
te manquera, mon cher Gallion; nous allons voir danser le
choeur des muses d’Etat, et c’est Mec&ne qui conduira le ballet.
Les chastes soeurs ont quitte le Pinde pour le mont Palatin, et
Apollon s’est mis dans la police. Done Auguste est assure
d’avoir un public, des lecteurs, des juges, des critiques, des
copistes et des commentateurs; il se trouvera des gens pour
cette besogne. Qui a fait desVirgiles, peut faire des Aristarques;
il lui en faut, il en aura!
Deja toute la litterature est en liesse : Varius pleure de
joie; Flavus trepigne de tendresse; Rabirius prepare ses
tablettes; Haterius fera une lecture, et Tarpa une declama
tion; Pompeius Macer declare que c’est un beau jour pour la
morale, et commande trois exemplaires de luxe, pour les trois
bibliotheques publiques qu’il vient d’organiser; Fenestella va
ajouter un volume a son Histoire litteraire; Metellus, qui fait
si bien les discours du prince, comptera les beautes oratoires de
son livre; et Verrius, le grammairien, les beautes gramma ticales; Marathus, l’historiographe, donnera une analyse dans le
journal de la cour; et Athenodore, le protege d’Octavie, redigera une paraphrase pour les dames, et les notules explicatives
a la portee des princesses. En voila dix, j’en connais mille;
ces gens-la vont defiler devant 1’empereur, en criant a tue-tete,
comme les chevaliers a la parade; lui, cependant, aura une atti
tude pleine de modestie et de majeste; son geste dira : assez!
son sourire dira : encore! et la cohue s’egosillera de plus belle.
Comme il a eu, pour applaudir ses actes, la populace des
sept collines; il aura, pour louer son livre, la populace des au
teurs; les applaudissements sont surs, mais ils ne peuvent venir
que d’un cote; c’est meme la une consequence assez grotesque
de sa situation litteraire unique. L’inforlune ne I’a peut-etre pas
prevue, mais je m’en moque; il reussira par ordre, c’est dur,
mais je n’y peux rien. La toute-puissance a des inconvenients
pour un auteur; tout n’est pas roses dans Ie metier d’ecrivain
�17 ----
couronne. La place n’est pas tenable, et Virgile y aurait perdu
son latin. Mais il faut subir la loi qu’ori s’est faite, et quand la
honte est versee, il faut la boire. Attention done, mon cher Gal
lion; la fete va s’ouvrir, elle sera bruyante et nombreuse; deja
les musiciens sont & leurs places, accordent leurs instruments
et preludent au concert; regarde done et ecoute, si c’est ton
gout; j’avoue que le spectacle ne laissera pas d’etre assez rejouissant pour ceux qui peuvent rire encore.
Je sais que l’ouvrage comprendra la derniere guerre civile, et
meme la derniere annee de Jules Cesar. En bonne foi, mon cher
Gallion, peux-tu prendre cela au serieux? Auguste publiant un
livre sur la revolution qu’il a faite! Que dire, selon toi, d’un
criminel qui publie l’apologie de son crime ? A mon sens, il commet un second attentat plus difficile, il est vrai, que le premier
(car il est plus facile de commettre un crime que de le justifier); mais ce second attentat, s’il est plus difficile, est aussi
plus coupable et plus funeste, car les victimes sont plus nombreuses, les consequences plus durables. Le premier s’attaque
a la vie des hommes, l’autre a leur conscience; l’un tue le corps,
l’autre 1’esprit; 1’un opprime le present, l’autre l’avenir. C’est le
coup d’Etat dans la morale, la creation du desordre, Tin justice
systematisee, l’organisation du mal, la promulgation du' non
droit, la proscription de la verite, la defaite definitive de la rai
son publique, la deroute generale des idees, une bataille d’Actium intellectuelle. C’est le vrai couronnement d’un edifice de
sceleratesse et d’infamie, c’est aussi le seul possible. Le livre
d’Auguste, c’est sa vie erigee en exemple, c’est son ambition
innocentee, c’est sa volonte formulee en loi, c’est le code des
malfaiteurs, la bible des coquins; et c’est un pared livre que
vous voulez critiquer publiquement, sous le regime de son bon
plaisir! Vous voulez faire a Auguste une opposition litteraire?
Allons done! de la critique contre Octave! quelle derision! il
n’a pas fait de critique contre Ciceron; il 1’a tue! Quoi! le mi-
�— 18 —
serable qui vous assassine, vous fait un sermon sur 1’assassinat,
et, avant de vous achever, il vous demande votre avis sur sa pe
tite composition, mais votre avis, 1£, bien sincere, sur le fond et
sur la forme, votre avis politique et litteraire; car il est artiste
etbon enfant, et il veut savoir votre opinion sur son oeuvre; et
vous, bonnement, vous iriez la lui dire, et, le couteau sur la
gorge, vous allez gentiment confabuler avec le bourreau! Gal
lion, mon ami, vous n’y pensez pas!
Que diriez-vous de Verras faisant un livre sur la propriete?
Est-ce que vous discuteriez avec lui? Les Memoires d’Octave
sont-ils done autre chose ?N’est-ce pas la theorie de l’usurpation,
ecrite par un usurpateur? C’est une ecole de conspiration, ouverte par un conspirateur impuni.
L’auteur n’y peut dire, apres tout, que ce qu’il sait; il sait
piller une ville, egorger un senat, forcer un tresor dans un
temple et voler Jupiter; il sait faire de fausses clefs, de faux
serments et de faux testaments; il sait mentir au Forum et a la
Curie, corrompre les electeurs, ou s’en passer; tuer ses collegues blesses, comme a Modene, proscrire en masse, et autres
jeux de princes; il sait, suivant la methode du premier Cesar,
comment on emprunte aux uns pour preter aux autres, et se
faire des amis des deux cotes; il sait, d’un vigoureux elan, franchir toules les barrieres et tous les Rubicons, puis, d’un bond
supreme, s’enlevant au dessus des lois divines et humaines,
faire le saut perilleux, cabrioler et tomber roi. Il sait tout cela,
mais il ne sait pas un mot d’histoire, ni de politique, ni de mo
rale, si ce n’est de la grande, c’est a dire de la morale des
grands qui s’enseignait dans sa famille. On ne trouve done rien
dans son livre de ce qu’on a besoin de savoir, et on y trouve, a
profusion, ce qu’il est dangereux d’apprendre. Il aime les vieux
mots, les vieilles monnaies et les vieux casques, mais il n’aime
pas les vieilles moeurs. Allez-vous discuter avec lui quelque
point de grammaire, d’archeologie ou de numismatique? Sot
�— 19 —
qui lui ferait cet honneur. Vous voyez bien que ce serait 1& tom
ber dans son piege et jouer son jeu. Les gens de sa sorte se
sentent, quoi qu’ils fassent, au ban de la societe; ils en sont
sortis violemment par un crime, ils veulent y rentrer doucement par la ruse. Ils n’ont plus qu’une ambition, se faufiler
parmi les honneles gens. Pour cela, ilsprennent tous les deguisements: ils vont cherchant partout leur pauvre honneur
perdu; on les voit, mendiants couronnes, queter l’estime &
toutes les portes; c’est la seule aumone qu’on ne puisse pas
leur faire. Auguste en est la; ce buveur de sang n’a plus qu’une
soif, celle des louanges; ce voleur de l’empire du monde ne veut
plus voler qu’une chose : sa rehabilitation. Mais il tente l’impossible. L’effort impuissant et desespere qu’il fait pour sauver
quelques debris de sa reputation naufragee, cet effort supreme
pour raccrocher son honneur a une derniere branche qui va casser, cette derniere lutte de Cesar avec l’opinion qui l’ecrase, a je
ne sais quoi de lugubre et de comique, comme la derniere gri
mace d’un pendu, ou comme le sourire du gladiateur, qui veut
mourir avec grace. Le livre de Cesar, c’est la toilette du condamne, c’est le salut du supplicie & la foule, en marchant au
supplice. C’est la coquetterie du dernier jour. Cesar etait si sale,
que le bourreau n’en eut pas voulu; il se debarbouille un peu,
pour embrasser la mort. Et il demandedes lecteurs! l’insolenl!
des lecteurs pour Cesar! & quoi bon! 11 ose, dans une preface,
adresser des questions aux lecteurs; mais c’est le licteur qui repondra. — En attendant cette reponse, je vais lire les Memoires
d’Auguste. — Et moi, repondit Labienus, je vais relire les
Libelles de Cassius.
FIN.
Bruxelles. — Typographic de D. Brismee, rue des Alexiens, 13.
��
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
Les propos de Labienus
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 8th
Place of publication: Brussels
Collation: 16 p. : 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rogeard, A.
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
1865
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5246
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 (Les propos de Labienus), 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
French
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roman Empire
Caesar Augustus
Conway Tracts
Labienus
politics
Roman Empire