https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0e1e8aad6192652acad80bbb72dc7b99.pdf?Expires=1784764800&Signature=YOOdgKGGG3Y6Cz1KLzw0nSDWXT7C8j2pnGZQAxSCQNAyJYPZA1L63TZOg-yb58-7WXPTLeQzI8DUI-lHpvOho2W87sAqseOJuHPwc6R6MHRRtI95ejGqwplP-5rbU1lc%7EJYl4iJumPqanhRBav%7ET89Ryy3rZ4uTsnbFzMAgtNEjrIkDNYpZ--3Nqk5VHQQyECuTECNA2nwoSRzO8lgGJRlzwsI7WIDSXtnJFcb2QYOwfulxRQCTG-PdkRzm0aqQi63hVNHbLzwmrUwtU4sD9lHyzowK7b6d0wai1rhkU2sHxzD%7EZAite09-k-Ryf5bufTsjJc0hdWXGC2bdpToinZw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 115ad165450cde28109501d4ccda3f7f PDF Text Text FREETHOUGIIT AND MODERN PROGRESS. A LECTURE By Charles Watts, Secretary or Secular Society. the National The present is a very opportune time to point out the rapid progress which is taking place throughout society, and to endeavour to ascertain the position Freethought occupies in that advancement. Liberalism has recently achieved a vic­ tory over a Tory Government, which is sufficiently indicative of the characteristics of the age. In spite of the existence among us of the relics of arbitrary faith and narrow creeds, the Attorney-General found that the period had passed when he would be allowed to fetter the press by successfully prose­ cuting the National Reformer, and thereby prevent the pub­ lication of a paper that boldly exposed political corruptions and theological restrictions. The love of inquiry and freedom has such a firm hold upon the minds of the present generation, that unless considerable retrogression takes place, prosecutions for heretical opinions will not be tolerated by a people who have paid so dearly for the liberty which to-day they possess. The year 1868, so far as it has gone, is certainly not per­ fect. Bigotry still reigns, prompting its adherents to seek to re-enact the barbarous laws of a rude age ; religious zeal still urges its devotees to persecute those who do not accept the prevailing faith ; fanaticism is still in our midst impelling its victims to denounce the “infidel” as one unworthy the fellowship of general society. The Freethinker is still re­ garded by the civil power as an outlaw, being deprived of the means of obtaining justice in a court of law unless he submits to a sham, or, what is worse, resorts to hypocrisy and deceit. The Statute Book of England still contains^ Acts against blasphemy,” and enactments against free speech, which, if they dare be enforced, would imprison every man who writes or speaks ,against the “ Holy Religion.” Notwithstanding, however, these remaining blots upon our civilisation, if we take a retrospect of the last two hundred years, and glance at the important changes which have taken place, we shall recognise that the struggles of the pioneers of the past were not in vain. It was necessary for them to till and prepare the soil for the reception of that plant, which the persistent Tract No. 4. �2. toil of subsequent ages has caused to yield such encouraging fruit. True liberty is not the offshoot of a day, but rather the growth of years, “ Our Elliots, our Hampdens, and our Cromwells, a couple of centuries ago, hewed with their broad-swords a rough pathway for the people. But it was reserved for the present century to complete the triumph which the Commonwealth began.” The foundation of Freethought has long been laid in England. And although the edifice of progress erected thereon has been slow m its erection, it has now reached such a height of grandeur that it commands the admiration of the world. When in 1062, the 2,000 clergymen resigned their benefices, and gave up the national religion of the time, because. they could not submit to the pet doctrine of the church, which was “ passive submission,” they adopted the very basis of Freethought prin­ ciples. If their attachment to theology impeded their further advancement, it does not argue one iota against the efficacy of the principles. Truth may be crushed, but it cannot be annihilated ; it is as permanent as the earth which contains it. Unfortunately, to secure the general recognition of truth, and the possession of popular right, requires not only time, but also personal sacrifice. The battle of the freedom of the press has been nobly fought, and practically won, but the victory cost Paine, Hone, Wright, Carlile Williams, He­ therington, Watson, and many others their liberty, and im­ posed upon them privations which were keen to endure. For selling the Poor Man's Guardian only, upwards of 500 persons were thrown into prison. For publishing the “ Age of Reason” in 1797, Williams suffered twelve months’ imprisonment in Coldbath prison. In lol2, Daniel Isaac Eaton was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and the pillory, for the same grave offence; and the following year, Mr. Houston was sentenced to be imprisoned for ±wo years in Newgate, and fined £200, for publishing his book called “Ecce Homo. , In Octobe , 1819 Carlile was tried for publishing Paine s Theological Works, and Palmer’s “Principles of Nature,’ and con­ demned for the first to Dorchester Gaol, and a fine of £1000, and for the second to one year’s imprisonment, and a fine of £500, and had to find security for good behaviour for him­ self in £1000, and two securities in £100 each. His wife and sister were afterwards convicted of. similar acts, and suffered heavy sentences. Upwards of thirty other persons, £ many of them journeymen of Mr. Carlile, and the rest small �booksellers, have also been subjected to fine and imprison­ ment in various degrees of severity. After this, Charles Southwell was imprisoned and fined £100, for publishing an article in the Oracle of Reason. Liberty of speech was another achievement, to obtain which, imprisonment and death had to be endured. In the early part of the seventeenth century, LegatandWrightman were burned by English bishops, for avowing heretical opi­ nions. Since that time we have had the Rev. Robert Taylor imprisoned and fined for lecturing against the prevailing reli­ gious opinions, and the arrest and imprisonment for six months of Mr. Holyoake, for words spoken in the heat of debate. Society has subsequently undergone great changes, civilisation has advanced. The fact is being acknowledged that opinion is the result of organisation and evidence. And instead of inflicting punishment for the imperfections of the one, or the limitation of the ether, the modern Secular policy is to recognise the widest and most diversified thoughts, seeking to correct those which are erroneous by unfettered inquiry and honest criticism. The terms Freethought, Heretic, and Secularism, will be used on the present occasion synonymously, as conveying the same idea. Those who object to think freely are not likely to become heretical, and until a man dissents from orthodoxy he can never adopt the principles of Secularism, inasmuch, as Secular philosophy suggests that nothing must be accepted as truth merely upon authority, but, on the contrary, all questions should be submitted to the test of reason and careful examination. This course is never adopted by those who believe any creed or principle without investi­ gation. It will be also necessary in this inquiry to regard the term Freethought, in its most comprehensive sense, as not being confined exclusively to religion. While it is too true that theological enslavement has in all ages been productive of the greatest of wrongs, stimulated a« it has been by the fiercest passions of human nature, still, political and social fetters are also antagonistic to the happiness and progress of a people. Political liberty is as essential as religious freedom to a nation’s welfare. In fact, in many instances, the one is the necessary consequence of the other. A people politically free will not long submit to religious oppression. And, moreover, those who are the least trammelled with dogmas and creeds are the first to welcome political progress. Hence sceptical Germany can �4. adopt the principle of the full representation of the people, accompanied with the ballot, while Christian England denies such rights and necessities to the wealth-producers of this country. If we take the principal Catholic countries we shall find that religious restrictions are as numerous as political rights are limited. The Queen of Spain can pay her religious devotions to the Virgin Mary, while she gags the press to prevent the corruption of her priestly-arranged system being exposed to her slave-bound subjects. The present ruler of France can sit securely upon bis perjured and bloodstained pedestal of power, giving vent to his “ re­ ligious” emotions, while the freedom of the press is fettered, and the political regenerators banished from their country. The Pope of Rome can prepare pastorals condemning scientific progress, while he issues an allocution against the freedom of the press, the choice of education, im­ provements in the marriage laws, and the burial ceremo­ nies as contained in the recent liberal policy of Austria. Even in our own land, the foremost opponents to poli­ tical emancipation, are those who would bind us with the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. At the present time those who are struggling to maintain that scandal of the age, and that impediment to progress—the Irish Church—are clergymen of the Protestant faith. Those obstructionists can muster their clerical forces at St. James’s Hall, to condemn the advanced Gladstonian policy, while they preach to their flock, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God . . . Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Equally desirable is it to have Freethought and free utterance upon social questions.. . As political liberty and religious freedom are absolute requisites to the vitality of modern society, so are social restrictions detrimental to the permanent happiness and comfort of a nation. Viewed in this broad and expansive light, it can be readily seen that Freethought cannot co-exist with an absolute belief in the teachings of the New Testament. What stimulant did Christ give to think freely when he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me. . . if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, (ind is withered ; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned ?” Is there any incentive to �O' impartial investigation in the gloomy words,a He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned?” Once establish among mankind the erroneous notion that truth is confined to one particular channel, and that those who do not go in that direction are to be cast forth as a “ withered branch,” and then the im­ possibility of unfettered thought will immediately be apparent. Put a man to examine a subject, and tel! him that regardless of evidence, he must arrive at one conclusion or be damned, the pursuit of truth is then made a hypocritical farce rather than a noble and useful reality. It is indeed asserted sometimes that Freethought has been encouraged by Christianity. The encouragement, however, which it received from Christians when they had the power, was that they would not only torture and imprison those who, exercising the right of Freethought, would publicly oppose their faith; but they also committed to the flames those works which demonstrated the fallacy and absurdity of their system. Christian desire to promote free inquiry in its early history is exemplified in the memorable proclama­ tion of the Christian Emperor Theodosius, in which he de­ clared that the whole of the writings of Porphyry, and all others who had written against the Christian religion, should be committed to the fire. This, truly, was a novel mode of promoting Freethought. The writings of Celsus met with an equally warm reception, and for a proof that the same desire has existed in modern times, it is necessary not only to read the history of those Freethought pioneers of the last and early part of the present century, but also to remember that now, whenever Christians have the power, they close the halls against us, in order that we may not have the oppor­ tunity to promulgate the materials for free enquiry. Still, notwithstanding this display of burning zeal and exclusive action, Freethought has triumphed. Indeed, its very nature is such as to render its ultimate defeat an utter impossibi­ lity. Man is a progressive being ; having within him an in­ herent love for freedom, he cannot therefore long tolerate anything which cramps his mind, or fetters his thought. The truth of this has been illustrated within the last few years in our universities. The desire manifested by ortho­ dox students to discourage free inquiry, might have checked its victory, but it cannot destroy it. That which is congenial to modern civilisation must obtain admission sooner or later into the national seats of learning. Mr. Coleridge per- �6. Htion^Oxford Test Bffl ±g tt<! rea,linS of the Ab°Ci u? hav®’and he would be bold enough Free inquiry l 1 Bdl’two years ago, he said, “ to say^hey ought to have free inquiry, as the only real foundation o^ reasonable conviction and intelligent belief. • It would break n upon the university from without, and it was far better that it should come on legitimately and openly than doubt S “ he” aS “ ?idy —“Vte been too much fear of inquiry, and this bad too often been accompanied by wbat had been aptly termed -murmuring TutSn T’’ Seen the Pa!l>ftl Pietur“o™ bhnf iLblt r. ,9 child ’l-o might hare led 1L, Mr-Coleridge had learned an useful lesson and the n 6? C? W,nhng^f the E’sayists and Eeviewers, and the heretical policy of Bishop Colenso. These men experiencmg the advantages of Freethought themselve“ def­ ined to carry it into that church which had so long dreaded and opposed its approach. The result is a Freetho^ght serThe nlrf!ied t0 c.lvlllsatlon’ which cannot be overestimated, is another•nrnS?tlAnb°f Prosecutions for non-religious belief s another proof of the success of Freethought. True, a Tory Government may threaten to prosecute the Reformer and f unbXr7 S?ZndeaTr t0 blacken but that on!1"’ aijd fre^?en^y seek to ruin his reputation ; of an hon^r ’ °rgJTed P?rsecuti°n for the frank avowal and noX TT™’ whwh dlsSraced the history of the last, At aK \ he Pr6Sent Centur^ has almost disappeared was\ Xn 7 Pemx°le’-t0 imPeach the prevailing faith, then^bp6^1'6'0!11'°f be^d U?t0 Public scorn, and waifs Nn h fr01? bo“e and located within the prison Zkhnnf? ’ ^^.theological truth can be proclaimed Zcution 7 apprehension of a successful Government pro- _ conTfb1%tri?mph ofJreethougbt is further illustrated in the duct °Ur Pubhcrmen’ and the mode in which they con. Ration of this country. Such men as J. 8. their Dublin now never attemPt to regulate , Thev Pdob not ndUC! ^tiw teachings of the New Testament. fosMonable TfPen ymSSa11 the becaU8e to do 80 is not fashionable. It would impair their utility in a “ Christian �country.” If they were once to attack Christianity ever so mildly, Christians, with that “ charity which thinketh no evil,” would at once denounce them, irrespective of their conduct, as enemies to the public good. Taking warning from the treatment Mr. J. S. Mill recently received because he rejected the Bible God and the Christian doctrine of “inherent depravity,” our liberal public men pursue a pro­ gressive course, regardless of any faith. And if during their march Christianity will help them, then they accept its services; if, however, it opposes their progress, then it shares the fate of all obstructions—it is quietly ignored, the wel­ fare of a nation being more important than the considera­ tion for any religion. In the House of Commons all public measures now introduced are tested by the Freethought standard of utility. Even Thomas Hughes, in bringing bis Sabbatarian Bill recently into the House, announced his intention to argue the merits or demerits of the Bill apart from theology altogether. The religious aspect of the question was a subject upon which he cared not to enter. In fact, no measure is now recommended to atten­ tion and preference, solely because it is supposed to accord with “ God’s declared will ” and the spirit of religion. This is a positive proof of the decline of Christian influence on modern advancement. When civilisation was paralysed by Christianity, God’s will was the standard by which all pro­ gressive movements were tested. Now, however, it is different. Before any measure has a chance of being accepted, it must be shown that its provisions are necessary and use­ ful. The stronghold of the successful statesman to-day is the standard of utility. In his reasoning, his whole argu­ ment is made to rest upon this, the foundation of permanent progress. This fact is admitted by the liberal press of the country. The Inquirer for May 6th, 1865, in speaking of the career of two good men, said, “Both Mr. Cobden and Mr. Lincoln are illustrations of the secularisation of our modern public life. They reveal to us the path by which those must tread whose ambition it is to benefit their age. Had they lived a few hundred years ago, they might have built churches, or founded monasteries, or endowed colleges,—been the Wyckhams or St. Bernards of their time. Their lot was rather to legislate and agitate—to give food to the hungry, to undo heavy burdens, and to set the oppressed free; to remove impediments from the path of national progress, that human development might be left to its own laws, to seek �8 thoseg[New £esS,“t -ference to cannot be obeyed in ‘^ reason wh r -: wor(is of M^”ttbithr^/:rcK X those laws deasrt“d feeh-tSlnC0?Pfete-3nd onesided> ™d that unless he formation‘‘?8P San?tl°ned by it, had contributed to won d haXen f„TPei“ “ “??• charac‘er’ h™> affairs thXhrare1”8^ the last fiftv contributmg to modern progress. Within be last fifty years there are but few of our public men who ChrisTor St Sul6 dn tehehamed "P the ad™e eith“ »f dennved of thf Ja h h 7 h?d ,done 80 we sh°uld have been Fronep tb 7 advantages of the commercial treaty with th PostOffi^Tnnien^nnuities BiU>the Divorce Act, and ?ank BilL Jf the House of Comstifi hP ld iP the Advice of St Pau1’ the Jews would the1 Catbn Uded fr°m Parliament, and the emancipation of the cattlenV°UldfTT haV6 been granted, during we cattle plague of last year the Christians anulied mverTndT" r° ?P0lnt a “fast da^” in that by timp b d suPPhcation the calamity might be averted. The Ssed0^: 7 7"" days’’is gone” The Govetment delusions nf6 advanlage® of science were preferred to the had for its ohi/Tw A?6 ?oiform vote of Allegiance Bill restrictions wb7° 6 breaking down of those religious “°^ was parabeen bronabt nbn °t anti-Christian legislation has just r ught about by the secular policy of Mr. Gladstone �9. in reference to the Irish Church. It is not difficult to fore­ see that the downfall of this monstrous injustice in Ireland is only a precursor to the cessation of Church power in England. In spite of his theological training, Mr. Gladstone is impelled on to the performance of Secularistic work. The watchwords of modern progress are, religious liberty, politi­ cal freedom, and social advancement. These rights have never been recognised in Christian times or by Christian Governments, and they have only been obtained in England in proportion as Ereethought has prevailed in the House of Commons, and among the masses of the people. If this fact be questioned, I may refer, in corroboration of my statement •—that Secular knowledge has been the precursor of modern improvements—to Buckle, who (after showing that until doubt began, civilisation was impossible, and that the religious toler­ ance we now have has been forced from the clergy by the secular classes) states “that the act of doubting is the originator, or at all events, the necessary antecedent of all progress. Here we have that scepticism, the very name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it disturbs their lazy and complacent minds ; because it troubles their cherished superstitions; because it imposes on them the fatigue of inquiry; and because it rouses even sluggish understandings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed, and if all is really true which they from their childhood have been taught to believe. The more we examine this great principle of scepticism, the more dis­ tinctly shall we see the immense part it has played in the progress of European civilisation. To state in general terms what in this introduction will be fully proved, it may be said, that to scepticism we owe that spirit of inquiry, which, during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on every possible subject; has’reformed every department of practical and speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority of the privileged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer foundation; has chastised the despotism of princes ; has restrained the arrogance of the nobles, and has even diminished the prejudices of the clergy. In a word it is this which has remedied the three fundamental errors of the olden time: errors which made the people, in politics too confiding; in science too credulous ; in religion too in­ tolerant.” After this important admission by one of the greatest of modern historians, who can fail to see the mighty difference between sceptical and Christian times ? �10. Another triumph of Freethought, is the fact, that the highest ecclesiastical tribunals have virtually sanetioned the preaching of “ heresy” in State pulpits. Every Sunday, clergymen give utterance to Secular truths from their pulpits, the promulgation of which, a few years ago, would have cost them their position, if not their liberty. The same liberal and progressive spirit pervades the high class literature of modern times. In fact, our newspapers, with but few exceptions, are compelled to adopt in practice the very principle which in theory they deny. Three years ago, the Rev. W. Binns, of Birkenhead, in a speech reported in the Inquirer of Oct. 7th, 1865, bears testimony to the prevailing tendency of Freethought in modern literature. The rev. gentleman said: “ Scientific men pursue their studies and proclaim their discoveries, as if the old theology were non-existent. Owen extolled the serpent as perfectly formed, notwithstanding the curse pronounced; Lyall said there were men before Adam ; ethnologists found races distinct in spite of original sin and the federal headship; philolo­ gists spoke of varieties of language long before the supposed time of Babel; and science everywhere asserted the univer­ sality and unfailingness of law, spite of traditionary miracles. General literature breathed the same healthy spirit, at once free, reverent, and inquiring. What natural depravity was taught in the muscular Christianity of Kingsley’s novels ? Dickens condemned cant, Sabbatarianism, and narrowness wherever found; and Thackeray, in the ‘ Newcomes,’ looked for the salvation of honest James Binnie, though James was a disciple of that extremest of heretics, David Hume. As to poetry, it could only flourish where genius was unfettered by creeds. It needed to live in freedom, and when freedom was lost, it sunk into Spurgeonite doggrel and nursery imbecilities. It was objected that much modern literature was destructive, but if so, it still had many compensating advantages. It had in theological matters a fairness of spirit and a thoroughness of treatment far in advance of old times. The lives of Jesus by Renan and Strauss threw new light on familiar subjects, and though many might dissent from some of their theories, yet still the world could not afford to spare them as a whole. It was a remarkable fact that we were indebted to heterodoxy for the best Biblical cri­ ticism, and the most learned and philosophical biographies of Christ. Indeed, it seemed as if the taint of heresy were needed in theology to make books either readable or precious.’* �11 This, certainly is a high testimony to the power of FreeLZon1?.the held Of?terAUre; Bufc the rev- gentleman’s statements were confirmed by Archdeacon Sinclair, when said %ln- SiLC^r?t m tHe dergy of Middlesex, he said . Dming the last half century, however, anti-Christian sonhtrS desce?ded popularise their so-called philo­ sophy, and to disseminate the poison of eternal death among the masses of the community. The ability they had shown in this work of destruction was as unquestionable as their design was abominable. They had contrived to make them­ selves not only intelligible but interesting to the artisan the for whom?? ” sh.“p“an’.tlle elerk< “d otter similar classes or whom they write. As a writer in the Reformer some time ago observed, one of the most signal prooft that FrS hought is widely diffused throughout o?r literateTwas' k ”d u”1 of tte organs of public opinion in Eng­ land during the prosecution of two of the Essayists and Ke? Mrr WilT™ ‘heSe ‘W° ™torS’ Dr’ “nd the Kei Mr. Wilson, were prosecuted for alleged heretical views contained m the above work, the ablest dlily paper? as the Morning Star, and Daily ^Telearavh wi h the ablest weekly organs, as the Spectator, Saturday Bis^atch’ “d others> a» defended thlse men against the prosecutions of the bishops and clergy When the same party in the Church prosecuted Bish™ Colenso for his work on the Pentateuch, the same organs of defendedPthebreXPpSlied SymPathF with> and boldly defended, the brave Bishop m his efforts to spread the truth against his bigoted persecutors. The same pXeX ’ principle has been manifested in the literature of Germany where, during the last hundred years, more thinkers ami’ more eminent writers have been produced than in any other country in the same period. And according to BucMe this literature is the result of the scepticism which so extensAelv existed among the Germans. “ The German philosophL}” says the above author, “possess a learning and a reach of thought, which place them at the head® of the Ssed In order that our statements of Secular progress shall not be considered hypothetical, it may be asiJeZproduce the testimony of literary and Christian authority in Lnnort of our position. In speaking of the increase of heretic^ October lP6Othse r“TTCTS,itfe.3> th<> We,fainter Beeiew of October 1860, says, - Indeed, no one that knows the reli. �12. gious state of the Universities could doubt that such a book [the “ Essays and Reviews”] would be eagerly welcomed, but welcomed only as a partial instalment. Eew, perhaps, are aware how far the decay of belief extends beneath those walls. . . . ‘ Smouldering scepticism,’ indeed I When they are honeycombed with disbelief, running through every phase, from mystical interpretation to utter atheism. Pro­ fessors, tutors, fellows, and pupils are conscious of this wide­ spread doubt.” “ It must be a profound evil,” continues the writer, “ that all thinking men should reject the national religion.” . . . “ The newspaper, the review, the tale by every fireside, is written almost exclusively by men who have long ceased to believe. So also the school-book, the text-book, the manuals for study of youth and manhood, the whole mental food of the day; science, history, morals, and politics, poetry, fiction, and essay; the very lesson of the school, the very sermon from the pulpit.” In Eebruary, 1864, Fraser's Magazine, noticing that Freethought prin­ ciples were extending, remarked that it is “true that for the last one hundred and fifty years at least, such opinions have been steadily increasing, not only in popularity, but in what may be called respectability. They were once con­ fined to a small number of persons, who had very little weight with the world at large, and who perhaps neither sought nor deserved more influence than they possessed; they were afterwards professed by furious enthusiasts, whose violence, fruitful both of good and evil, prevented the mass of mankind from judging calmly of the merits of their views; they are now spreading widely and quietly through all classes of the community, and derive great weight from the demonstration supplied by history, science, and criticism of the fact, that whatever else we may or may not possess, there is in the world no such thing as an infallible Church or an infallible book.” In 1865, the Rev. D. Moore, M.A., published a book entitled, “ The Age and the Gospel,” on pages 10 and 11 of which he says—“The tendencies to scepticism in the present day show themselves more or less in every direction. Much especially have we to appre­ hend from the prevalence of these tendencies among our poorer classes. No doubt, among the eight-and-twenty millions of infidel and vicious tracts computed to be annually circulated among our English poor, many are but reproduc­ tions of the coarse accusations of Richard Carlile, and Taylor, and Paine. But, mixed up witlUthem, are attacks upon. �13. kind—made up from „ nk>;aHinitv of a more dangerous the admissions of the the infidel philosophy ofAmerica, or instanceS! writers in the • Essays and Bbvwot, m of the Conof translated extracts fro bodies of persons working tinent—so that in the case^J^f^rnwho lever heard the together, as m shops 1 Strauss, can retail, withflipnames of Hegel, or Scaling, or btra^, pant tongue, their “j, , do tbe promoters of popular not by the agency of trac J’ ™ have their Sunday I yot deistical serwiees meetings for homing. onen to receive and deal Weekly or monthly periodicals a P Associations out the freshest contributions of inMel thong are formed, 0Sfen.S1 y ^science and the statements of Reveplace the conclusion ,, • all being so many painful fation in array agamst eaj " National mindhave proofs bow much the recent advances ol influence and Un unaccompanied "‘Xrets in Ill mlnctifled knowledge showing what ? tenden7*abelief in departing from the living to foster an evil heart of unbeiie P s gentleman furGod.” On page 29 ofthe same work^the rev.^g ther XX systematised and scientific forms as it presented itself in sue y no longer—an obliteration of Exhibits now. It IS a “8^^ and pretension, at old faiths no longer. In ou ward! epeed;, least, it is a science, a p o p y Jf any addltiona] These words were penned , . L- tetbeir truth, it is given evidence were required o .. yet on “ Popular Eduby P" "On page 53 the cation m England, wr thorougb? tbe most logical, rev. gentleman says nn-nn^pd to us is that of the and the ^ost distinct ^Tain to close our eyes to the fact Secularists. Ifc and rapidly increasing.” Alluding that their numbers ar° bought works, the doctor observes, to the circ^la^°Q y rm and our sorrow have a deeper reon page 67— Ou „nnreciated after an examination of ference, and can only PP which is circulated th8 rationaleP>»s andpolitios. among the masses, aim r expensive works of mWithout speaking of large Messrs Longman could ’and low. �stantTale’and cireulXn '™rts are in con- mand for them has increased sf largely"TatTh' The 1!“' ;XhTKxthh:ir ”?ots ‘‘-otyPaesartht facts as to the spread of Seeid d'V°ted-S°“etlmeto ac<iuire following information From hi, "0“’ .read™ tbe ‘‘there are three or four establish Wn Per.sonalknowledge” where printing preSseare elm • 7® “ London alone publications. The T)oeZ b on Secular halls in London “and th ppp n°ws of thirteen Freethought Sunday attendance at the s! man^more-” “ The average in London alX ?slthd0S^t\tr FJeethought meetings, subject at about 1,201/ authorifcy °n this meetings held every week throuX, T2 least thirty such such lectures are given bv Mr gRout the country. Wherever Atheist school the audipnnp ' ^ra(Pau&b, the leader of the large majorities evidentlv fflJ are J?ld £?. be crowded, and the of Secularist views appears to hp^^’ The greatest extension where large number mavhLancashire and Yorkshire, probably, in London K bePound “ every town; next hood; then in Glasgow- nexS?8th neighbour~ great popularity of extreme “ Northampton, where the date.” From theserefeXeftonhd <? °f recent writers, it will be seen thnt t * philosophical and Christian ciples are making ranid ° assert that Freethought prin“ empty boast.” Added to thi/r ,tbroughout society is no the vast amount of latent Sp i e?tlmoiH must be recognised classes. We have then ,hSet£laFlsm which exists among all fast increasing in number eJ!atlonaIlstie believers, who are BUCSfebe°td0Xy ‘b-hXWhlCh arerapid‘y Robert Owen must nrtbe/m/ Jree^hkough.^ the name of promulgation of which he dp^/MPrinciPIes to the tbe basis of th6 constirtt schools, Which are now so tbls country. Infant by this much misrepresented^•? PP^Uded’ were funded been for the doctrines of Pit ®d Pb]lanthropist. Had it not by Owen, we should doubtle h^^8 and utlIity as taught tians going to Social Srie bave heard but little of Chrissuch questions asT0.ODerZ Con?resseJs.. considering amelioration and the nenero)11’ Prison discipline, sanitary me general amendment of the relation �between Mpital and labour. When Christians were oonsistenl and obeyed the command to “take no thought for the morrow.’’ to “ lore not the world or the things of the world, these questions were never publicly heard of. Their consi­ deration now is the result of the operation of agencies the very antithesis of Christianity. And this doctrine of cireumstances it is cheering to know is recognised in modern legislation. The vengeful character of our penal system is gradually disappearing from our statute book. We are be­ ginning,through our laws, to look upon the criminal more and more as unfortunate and less and less guilty. Accord­ ingly is our system of the treatment of those who offend against our laws becoming more preventive and less punitive. What is this but the partial destruction of the religious tenets of responsibility and sin, and the enthronement upon their ruins of the doctrine of circumstances? In the held of social reform what was the pet topic at the recent Social Science Congresses ? Was it not the great question of the Co-operative Stores ? And what are Co-operative Stores but a careful and cautious step in the direction of that true democracy, that thorough principle of social equality, that blow struck in favour of the rights of labour and against the monopoly of property, which, when uttered by that great modern apostle of New Lanark, produced against him the epithets of atheist, leveller, revolutionist, and. rebel ? In claiming these Freethought triumphs, it is not intended to credit any particular class of Freethinkers with the achievement thus obtained ; neither is it desired to rob the religious reformers, the Nonconformists, a Knox, a Luther, and a Wickliffe, of the laurels they won in resisting the power which was arrayed against them. Doubtless, in fight­ ing for freedom they gave an impetus to thought. But un­ fortunately, dauntless as they were, they lacked consistency. Waving reached the pinnacle of freedom, they forgot the rugged * path up which they climbed. Having overcome the tyranny of their oppressors, they themselves persecuted those who desired to travel further on the road of progress. Hence, civilisation was deprived of valuable service through the influence of theology on the minds of men who commenced fighting the battle of freedom, but who had to yield to the dictates of a limited and exclusive faith. The progress of modern time has been stimulated by men who cared little or nothing for popular religion at a time when orthodoxy was at its lowest ebb. The last century, the years from �1700 to 180A, was the least religious, the least Christian century of the Christian era. It was the era of phi­ losophy, of science, and of Freethought; of Voltaire, of Rousseau, and of Hume; of Black with his discovery of the true principles of heat, of Dalton with his discoveries in chemistry, of Watt with his perfection of the steam engine, of Hume with his demonstrations of the absurdity of reli­ gion, and of Thomas Paine with his clear exposition of the great fundamental principles of government. These are the men who have really assisted in the progress of the world. Their principles have sown the seeds of happiness and pro­ gress among mankind. To their efforts we are indebted for’ much of the prosperity of the 19th century. As Theodore Parker once said, the progressive philosophers of Christen­ dom to-day are not Christians. The leaders of science and philanthropy in modern times, are men who have the love of truth and the love of justice, who possess large and bene­ volent hearts, but who have no practical faith in Chris­ tianity. This assertion has since been confirmed by J. 8. Mill, who frankly states that it “ can do truth no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected the Christian faith.” These truths place Pree­ thought in a prominent position in Modern progress. price TWorr.xcE, Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Freethought and modern progress : a lecture Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles [1836-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [Austin & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N669 Subject The topic of the resource Free thought Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Freethought and modern progress : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Free Thought NSS Progress