2
10
1546
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5ffb0140a09a171aa305eaecb1e6d9a8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gV2A5xkJ1g9mvUZakoI1E8kXFuWRsnWOXHPXdZ24kquBEDnJuAI1%7Ekot-LuRgl9CK4Ckzz%7EnNoVtM69vn4FQo6Ils4jW3IskIBuuhtxXWjPobF9cN0E%7EmZ3T5SjLfQv5zmNjYON1ysr3mbc3ZA4eUkl-lIiBTLhsZceUwgjJKn12-G5fmvQQ5MoUQiv%7Eo3ZvWCA21LqWky9w8bSWUyY316vbAemua0aQgvRMQMUXm80PfBhX3Tfja06ibRCzV0KMPOgEf4GUKyayEk2bypiB1Lwm95W79fKCN6OG-ImrFyHs1ltbOoVFDYKX5SiG3wy7b4F9gUWDtjK4N%7EWmABR5Vg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
97efea1ca6cc58f6432376b214d5a7e6
PDF Text
Text
g
(V
national secular society
Qlatfarivi.
XII.
WHY SHOULD
I ATHEISTS BE
PERSECUTED?
BY
ANNIE
BESANT.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 84.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Under this title is being issued a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which consists of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethought advocate. Any
question may be selected, provided that it has formed the
subject of a lecture delivered from the platform by an
Atheist. It is desired to show that the Atheistic platform
is used for the service of humanity, and that Atheists war
against tyranny of every kind, tyranny of king and god,
political, social, and theological.
Each issue consists of sixteen pages, and is published at
one penny. Each writer is responsible only for his or her
own views.
1. —“ What is the use of Prayer ? ” By Annie Besant.
2. —“ Mind considered as a Bodily Function.” By At,tor
Bradlaugh.
3. —“ The Gospel of Evolution.” By Edward Aveling,
D.Sc.
4. —“England’s Balance-Sheet.” By Charles Bradlaugh.
5. —“ The Story of the Soudan.” By Annie Besant.
6. —“ Nature and the Gods.” By Arthur B. Moss.
These Six, in Wrapper, Sixpence.
7.—“ Some Objections to Socialism.” By Charles Bradlaugh.
8. —“Is Darwinism Atheistic ?” By Charles Cockbill
Cattell.
9. —“The Myth of the Resurrection.” By Annie
Besant.
10. —“ Does Royalty Pay ? ” By George Standring.
11. —“ The Curse of Capital.” By Edward Aveling, D.Sc.
Part II. of the “Atheistic Platform,” containing Lec
tures 7—12 can be had in paper wrapper, Price Sixpence.
Also Parts I. and II., bound in one, forming a book of
192 pages, can be had, price One Shilling.
�WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE
PEESECUTED ?
Friends,—In. the old days, when Christianity was feeble
and Paganism was strong, when Christians had to plead
to Pagans for toleration as Atheists have to plead to Chris
tians now, Christians from time to time pnt forth an
Apology for their faith. Thus Justin Martyr pleaded
before the Emperor Antoninus, and other Apologies are to
be found in the literature of the early Christian Church.
The word Apology was not used in its modern sense of
excuse, of submissive phrase; it was an Apologia, a
defence of the faith believed in, a vindication of the
principles held. To-day, I Atheist, in a Christian com
munity, stand as did the Christian in the second century in
a Pagan society ; and I put forth an Apologia, a defence, a
vindication of my faith. Faith, in the noblest sense of that
much-abused word, for it is a belief based on reason, in
tellectually satisfying, morally regulative, socially re
formatory.
I will take it for granted, for the purposes of this lec
ture, that the majority of you present here—as of the
wider public outside—-belong to the religion known as
Christian. It is to Christians that this vindication of
Atheism is addressed, and my aim in this lecture is a welldefined one; I am not going to ask from you any agree
ment in my speculative views; I am not going to try to
convince you that Atheism is speculatively accurate ; I am
only going to propose to you, and to answer in the nega
tive, the following question : Granted an Atheist or a small
number of Atheists, in a Christian community, is there any
reason why he or they should be persecuted, for the intel
lectual, moral, or social doctrines held and published ? Is
�180
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
there anything in Atheism, in its intellectual speculations,
in its moral teaching, in its social theories, which makes it
dangerous to the prosperity, progress and well-being of
the society in which it is professed ?
Such is the question I propose to you. I of course shall
answer it in the negative, and shall try to show you that
whether Atheistic speculations be true or false, the Athe
istic spirit isl of vital importance to society. And at the
very outset let me remind you of the remarkable testi
mony borne to the social aspect of Atheism by the great
philosopher Bacon: ‘‘Atheism leaves a man to sense, to
philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation, all of
which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though
religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these and
erecteth an absolute monarchy in the mind of men; there
fore Atheism never did perturb States, for it makes men
wary of themselves, as looking no further ; and we see the
times inclined to Atheism, as the times of Augustus Csesar,
were civil times; but superstition has been the confusion
of many States.” Yet though he thus wrote, Bacon was
not an Atheist, for he said (I here quote from memory):
“A little knowledge inclineth a man to Atheism, but
deeper search brings him back to religion.” These are
not, therefore, the words of the Atheist on his own behalf,
but the testimony of an opponent who has studied the his
tory of the past.
Strange, indeed, it is to those who know that record of
history to remark how Superstition is condoned to-day,
while Atheism is condemned. The wildest vagaries of
Superstition are excused, while the very word Atheism is
held to connote immorality. Take the Salvation Army ; it
may shut up young lads and lasses for an “ all-night ser
vice,” in which they “creep for Jesus” in a hall with
locked doors; when the natural result follows of gross
immorality, excuses are made for the leaders that “their
motives are good.” But let a man be known as an Atheist,
and though his life be spotless, his honor unstained, his
integrity unsoiled, there is no slander too vile to be be
lieved of him, no libel too baseless or too foul to be credited
about his character. Superstition has lighted stakes, built
Inquisitions, turned the wheels of the rack, made red-hot
the pincers to tear men’s flesh, has slaughtered, tormented,
burned and ravaged, till the pages of her history are
�WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE PERSECUTED ?
181
blotted with, tears and drip with, blood. Atheism, has slain
none, tortured none; yet men welcome the cubs of the
wolf that will prey on them, and hunt down the watch-dog
that would protect.
1. Is there anything in Atheism in its intellectual aspect
which should make-it mischievous to society ? To answer
this part of the question we must analyse the Atheistic
type of mind and seek its chief and essential character
istic. If you do this you will, I think, find that the
Atheistic mind is essentially of the challenging, the
questioning, the investigating type. It is of that type
which will not accept a thing because it is old, nor believe
it because it is venerable. It demands to understand before
it admits, to be convinced before it believes. Authority,
qua authority, it does not respect; the authority must
prove itself to be based on reason and on knowledge before
cap may be doffed to it or knee bent in homage. Nor is
this questioning silenced by an answer that really leaves
unresolved the problem. The Atheistic spirit remains un
satisfied until it has reached, to use an expressive Ameri
canism, “the bed-rock” of the matter in hand. If an
answer is not to be had, the Atheistic spirit can contentedly
keep its opinion in suspense, but cannot believe.
Now there is no doubt that this type of mind—which is
in the psychical world like the explorer in the physical—is
one which is very unpleasant to the mentally lazy, and
unfortunately the majority, even in a civilised land, is
composed of mentally lazy people. Words are very loosely
used by most folk, and they are apt to be angry when they
are forced, by questioning, to try and think what they really
do mean by the phrases they employ as a matter of course.
We all know how impatient foolish mothers and nurses
grow with a child’s ceaseless questions. A bright, healthy,
intelligent child is always asking questions, and if it is
unlucky enough to live among careless, thoughtless people,
it too often happens that, unable to answer fully, and too
conceited to say “I do not know,” the elder person will
give it a slap, and tell it not to be so tiresome. The Atheist
questioner meets with similar treatment; society, too ig
norant, or too lazy to grapple with his enquiries, gives him
a slap and puts him in the corner.
None the less is this challenging, questioning type of the
most priceless value to society. Without it, progress is
�182
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
impossible. _ Without it every childish superstition would
be immortal, every mouldy tradition would reign for ever
over men. And the challenge is useful, whether addressed
to truth or to falsehood. It injures no truth. A truth is
vindicated by enquiry ; those who hold a truth only become
more certain of it when questioning forces them to re
examine the grounds on which it rests. But a lie perishes
under investigation as a moth shrivels in the flame.
Progress can be made only by re-affirming truth known,
by discovering truth hitherto unknown, and by destroying
ancient falsehoods. Hence the value to society of the
challenging Atheistic type, whether its speculations be
right or wrong.
Professor Tyndall has proclaimed in noble words his pre
ference for intellectual effort, rather than for intellectual
sleep. In his celebrated Presidential Address at the meet
ing of the British Association at Belfast, he said, dealing
with his own views, and in warning to his hearers : “ As
regards myself, they are not the growth of a day; and as
regards you, I thought you ought to know the environment
which, with or without your consent, is rapidly surrounding
you, and in relation to which some adjustment on your
part may be necessary. A hint of Hamlet’s, however,
teaches us all how the troubles of common life may be
ended; and it is perfectly possible for you and me to
purchase intellectual peace at the price of intellectual
death. The world is not without refugees of this
description; nor is it wanting in persons who seek
their shelter, and try to persuade others to do the
same. The unstable and the weak have yielded, and
will yield to this’ persuasion, and they to whom repose is
sweeter than the truth. But I would exhort you to refuse
the offered shelter and to scorn the base repose—to accept,
if the choice be forced upon you, commotion before stag
nation, the leap of the torrent before the stillness of the
swamp.”
It is this leap of the torrent which the Atheist faces,
feeling that he can better breast the rapids, even if drown
ing be the penalty, than float idly on down the lazy
current of popular opinion. To “ refuse the offered shelter
and to scorn the base repose” is to show the martyr-spirit
that welcomes death rather than dishonor, and the noblest
faith in Truth that man can have is proved when he flings
�WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE PERSECUTED ?
183
himself into the billows of fact, let them cast him up on
what shore they may.
Well was it said by a noble and earnest thinker that
Atheism was oft-times “ the truest trust in Truth.” A
legend says that in a pagan land a God was worshipped,
at whose shrine was sacrificed all that was most precious
and most beloved. At last, revolt was made against the
hideous deity, and one man, young and brave, stood forth
to challenge the wrath of the mighty God. Round the
statue of the deity stood thousands of his worshippers; amid
■dead silence walked forth the heroic youth, a javelin in his
hand. Face to face he stood with the God, and poising his
weapon, he cried aloud: “God, if God thou be, answer
with thy thunderbolt the spear I fling! ” And as he spoke,
the strong right arm launched the javelin, and it struck full
and fair, and quivered in the heart of the God. An awful
silence fell on the crouching multitude, as they waited for the
lightning which should flash out in answer to the insult.
But lo! there was none, nor any that regarded, and the
silence brooded unbroken over the pierced statue, and the
blasphemer who had defied the God. There was silence.
Then, a long breath of relief ; then, a cry of rapture ; and
the crowd who had knelt flung itself on the riven statue
and only a heap of dust told where a God had been. Athe
ist was that bold challenger, that questioner of a long-held
faith; and he freed his nation from the yoke of a spectre,
and shivered one of the superstitions of his time. Atheist
is each who challenges an ancient folly, and who, greatly
daring, sets his life as wager against a lie.
This same questioning spirit, applied to the God-idea,
has given Atheism its distinctive name. It finds the God
idea prevalent and it challenges it. It does not deny, but
it “wants to know” before it accepts, it demands proof
before it believes. The orthodox say: “Do you believe
in God?” The Atheist answers: “What is God? You
must tell me what you believe in, ere I can answer your
question.” And then arises the difficulty, for the word
“God” is used “rather to hide ignorance, than to express
knowledge ” (Bradlaugh), and the worshipper anathema
tises the Atheist because he does not adore that which he
himself cannot explain or define.
Sometimes the Atheist analyses the metaphysical defi
nitions of God and finds them meaningless. One instance
�184
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
will here serve as well as a dozen. Take the phrase that
“ God is Absolute Being.” Bnt, says Dean Mansel, in his
famous Bampton lectures (2nd. Ed., pp. 44, 45, 49), “ by
the Absolute is meant that which exists in, and by itself,
having no necessary relation to any other being............
That which is conceived as absolute and infinite, must be
conceived as containing within itself the sum, not only of
all actual, but of all possible modes of being. Eor if any
actual mode can be denied of it, it is related to that mode,
and limited by it; and if any possible mode can be
denied of it, it is capable of becoming more than it
now is, and such a capability is a limitation...............
The absolute cannot be conceived as conscious, neither
can it be conceived as unconscious; it cannot be con
ceived as complex, neither can it be conceived as simple ;
it cannot be conceived by difference, neither can it be
conceived by the absence of difference; it cannot be
identified with the universe, neither can it be distin
guished from it.” Such is the description of the Abso
lute, given by a great Christian philosopher. If then
by knowledge or by worship I enter into a relation with
God, I at once destroy him as the Absolute. If he be Ab
solute Existence, he is for ever unknowable to man. Why
should the Atheist be persecuted because he refuses either
to affirm or to deny that which by the definition of the'
believer cannot be known or distinguished ?
Pass from metaphysics, and take God as “the First
Cause.” “Every effect must have a cause, and therefore
the universe must have a creator.” Will you kindly tell
me, ere I examine your argument, what you mean by the
word “effect” ? Only one definition can be given : some
thing that results from a cause. “Everything that results
from a cause must have a cause.” Granted. “ Therefore
the universe must have a creator.” Stop, not so fast.
You must show that the universe is an effect, i.e., that it
results from a cause, before you can logically make this
statement, and that is the very point you set out to prove.
You are begging the very question in dispute. Besides
if your argument were valid, it would go too far, for then
behind your creator of the universe, you would need a
creator of the creator, and so on backwards ad infinitum.
The truth is that in speaking of causation we must keep
within the realm of experience; we might as well try to
�WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE PERSECUTED ?
185-
plumb the mid-Atlantic with a five-fathom line, as try to
fathom the mystery of existence with our brief experi
mental sounding lead. Christians believe where their
knowledge ends; Atheists suspend their judgments and
wait for light.
“God is the designer of the world, and it shows the
marks of his handiwork.” Did he design the beast of
prey, the carnivorous plant, the tape-worm, the tsetze?
did he design that life should be sustained by slaughter,,
and the awful struggle for existence ? did he design the
pestilence and the famine, the earthquake and the volcanic
eruption ? Is “Nature, red in tooth and claw with ravin,”
the work of all-loving God ?
“God is all-good.” Then whence comes evil? As
long as man has thought, he has wearied himself over the
problem of the existence of evil in the work of an all-good
God. If evil be as eternal as good, then the Persian view
of the co-equal powers of darkness and light as fashioners
of the world is more rational than the Christian. If it be
not eternal, if there were a time when only God existed
and he was good, then evil can only have resulted from
his creative will, and sustained approval. Man Friday’s
question, “Why does not God kill the Devil? ” puts in a
concrete form the problem that no Christian philosopher
has ever solved. The scientific student recognises the
nature and the reason for what we call evil; the Christian
gazes with hopeless bewilderment at the marring of the
work of his all good and almighty God.
Further; from his examination of the many Gods of
the world, the Atheist comes to the conclusion that they
are man-made. The God of every nation is in the same
stage of civilisation as is the nation itself. Such variety
would be incredible if there were an entity behind the
fancy. Compare the God of the savage and of the
European philosopher; the savage worships a concrete
being, brutal, bloody, ferocious as himself; the philoso
pher an abstract idea, a tendency “not ourselves, which
makes for righteousness.” Is there one reality which is
worshipped by the King of Dahomey and by Matthew
Arnold ? In face of such varieties what can the Atheist
think but that “ God” is the reflexion of man, an image
not an object ?
The Atheist waits for proof of God. Till that proof
�186
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
■comes he remains, as his name implies, without God. His
mind is open to every new truth, after it has passed the
warder Reason at the gate. AR his hope for a true theory
■of the world is fixed on Science, Science which has written
for us the only trustworthy record of the past, and which
is daily writing new pages of the book of knowledge.
What is there in all this to make men persecute the
Atheist ? In this intellectual attitude there is surely no
■crime. Some people say that Atheists lack a sense possessed
by others, in that they do not intuit God, as blind men
lack the vision others enjoy. Suppose it be so, is that any
reason for persecuting them ? Do the people who can see
try to hunt down those who are blind ? I could understand
their pitying us if they possess a joy we do not share, but
I cannot understand their wanting to make us suffer be
cause we are bereft of a faculty enjoyed by them. And
indeed I believe that the noblest and best Christians thus
regard the matter, and regard Atheists with generous
sorrow, not with hatred. But the vast majority have but
little faith in God and little love to man. Our outspoken
unbelief stirs the hidden doubts which lie in their own
minds, and they fear lest we should wake them into activi
ty. They want to believe, because belief is easy and un
belief hard, belief is profitable and unbelief dangerous, and
so they hate and persecute those whose courage is a reproach
to their cowardice. It is not Christian faith nor Christian
truth that incites to modern persecution; it is Christian
hypocrisy and Christian doubt.
Turn from the intellectual to the moral aspect of Atheism
and it is on this that the bitterest attacks are made. Athe
ism being without God, it must seek in man the basis for
its moral code,' and being without immortality it must find
its motives and its sanctions on this side the grave. Athe
istic morality must be founded on man as a social being,
■and must be built up by observation and reflexion. Clearly,
then, it must be Utilitarian; that is, it must set before it
Happiness as the obj ect of life; all that, generally practised,
tends to increase the general happiness is Right; all that,
generally practised, tends to decrease the general happiness
is Wrong.
To this theory the objection is often raised that Virtue
and not Happiness should be the end of life. But what
are virtues save those qualities which tend to produce
�WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE PERSECUTED ?
187
happiness, vices those which tend to produce misery and
social disorganisation ? If murder strengthened respect
for human life ; if falsehood increased confidence between
man and man; if love and trust and purity shattered the
society in which they flourished; in a word if virtue made
society miserable while vice raised and ennobled it, do you
think that vice would long be stamped with social disap
proval ? Men are unconsciously Utilitarian, and what is
•called virtue is the means to the end, happiness. By the
Law of Association the means and the end become joined
in thought, and the longing for the end brings about love
of the means.
Let me illustrate what I mean by a case in which pre
judice is less felt than in that of virtue and happiness.
Money is valuable as a means to all it can purchase; when
a man earns and saves money, he earns and saves it not
for itself but for all which he can procure with it. The
little bits of gold and silver have no value in themselves ;
they are valuable only for the comfort, the enjoyment, the
leisure which they symbolise. Yet sometimes the means,
money, takes the place of the end it is generally used to
procure, and the miser, forgetting the end, sets his heart
on the means for itself, and he loves the coins and gathers
them together and heaps them up, and denies himself all
money could buy for the sake of hoarding the gold. In
similar fashion have men learned to love virtue, first for
the sake of the happiness it brought, and then by natural
transition for itself.
But, it is said, the renunciation of personal happiness is
often right; how can Utilitarianism be consistent with the
noblest of human virtues, self-sacrifice. When is the
renunciation of personal happiness right ? WTien the re
nunciation of happiness by one renders needless the renun
ciation of happiness by many; that is, when it tends to the
general good. The man who sacrifices himself for nothing
is a lunatic; he who sacrifices himself to save others from
suffering is a hero. The individual suffers loss, but the
general good is increased.
A curious volte-face is often made by our antagonists.
After declaring that Utilitarianism is low and selfish, they
suddenly assert that the Utilitarian motive is too high to
affect ordinary folk. The “ general good,” they say, is
too vague and abstract a thing to be used for moralising
�188
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
the populace. I deny it. If a man is exceptionally de
graded, you may find your only appeal must be to himself
or to his immediate surroundings, but the great majority
answer to a wider summons, as do plants to the sunlight.
For your lowest type of man you must use selfish motives,
but even with him you may endeavor to at least touch him
with family, if not with social claims, and so gradually
train him to regard himself as a unit in a community rather
than as an isolated existence. Penalty must educate the
lowest types into recognition of social duty, but the ma
jority of civilised mankind respond to a higher call. And
that this is so we may prove by a mere appeal to statistics.
The Atheists, with no fear of hell nor hope of heaven, with
only the general good as motive and social happiness as
aim, contribute fewer, in proportion to their number, to
the criminal classes, than does any Christian sect, with all
the supposed advantages of Christianity. If Atheism be
morally dangerous to Society, why should Atheism have a
cleaner record than that of any Christian body ?
I ask again : What is there in our Atheistic Utilitarian
code of morals that should justify our persecution ? It
tends to make us seek the happiness of Society in pre
ference to our own, and to put the general before our
individual good. Christians who look to be rewarded for
their goodness may scoff at our disinterestedness, but at
least it does not injure them, and they lose nothing because
we seek not a crown on the other side the grave. To us
“ Virtue is its own reward ; ” we sing with Alfred Tenny
son, ere he sank into a Baron :
“ Glory of warrior, glory of orator, glory of song,
Paid with a voice flying by to be lost on an endless sea—•
Glory of virtue to fight, to struggle, to right the wrong—
Nay, but she aimed not at glory, no lover of glory she;
Give her the glory of going on, and still to be.”
But is there anything in the social views of theAtheist which may, perchance, justify his ostracism ? And
here, at last, we shall come to the crux of our difficulty.
The Atheist, being without God, cannot recognise as
Divine the present order of Society; he claims happinessfor all, and he sees one portion of Society rioting in luxury
while another is steeped in penury; at one end of the
social scale he sees men so wealthy that they cannot even
�WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE PERSECUTED ?
189
waste fast enough the riches they own, while at the other
men are so poor that they cannot even feel sure whence
shall come their next week’s food; he notes that the
wealthiest are the idlest, while the poorest are the most
laborious; that those who produce least consume most,
while those who produce most consume least; and he
demands social reconstruction.
No one with a brain and a heart can contrast the dif
ferent conditions into which the children of the rich and
the poor are born, and remain satisfied with Society as it
is. The rich man’s child is born into pure air, into healthy
surroundings; its food is carefully suited to its delicate
organs; its clothes vary with the changes of the weather ;
the most watchful care fosters and cherishes it; as its
faculties expand it is guarded from every injurious influ
ence ; it is coaxed along the right road; all good is made
easy and attractive to it, all evil difficult and repulsive;
the best education is given to the growing lad that money
can buy; body and brain are alike tended and developed ;
in manhood, life’s prizes are open to him, and if he plunges
into crime he does it from an inborn tendency that no
purity of environment has been able to eradicate.
Now contrast the case of the child born into some filthy
overcrowded den in a thieves’ quarter. Its father is a
burglar, its mother a harlot. It is born into squalor, and
foul air, and noisome surroundings; 'its mother’s milk is
gin-polluted; its clothes are filthy rags ; its education con
sists of kicks and curses; foul language is its grammar,
foul thoughts its mental, food; crime is a necessity of its
life; there is no possibility open to it save the reeking
court and the gaol.
The case of the child of the honest but poor worker is
far other than this, but it is not what it should be. The
family is but too often overcrowded and underfed; the
father is over-burdened with wage-winning; the mother
over-sharpened with anxiety; education is rushed through;
work comes too early in life; and while dauntless courage,
unwearying patience and mighty brain power may raise
the poor man’s son into prominence, he can only win by
most exceptional endowment that which comes to the rich
man’s son by chance of birth. Again I say, that looking
at these tremendous inequalities, the Atheist must demand
social reconstruction.
�190
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
And first, he declares that every adult member of society
should be a worker, that none should live who does not
labor. There is a certain amount of work to be done, and
if some shoulders bear none of the burden, others must
bear more than ought fairly to fall to their lot. If an
idle class exists in a community, an over-worked class
must exist to balance it. The Christian declares that
labor is a curse ; the Atheist that labor is a good; neither
brain nor muscle can be developed without exercise, and
both mental and physical effort are necessary for the due
growth of man. Even the idle classes recognise that
physical exertion is necessary for physical strength, and
there is no reason why the muscle developed by them in
games, should not be developed equally well, and with
equal physical enjoyment, in useful work. I do not want
to see games abolished, but I do want to see them more
equally distributed. All would be the better if the athletic
“ aristocrat ” spent some of his strength in labor, and the
artisan some of his in sport.
Further, the Atheist declares that each should have time
of leisure. Without leisure, no mental improvement is
possible. If a man is wearied out physically, he is not fit
to toil mentally, and only as all take their share of work
can all enjoy their share of leisure. Those who make
society’s wealth have but small share of leisure to-day;
and remember that leisure should include time for mental
work and for complete relaxation. Healthy human life
should be made up of physical effort, mental effort, play,
food-time and sleep. Not one of these can be omitted
from a healthy life.
And see the gain in enjoyment brought about by the train
ing of mental faculty. Lately I went for a brief holiday into
a lonely part of Scotland; there was no “ society” there,
but there were hills and water and clouds; glorious fight
and shade and color ; radiant glow of flowers and plash of
mountain rills. To me, the beauty, the stillness, the ripple
of water, the glory of moor and wood, gave the most ex
quisite enjoyment. But imagine a woman taken from
some filthy London court, and set down in the midst of
that solitude ; ere a day was over she would be wearying
for the revelry of the gin-palace, the excitement of the
fifth-rate music-hall. Why such difference between her
and me ? Because I am educated and she is not. Because
�WHY SHOULD ATHEISTS BE PERSECUTED ?
191
my faculties have been drawn out, trained, and cultured..
Hers have been dwarfed, withered and destroyed.
I claim for all the joy that I have in life, in beauty, in
nature and in art. Why should Society have bestowed so>
much on me, while it leaves my sister beggared ?
But in order that the adult may be cultivated, the child
must be educated. The school-life of the workers is too
short. The children’s pennies are wanted to swell thewages of the family, whereas the father’s wage should be
sufficient for all until the children grow into manhood and
womanhood. And the children should have technical, as
well as book education. In Germany all children learn a
trade, and the present Crown Prince is said to be a cabi
net-maker, some of his palace furniture having been made
by his own hands. If all children were trained in brain
and in fingers, then ability, not birth, would decide the
path in life. There is many a brain now lying fallow in
workshop and behind the plough, which might have been of
priceless service to England had it been set to its fit work;
and there is many a brain, high in the council-chambers
of the nation, scarce fit to direct the fingers in the most
unskilled labor. A just system of national education would
classify thinkers and manual laborers aright, and would
draft the one for higher education, the other for rougher
forms of toil, without regard to the superstition of birth,
or to anything save the capacities given by Nature to each
child.
Moreover this education should be really “national.”
All children, rich and poortogether, should go to the National
Schools. There should be no distinctions, no differences
of rank permitted in the schools, save the distinctions of
ability and of merit. Thus would class-distinctions be
eradicated, and those who had sat side by side on the
same schoolbench could never, in later life, dream they
were of different clay. To such suggestion as this it is
sometimes objected that the vulgar manners of the poor
child would coarsen those of the rich. Friends, the Atheist
seeks to destroy that vulgarity; it is the outcome of
neglected education, of that absence of refinement of
thought and of life, that results from the shutting up of
the poor into one dreary round of ceaseless toil. The
difficulty would only arise during the first generation of
common school-life, and the teachers by careful supervision
�192
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
might easily prevent any real harm from arising. If any
children were found to use coarse language, they could be
separated off, until they understood that indecency would
not be tolerated. As a rule, absolute coarseness of language
and gesture would be found only in the children of the
'Criminal classes, and they should be taught in different
schools.
The Atheist looks forward to, and works towards, a
Society in which class-distinctions shall have vanished, in
which all shall be equal before the law, all shall be given
equal opportunities, and shall share equal education in
their youth. From that Society both crime and poverty
shall have vanished; the workhouse and the gaol shall
have passed away. Small wonder then that the Atheist
should be persecuted; he is hated by the idle wealthy, by
the aristocratic pauper who lives on other men’s toil; these
set the fashion of social ostracism, and the fashion is
followed by the thousands who ape and echo those above
them in the social scale. None the less is the Atheist hope
already shining above the horizon, and sunned in tlie
warmth of that radiance he waits patiently for the coming
noon.
Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Beajdlaugh, 63, Fleet Street,
London E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why should atheists be persecuted?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [179]-192 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 12
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
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
N073
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why should atheists be persecuted?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c3426f350c14660c6a6ac19ee1d03781.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EWkHuPbekA73YyrCvrUy%7EQbyMhJndMqbqHnx99PJEr95nssrRjmrJa--qGkGecdHVv9p6vfff8gQ0i7alW7iRJCMYeZsya-1aWLivZ32wI8lbtKO8%7EClANBxxD2vFg2PGcCzTSRN75QOMRHBkcN4n8lZ9Sl8nzIBmiDVwy5IiBjAfJelvcXfEBhoI45wTli27qx-CYamGPsuECs3gwWZs-OJHyq3YLOn9pZsDE%7E2thswC5K412hRD9qN1ryTFI5DtP6AW%7E78WVED-k81iU2N3jx4LumnIg9VzgrA1H8Stf63vXy30bCY05q-6S5V-aegTAiUp-AzDfA5oGJ3UQbAqg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ff02125a92ad95321be20deabce8af1f
PDF Text
Text
WHY I LEFT
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
*
By James Britten, K.S.G.,
Hon. Sec. Catholic Truth Society.
I wish to begin this lecture with an apology. No one
can be better aware than I am that, except to one person—
myself—the reasons which impel me to any course of
action are of the very slightest importance—-or rather, of
no importance at all. This lecture is like others of our
course, the sequence of one delivered lately in this
neighbourhood in connection with the Protestant Alliance :
the title is an adaptation of that adopted on the former
occasion; and the fact that up and down the country,
various people, including more or less escaped nuns and
others, are telling audiences—sometimes large ones—why
they “left the Church of Rome,” seems to show that the
experiences of what used to be called ’verts are still
attractive.
The reasons which people allege for leaving one
Communion and joining another are very various, and
sometimes very curious.
Mr. Fitzgerald, for example,
said he became a Protestant because of the ignorance of
the Catholic clergy and the worship of images. Well, as
to ignorance, those who heard Mr. Fitzgerald will agree
with me in thinking that he is hardly a competent judge;
and as to the worship of images—supposing for onr
6A Lecture delivered in March, 1893, in St. Georges School,
Southwark, in answer to one given by a Mr. Fitzgerald, of the
Protestant Alliance. The date of the lecture must be borne in mind
by readers of the pamphlet.
�2
Why I left the Church of England
moment, what every Catholic will resent as an impossibility
that Catholics fell into so gross a sin—I would remark
that the Jewish people more than once did the same,
without thereby ceasing to be the people of God. Another
Protestant lecturer was so shocked by the definition of
Papal Infallibility in 1870, that she—at once left the
Church ? O dear no ! remained in it for eighteen years,
and then withdrew. A Nonconformist friend of mine told
me the other day that his sister had joined the Church
of England. “You see,” he said, “ she is a wise woman.
She told me she found that if her daughters were to mix
in the best society, they must be Church people, so she
and her husband joined the establishment.” Another
friend who had been a Baptist all his life, suddenly joined
the established Church. “The fact of it was,” he said to
me, “ they were always quarrelling at the chapel, so one
day I said I’d had enough of it, and I took the girls off to
church—and now I’ve had them confirmed there, and we
like it.” I do not think these were good reasons for
changing one’s belief; my object, however, is not to
criticize other people’s reasons, but to give you my own,
and this I will proceed to do without further delay.
One thing only I will add,—an assurance that I am
most anxious to avoid anything which can in any way hurt
the feelings of those who differ from me. I have no
reason, indeed, for speaking harshly or disrespectfully of
the Church of England. To one section of it I owe my
training in many Catholic doctrines, while to another
section I am indebted for having opened my eyes to the fact
that those doctrines were not the doctrines of the Church
of England. You will hear from me no attacks upon the
character of the Anglican clergy, not only because I
believe them to be an excellent body of men, but because,
even if they were not so, their personal shortcomings
would no more invalidate their teaching than the char
acter of Balaam invalidated the truth of his prophetic
utterances. It would, I think, be well if some Protestant
lecturers would bear this in mind, just as they might
remember that a Church which could claim the allegiance
of a Newman and a Manning is hardly likely to be as
�Why I left the Church of England
3
corrupt or as ignorant as they would have their hearers
suppose.
From my earliest days, I was brought up at St. Barnabas’s,
Pimlico—one of the churches most intimately associated
with the growth of High Church views in London. It was
opened in 1850, and among those who preached on the
occasion was the late Cardinal (then Archdeacon) Manning.
In 1851 the Protestant feeling of a certain section of the
community was roused. The riots which from time to time
have disgraced the Protestant party,—which, nevertheless
claims toleration as one of its virtues—and which culmin
ated some years later in the scandalous scenes at St.
George’s in the East, broke out here. The timid Bishop of
London closed the church and caused the resignation of
Mr. Bennett, who received the living of Frome Seiwood,
Somerset, where he died some few years since, deeply
regretted by his flock, whom he had familiarized with almost
every Catholic doctrine, and practice. It is worth noting,
as showing the marvellous stride which Ritualism hasmade
in the last forty years, that at St. Barnabas’s the only then
unusual ornaments were a plain cross and two candles on
the Holy Table ; an oak screen before the chancel, sur
mounted by a cross ; a surpliced choir; and a service
modelled on that of the English cathedrals.
*
No vestments
save the ordinary surplice and black stole; no incense ; no
banners ; no prayers save those in the Book of Common
Prayer. The ornaments of the church which, forty years
ago, had to be closed to protect it from the mob, would
now hardly excite the notice of the Church Association.
My own memory dates, I suppose, from somewhere
about 1856. The two great waves of conversion to the
Catholic Church, which followed the secession of Newman
in 1845. and Manning in 1851 had passed: and in spite
of occasional Protestant outbursts, the effects of Protestant
lectures, and the adverse judgements of Privy Councils and
other bodies, the High Church movement was steadily and
everywhere gaining ground.
* There was indeed, a stone altar, which was subsequently removed,
but this being covered was not conspicuously different from an ordin
ary table.
�4
Why I left the Church of England
I will as briefly as possible tell you what I was taught to
believe. First, I was taught that our Lord founded a
Church, which He had built upon the foundation of His
Apostles, He Himself being the chief corner-stone : that
He had conferred on His Apostles certain powers by which
they were enabled to carry on His work ; that the Apostles
had the power of forgiving sin, of consecrating the Eucharist,
and of transmitting to their successors the supernatural
power which they had themselves received : that the
Apostles and those whom they consecrated were the rulers
of the Christian Church : that this Church had power to
define what was to be believed, and that it could not err
because of the promise of Christ that.He would be with it’
even to the end of the world : that the Church, moreover’
was divinely guided in a very special manner by the Holy
Ghost, and that its definitions to the end of time were
inspired by the Holy Ghost, of whom Christ had said
When He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He shall lead you
into all truth : ” that the Church and not the Bible was
God’s appointed teacher; that the traditions of the Church
were of equal authority with the Bible ; and that the Church
was the only authorized interpreter of the latter.
I was further taught that the grace of God was conveyed
to the soul principally by means of the Sacraments, and
that by Baptism the stain of original sin was removed.
With regard to the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy
Communion, I can best explain the teaching that I received
by saying that I was never conscious of any change of
belief when I became a Catholic. The books which I
used as an Anglican I could use equally well as a Catholic ;
they were compiled almost exclusively from Catholic sources^
and before I had ever entered a Catholic church or read a
Catholic book, I was familiar with the wonderful Eucharistic
hymns of St. Thomas, and the other doctrinal hymns,
modern as well as ancient, of the Catholic Church,
I do not think that in those days we were taught, "as
Anglicans are taught now, that there were seven Sacraments,
but the practical result was the same. I shall never forget
the care with which I was prepared for Confirmation ; it
never occurred to me to doubt that the clergy had the
�Why I left the Church of England
5
power of forgiving sins ; indeed I think I exaggerated this
power, for I thought that the declaration of absolution at
matins and evensong was sacramental. Confession was not
urged as it is now, and confessionals were not, as they are
now, openly placed in the Churches ; but in sermons and in
private instruction the “ benefit of absolution ” as the
Prayer-book calls it, was referred to, and we know that
confessions were heard in the sacristy. Ihave already said
that we believed in the apostolical succession—in other
words, in the Sacrament of Orders; and it was difficult to
ignore the plain command of St. James as to Extreme
Unction—indeed, I have never been able to understand,
save on the basis of Luther’s well-known saying that the
Epistle of James was a “ matter of straw,” how Protestants
evade comoliance with this text.
As to externals, although in those days these had
developed but little, the principle of them was laid down.
We were told—and I do not see how any one can deny it—
that there were two rituals authorized by Almighty God—
the ancient Jewish rite, and the mystical vision of the
Apocalypse. In both were found the symbolic use of
vestments and incense, music and ceremonial : nowhere
did we find any indication that these externals were to be
done away, and we knew that the Christian Church adopted
them from as early a period as was possible. The English
Church, indeed, was shorn of her splendour, but the time
would come when she would arise and put on her beautiful
garments; and if there should beany ftigh Churchman
among my hearers, he will say, and say truly, that that time
has come, and that, so far as externals go, the Established
Church can now vie successfully with the Roman ritual in
splendour and dignity.
And as with other externals, so with music. Among the
many things for which I am grateful to those who brought
me up, few are more present to me than the love which
they gave me for the old plain chant of the Church—the
chant which we called Gregorian, thereby giving honour to
the great Pope who sent St. Augustine to bring this nation
back to God. And with the old chants we had the old
words—not only the Psalms of David, but the words of the
�6
Why I left the Church of England
Fathers of the Church in her hymns—of St. Ambrose, and
St. Gregory, and St. Bede, and St. Thomas Aquinas : for
in those early days not a hymn was sung in that church
which had not upon it the hall-mark of antiquity.
To the same hand which translated most of these hymns
into sonorous and manly English, I owed my knowledge of
the lives of the Saints, as portrayed in the volumes setting
forth the ‘ Triumphs of the Cross ’ and the ‘ Followers of
the Lord.’ To Dr. Neale—that great liturgical scholar—
I shall always feel a debt of gratitude for having made me
understand, however imperfectly, what is meant by the
Communion of Saints, and for having brought to my
knowledge that wonderful storehouse of saintly history
which is among the many treasures of the Catholic Church.
It is true that we did not then, as Anglicans do now, invoke
them, or address our litanies to the Mother of God; yet
the veneration of the Blessed Virgin and the saints was
inculcated upon us in many ways.
So with the observance, not only of festivals, but of fasts
—the duty of keeping both was impressed on us. The
brightness of the sanctuary, with its many lights and flowers,
and the stately procession chanting psalms, were associ
ated with all the great Christian festivals, making “the
beauty of holiness," something more than a name; while
the times of self-denial and the penitential season of Lent
were brought home to us by the silent organ and the violethung sanctuary. The duty of supporting our pastors, the
equality of all meh before God,
“ Who has but one same death for a hind,
And one same death for a king,’’
were also taught us, as fully as the Church herself teaches
them.
You may wonder what were the impressions I received
with regard to the Catholic Church on one side, and
Nonconformists on the other. With regard to the Church
I was taught that there were three branches—the Anglican,
the Greek, and the Roman—and that of these three the
Catholic Church was made up : that in this country the
Church of England represented the Catholic Church, and
�Why I left the Church oj England
7
that the Roman branch had no business here—though I am
thankful to say that I cannot remember ever having
heard at St. Barnabas’s a single sermon against Roman
Catholics, or an uncharitable word regarding them. I
therefore had none of those prejudices which seem insepar
able from certain forms of Protestantism—prejudices
which prevent even a fair hearing of the Catholic position.
I remember one sermon on the honour due to the Blessed
Virgin, in which the Roman devotion to her was spoken of
as excessive; and another on St. Peter, in which his prim
acy, as distinct from his supremacy, was acknowledged :
but until I was seventeen I never heard the Protestant
side of the Church of England advanced from any pulpit,
although then, as now, the itinerant Protestant lecturer
presented to those who were credulous enough to accept his
statements a caricature of the Catholic Church. In those
days a Mr. Edward Harper, who had some prominent
position in the Orange Society, occupied the place which
is now held by Mr. Collette, and, was filled, until lately,
by Mr. Mark Knowles.
I ought to add that I had never attended a Roman
Catholic service, and had only once entered a Catholic
church. This was the old Oratory, into which I went one
winter afternoon on my way to the South Kensington
Museum. One of the few things I knew about what I
considered the Roman branch of the Church was that the
Blessed Sacrament was reserved on its altars, and I remem
ber kneeling in the dark, flat-roofed Oratory, with its lamp
burning before the altar, in adoration of the Presence which
I felt to be there. I was quite sure—for I had never
heard it called in question—that the views I have given
were those of the Church of England : that the Reformation,
disastrous as it was, in many ways, had not broken the
apostolical succession: and that the Western and Eastern
Churches, equally with the Anglican, had Orders and
Sacraments, and were of the unity of the Faith.
With Nonconformists it was different. They had no
authorized ministry, and therefore no Sacraments. They
had thrown off the authority of the Church, and substituted
their own interpretation of the Bible. They were the
�8
Why I left the Church of England
followers of Korak, Dathan, and Abiram; against them
was directed the warning, “mark those who cause divisions
among you, and avoid them.” I am afraid that we looked
upon them as socially inferior to ourselves—certainly as
people to be avoided—and as “Protestants,” a term which
even then Anglicans held in contempt. With Catholics we
had much in common—indeed, we were Catholics ourselves :
but Dissent, with its numberless divisions, absence of
dignity, unauthorized teachers, and ugly conventicles, was
far from us, and with it we could hold no communion.
This was my position until, at about the age of eighteen,
I went into the country to study medicine. I shall never
forget my first Sunday there. There was a magnificent old
parish church, with deep chancel and broad aisles, choked
up with pews of obstructive design. A small table with a
shabby red cloth stood away under the picture which con
cealed the east window; a choir of a handful of men and
boys, unsurpliced and untidy, sang the slender allowance
of music; a parish clerk responded for the congregation ;
— these were the objects that met my eyes and ears that
first Sunday of my exile. But that was not all. We had a
sermon, delivered by a preacher in a black gown—to me a
new and hideous vestment,—on behalf of the Sunday
schools. That sermon I shall always remember. In the
course of it, the preacher enumerated the things they did
not teach the children in the schools : they did not teach
them they were born again in baptism, they did not teach
that the clergy were descended from the Apostles, they did
not teach that they had power to forgive sins, they did not
teach a real presence in the Communion—“ Real presence! ”
I heard a parson say in that church ; “Ibelieve in a real
absence ! ”—they did not teach the doctrine of good works.
I began to wonder what was left to be taught, until the
preacher explained that predestination and salvation by
faith alone were inculcated upon the children. On the
next Sunday the Holy Communion was administered—how,
I can hardly describe, except by saying that it was manifest
that no belief in its supernatural aspect was maintained. I
can see now the parish clerk, at the end of the service,
walking up the chancel, and the minister coming towards
�Why I left the Church of England
9
him with the paten in one hand and the chalice in the
other, waiting while he, standing, ate and drank the con
tents of each.
My first feeling was that these clergy had no right or
place in the Church of England. There was a moderately
“high” church five miles off, and whenever I could, I
found my way there. But it became unpleasantly plain
that the Church of England, which I had regarded as an
infallible guide, spoke with two voices :—I began to realize
that even on vital matters two diametrically-opposed
opinions, not only could be, but were, held and preached.
I knew my Book of Common Prayer and its rubrics as
well as I knew my Bible; but to one part of it my atten
tion had never been called, as it now was Sunday by
Sunday. I had known without realizing all that it implied,
that the Queen was, in some way, the Head of the Church
—or rather, of two churches, one in England and one in
Scotland: but I now found that she declared herself to
be “Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and,
by God’s ordinance, Defender of the Faith : ” that General
Councils, which I had been taught to believe infallible,
could not be held “ without the commandment and will of
princes,” and “ may err, and sometimes have erred, in things
pertaining unto God ” ; that Confirmation, Penance, and
the like, were not Sacraments of the Gospel; that the
benefits of Baptism were confined to “ they that receive
it rightly; ” that the reception of the Body of Christ
in the Holy Communion is dependent on the faith of
the recipient; and that “the Sacrifices of masses . . .
were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” This
last was indeed a trial to me. It is true that twenty-five
years ago the word “ Mass ” was not in common use among
Anglicans as it is now, and I do not think an Anglican
clergyman would have been found to say in public, as one
said the other day, that “he would not stay a minute in
a church where the Mass was not, for if they had not got
the Mass, they had no worship whatever.” But we knew
that the term was retained in the first reformed Prayer-book
and that it was the name employed throughout the Western
Church for the Eucharistic service.
*
�io
Why I left the Church of England
Here then was my difficulty: and the more I faced it,
the more I found that the ground which I had thought so
sure was slipping away from under me. Not, thank God,
that I ever doubted any of the truths which had been
implanted in me: but I-began to see, more and more
clearly, that the authority, on which I had thought them
to rest was altogether lacking. I found that what I had
received as the teaching of a Church was only the teaching
of a certain section of its clergy, and that other clergy,
with exactly as much authority, taught directly opposite
opinions: they were not priests, they said: they claimed
to offer no sacrifice ; no office of forgiving sins was theirs;
they possessed no supernatural powers.
This was bad enough, but there was worse behind. The
other branches of the Church—what did they say on these
momentous points ? Alas 1 there was no room for doubt
here. Neither the Eastern nor Western “branches,” each
of them far larger than the Anglican, would admit for a
moment the claims of the Anglican clergy to be priests :
and a large section of themselves equally denied it. The
bishops in some cases expressly told the candidates for
ordination that they were not made priests j and if their
were no priests, how could the sacraments depending on
them be celebrated ? It was no special ill-will to Anglicans
that Rome showed by refusing to recognize their orders;
for she never denied those of the Greeks, although these
were equally separated from her unity. The Branch
Theory broke down—it would not work.
Then I read other books—many of them by Newman,
for whom Anglicans in those days cherished a warm
affection and respect in spite of his secession. And more
and more the conviction was forced upon me that I had
received the beliefs in which I had been brought up on
the authority of certain individual members of a body
which not only tolerated, but taught with equal authority,
the exact opposite of these beliefs—that the Anglican
Communion,. even as represented by those who claimed
for it Catholicity, was a mere Protestant sect, differing
only from more recent denominations in that it retained
certain shreds and patches of the old faith. It was, in
�Why I left the Church of England
11
short, a compromise—a via media between Rome and
Dissent—and it was as unsatisfactory as compromises
usually are.
Meanwhile there came upon me more and more plainly
the claims of a Church which taught with authority
all that I believed; which claimed to be the one body
having a right to teach; and which, without equivocation
or hesitation, pointed out to its members one only means
of salvation. By one of those occurrences which we
call accidents I became acquainted with a Catholic priest
—one of the first of those Anglicans who gave up friends
and position and everything that could make life happy at
the call of their Master. From him I learned what was
hitherto lacking to my knowledge of the Church ; I realized,
as I had never done before, that the first mark of God’s
Church was unity—a mark which no one can pretend to
find in the Church of England : and after a period of anxiety
such as none can know who have not experienced it, I was
received into that unity.
Of my experience since, you will not expect me to speak.
If I must say anything, I will venture to employ the words
of Cardinal Newman, which express better than any words
of mine could, my feelings now :—“ From the day I became
a Catholic to this day, I have never had a moment’s mis
giving that the Communion of Rome is the Church which
the Apostles set up at Pentecost, which alone has ‘the
adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the
revealed law, and the service of God, and the promises,’
and in which the Anglican Communion, whatever its merits
and demerits, whatever the great excellence of individuals
in it, has, as such, no part. Nor have I ever for a moment
hesitated in my conviction that it was my duty to join the
Catholic Church, which in my own conscience I felt to be
divine.”
When I told the friends with whom I was living that I
had become a Catholic, the result somewhat astonished me :
and those good Protestants who assume—as many do—
that persecution and Popery are inseparably connected,
while Protestantism and liberty of conscience are convert
ible terms, may like to know what happened. My desk
�12
Why. I left the Church of England
was broken open; my private letters were stolen; letters
sent me through the post were intercepted, opened, and
sometimes detained; I was prevented from going to a
Catholic church and from seeing a Catholic priest; a picture
of the Crucifixion which I had had in my room for years,
was profaned in a way which I do not care to characterize,
These things are small and trifling compared with what
many have suffered, but what light do not even they throw
upon that right of private judgement which Protestants pro
fess to hold so dear !
One thing which seemed to me at my conversion remark
able still remains to me one of the most wonderful features,
of Protestantism—the universal assumption that Catholics
do not know what they themselves believe, and that Pro
testants understand it far better. The average Protestant,
for instance, thinks and often asserts that we believe that
the Pope cannot sin, that we worship images, that we are
disloyal to the Crown, that we put our Lady in the place of
God, that we sell absolution for money and have a recog
nized tariff for the remission of sins, that we may not read
the Bible, that we would burn every Protestant if we could,
that we lie habitually, that our convents are haunts of vice,
that our priests are knaves or conscious imposters, and that
our laity are dupes or fools—I could, if time would allow,
easily bring extracts from Protestant writers in support of
each of these positions. Not only so, but—by isolated texts
of scripture ; by scraps of the Fathers, torn from their con
text, and often mistranslated; by misrepresentations of
history * by fragments of prayers and hymns, interpreted
;
as no Catholic would interpret them ; by erroneous explan
ations of what they see in our churches ; by baseless infer
ences arising from ignorance of the very language we use
— they formulate and are not ashamed to propagate charges
against us which in many cases we cannot condemn seriously,
because it is impossible to help laughing at them. Our
contradictions are not listened to ; our corrections are un
heeded ; our statements are disbelieved. “ Give us,” we say,
* See Mr. Collette as a historian, by the Rev. S. F. Smith, S.T.—
Catholic Truth Society, id.
�Why I left the Church of England
13
“at least fair play ; hear what we have to say for ourselves ;
do not condemn us unheard ; do not assume that we are
all fools or rogues.” But we are not listened to : we are not
allowed to know what we ourselves believe ! “ Oh for the
rarity of Christian charity,” or at any rate of Protestant
charity.
We are sometimes accused of omitting one of the
commandments : but it is the bigoted Protestant who does
this—he entirely forgets that there is in the Decalogue one
which says sternly—“ Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour.” How many Protestants who speak
against the Church have ever expended a penny on the Cate
chism which contains a full clear statement of Christian
Doctrine, which is approved by authority, and on which
the religious education of our children is based? Yet they
would learn more from it of what we really believe than
from every tract in Mr. Kensit’s shop, or from all the books
which Mr. Collette ever wrote.
It often puzzles me how it is that Protestants do not
realize the utter futility of the attempts they have been
making for the last fifty years to arrest the tide of Catholic
tendency which is flooding the nation. Go into St. Paul’s
—say on the festival of the Gregorian Association—see the
long procession of surpliced choirs with their banners,
many of them bearing Catholic devices; listen to the old
antiphons, unauthorized indeed by the Book of Common
Prayer, set to the chants to which they are sung in the
Church throughout the world wherever the Divine Office is
chanted; see the preacher mount the pulpit, prefacing his
sermon with the invocation of the Blessed Trinity and the
sign of the Cross; hear him refer as one referred two years
since, to “our Lady”—a title only less dear to Catholics
than that of our Lord: and as you sit and listen, look to
the end of the church, with its dignified and decorated
altar and the gorgeous reredos, not unworthy of a Catholic
church, with the great crucifix in its centre, and over all
the statue of Mary with her Divine Child in her arms : and
as you leave the church, do not forget to notice the side
chapel and its handsome altar, with cross, and flowers and
lights, where the daily communion service is held. Then
remember that less than forty years since, not one of these
�14
Why I left the Church of England
ornaments or signs could be seen in the desolate, dirty
edifice, with its shabby communion-table well-nigh out of
sight under the east window. Go to Wesminster, and see,
prominent at the restored north door, another statue of
Mary with her Child. Go up and down the country, both
to your large towns and to your remote villages, and you
will find the same advance—only more developed. Last
year, I strolled into the magnificent old abbey church of a
little Oxfordshire village : the air was dim and heavy with
incense; there were three altars, each duly furnished with
lights, cross, and sacring-bell; on the notice board was a
copy of the parish magazine, in which I read an exhortation
on the duty of hearing Mass on Sunday which might have
been taken—and perhaps was taken—from a Catholic
manual of instruction : and a list of the services to be held
on the feast of Corpus Christi 1 The crucifix is now
common in Protestant churches ; pictures of our Lady are
not rare ; statues of her are to be found—why do not our
Protestant friends look to this, instead of raising their voices
against Catholicism ? They shriek and rant after their
manner ; yet one stronghold after another is captured, and
they stand by and are powerless to hinder it.
Look at the wealth of literature of every kind, which
pours forth from the ritualistic press : the manuals and
treatises, the dogmatic works, the numberless little books,
each more advanced than the last with which the country
is literally flooded, and of which the St. Agatha’s Sunday
Scholars’ Book, which lately received a notice from the
Protestant Alliance, is but one out of a thousand. Look
even at the levelling up which has marked the publications
of so eminently respectable a body as the Society for the
Promotion of Christian Knowledge. How is it that, with
all your power and influence and money, you cannot arrest
this advance in the direction of Rome?
And what about Rome itself? There are those who
think that England is rapidly becoming Catholic. I am
not of that number, but I cannot fail to see that the fields
are white unto harvest, and I see too that the labourers are
being sent forth into the harvest.
More than fifty years ago, Macaulay pointed out, in that
�Why I left the Church of England
15
wonderful essay on Ranke’s History of the Popes which I
would commend to all Protestants who do not know it, as
a “ most remarkable fact, that no Christian nation which
did not adopt the principles of the Reformation before the
end of the 16th century, should ever have adopted them.
Catholic communities have since that time become infidel
and become Catholic again ; but none has become Protes
tant.” How is it at home ? Protestants have poured
money into Ireland; they did not scruple to avail them
selves, to their everlasting disgrace, of the sufferings of the
great famine in order to buy over with their funds the souls
and bodies of the destitute Irish. “ God has opened a
great door to us in Ireland”—such was the blasphemous
announcement which prefaced one of the appeals for those
liberal funds without which no Protestant missionary enter
prise, at home or abroad, can be carried on. What is the
result? Is Ireland less Catholic than she was? Come
closer—come to England—here are facts which Protestants
will not dispute, for they will come to you with the author
ity of the Protestant Alliance, from one of whose publi
cations I quote them. Since 1851, the number of priests in
England has more than trebled itself; of churches, chapels
and stations we have now 1387, where in 1851 we had
586 ; of religious houses of men we have 220, against 17,
forty years ago ; of convents—those favourite objects of
attack to a certain class of Protestants, those places whose
inmates, to judge from the rubbish one hears and reads,
have only one aim, to escape—we have just nine times as
many as we had in 1851 ; the numbers are 450 and 53.
Come nearer home: in 1851 the diocese of Southwark
included what is now the diocese of Portsmouth: there
were then in it 67 priests ; there are now, in the two dioceses
428—an increase of 363 ; there were 57 churches and
stations, where there are now exactly 200 ; there are 80
convents instead of 9 ; there are 38 monasteries instead of
one 1 Come to these very doors ; when I came to live in
Southwark, eight years ago, there was for this vast district
one church—the Cathedral—with four priests ; now the
staff at the Cathedral is more than doubled, and Walworth,
the Borough and Vauxhall are separated into distinct
�16
Why I left the Church of England
missions, each with two priests. Add to this such churches
as St. Alphege and St. Agnes, where the doctrines taught,
and the ornaments used, are almost identical with our
own ; All Saints (Lambeth), St. John the Divine, Christ
Church (Clapham), and many more, where sacramental
teaching of an advanced type is given : and then calculate
for yourselves what effect in this neighbourhood the puny
and impotent attacks of the Protestant Alliance is likely to
produce : a Society whose patron should surely be the good
old lady who thought to sweep back the sea with a mop :
whose members spend their money on red rags, and waste
their time by shaking them in the face of a bull—I mean
John Bull—who doesn’t care twopence about them. My
Protestant friends, there was one of old who gave sound
advice to those who took counsel to slay Peter and they
that were with him : “ Refrain from these men, and let
them alone ; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it
will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot over
throw it; lest haply ye be found to fight against God.”
Remember that “ in spite of dungeon, fire and sword,”—
in spite of the penal laws, which the Lord Chief Justice has
lately styled “a code as hateful as anything ever seen since
the foundation of the world ”—the faith is among you still ;
the gates of hell have not prevailed against it.
And—speaking quite soberly and dispassionately—I do
not hesitate to say that some of the weapons which are
employed against the Church seem to me to come from
within those gates. I respect the conscientious, God-fear
ing Protestants who, under the influence of strong delusion,
feel it their duty to oppose the Church. I remember
the case of Saul, afterwards called Paul, and how he
persecuted the Church of God; and I do not despair of
their conversion. I have only sympathy for those who are
misled by prejudice and bigoted teachers. Every convert
can say, with the man in the Gospel, “ whereas I was blind
now I see; ” and I am not sure that those who have had
the happiness of being born Catholics always make sufficient
allowance for the imperfect vision of those without the
fold. But what shall be said in defence of those who are
not ashamed to write and to publish calumnies, as foul as
�Why I left the Church of England
17
they are false, against priests and nuns, and the Sacraments
of the Church—those “ lewd fellows of the baser sort ” who
under the guise of religion, do not scruple to pander to the
lowest and worst of passions by the circulation of fifthy
fictions of which ‘ Maria Monk ’ is by no means the worst-—
of works which, so far as I know, are to be found in only
two places in London— in the shop of a Protestant pub
lisher, and in a street which has for years obtained an evil
notoriety for the sale of indecent literature. I am not
going to name these books : but if any one is anxious, for
any good purpose, to know to what I refer, I am ready to
tell him. Some years since, one of the worst of these was
seized and condemned as an indecent publication; since
then, the Protestant purveyors * of pornographic publi
cations have been more careful to keep within the letter of
the law, although it is not long since the editor of Truth—
by no means a scrupulous purist—denounced some of their
wares as outraging decency. These and the highly spiced
lectures “ to men,” or “ to women only ”—appeal to a certain
class of persons; and I call upon all decent men and
women, be they Jew, Turk, heretic, or infidel—and above
all, upon Mr. Collette, who was at one time intimately con
nected with a body called the Society for the Suppression
of Vice—to dissociate themselves from any part in the
wholesale propagation of indecency which is carried on in
the name of religion. The cause must indeed be a bad and
a hopeless one which can stoop to avail itself of weapons
such as these.
But I will not refer further to a hateful kind of warfare
with which very few will sympathize. I will rather briefly
apply to two among the many schools of thought in the
Establishment the remarks which I have made.
To the Protestants or Low Churchmen I would say : Can
you conscientiously remain in a Church, the members of
which claim to hold all Roman doctrine, save that of sub
mission to the Pope—which permits the teaching not only
of Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence, but of
Confession, the Monastic or Religious Life, the use of
* See Truth. Dec. 28, 1893, for further remarks on one of these
persons.
�18
Why I left the Church of England
Images, Fasting, Prayers and Masses for the Dead, the
Invocation of Saints, Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, the
power of dispensing from religious obligations; which
not only allows these things to be taught, but permits them
to be emphasized by every external adjunct ? To the High
Churchman my question is exactly the converse of this.
You believe all or most of the points which I have just
enumerated : can you remain in communion with those who
deny them ? Read, if you have not read it, a pamphlet on
the Reformation by one of your own Bishops—Dr. Ryle—
one of those whom you regard as successors of the Apostles,
with the power of ordaining priests. He tells you how the
reformers “stripped the office of the clergy of any sacerdotal
character ”—how they removed the words ‘ sacrifice ’ and
‘ altar ’ from the Prayer-book, and retained the word priest
only in the sense of presbyter or elder—how they denied
the power of the keys—how they cast out the sacrifice of
the Mass as a blasphemous fable, took down the altars,
prohibited images and crucifixes, and “ declared that the
sovereign had supreme authority and chief power in this
realm in all causes ecclesiastical.” What is gained by the
wearing of cope and mitre and the teaching of Sacramental
doctrine by one bishop, if another can at the same time,
with equal authority, denounce all these things ? and how can
a Church, with any claim to be considered as teaching with
authority, tolerate with equanimity both of these extremes ?
We Catholics are so accustomed to the unity of the
Church that we do not perhaps always think what a wonder
ful thing it is : and Protestants, I find, often do not realize
it. They sometimes point to our religious orders as if they
were equivalent to their own manifold divisions ! It is, I
believe, the literal truth that, as the sun shines day by day
on each part of the world, he sees at each moment the
blessed Sacrifice of the Altar uplifted to the Eternal
Father. Where, save in the Catholic Church, shall we find
such a fulfilment of the prophecy—“From the rising of the
sun unto the going down of the same shall incense be
offered to My Name and a pure offering?” Not only so,
but throughout the world—from “ Greenland’s icy moun
tains to “ India’s coral strand ”—wherever two or three are
�Why I left the Church of England
19
gathered together in the One Name is the same belief, the
same sacrifice, mainly the same ritual: so that the Irish
exile leaving the Old World for the New, where Catholi
cism is increasing with rapid strides, is as much at home
in the churches of New York as he was in his roadside
country chapel in the old country. Can any Catholic for
a moment conceive the possibility of finding any one
doctrine preached at St. George’s contradicted by the
priest at Walworth, controverted in the sermon in the
Catholic chapel at Vauxhall, and called in question by
Canon Murnane in the Borough ? Can he imagine Cardinal
Vaughan’s teaching on the Mass contradicted by our own
beloved Bishop ? But will any Protestant tell me that—to
take the two Anglican churches nearest to us—the teaching
at St. Paul’s is identical with that at St. Alphege ? Could
Mr. Allwork’s congregation next Sunday avail themselves of
Mr. Goulden’s ministrations, or join in the hymns and
prayers addressed to the Blessed Sacrament and the
Mother of God ?
The Catholic can go all over the world, and wherever he
goes he will find the same Faith and the same Sacrifice.
The Protestant cannot go at random into two churches in
the same neighbourhood with any certainty that the teach
ing or ceremonial will be similar, and that with regard to
the most vital points of faith. “ How can two walk together
except they be agreed ? ” Remember that, as the cowl
does not make the monk, so the most elaborate ritual and
the most advanced teaching cannot make a Catholic. A
few weeks ago I strolled into a handsome Church in this
neighbourhood, just as a lady dressed like a nun was taking
the school-children to service. There was the raised altar,
with its flowers and lights and crucifix and what looked
very like a tabernacle, and before the altar burned seven
lamps. “ Is this a Catholic Church ?” I said to the verger.
“ No, sir, Church of England,” was the reply. My friends
disguise it as you will, the truth will out: your Catholic
church is only the Church of England after all.
One point more. When I was thinking of becoming a
Catholic, I pointed out to a friend these differences exist
ing in the Church of England. Both, I said, cannot be
�20
Why I left the Church of England
true, but neither the Church herself, nor the State which
supports her, is able to say with authority which is right.
My friend told me—what I believe people still say—that
High and Low Church were united in essentials. Surely
the most ignorant and superstitious Papists ever invented
by a Protestant lecturer would recoil before such an
absurdity as this statement involves ! Surely it is “essential ”
to know whether Baptism is a mere symbol or a regener
ating sacrament; it cannot be a matter of indifference
whether the sons of men have or have not power on earth
to forgive sins ; it cannot be a matter of opinion whether
the sacrifice of the Mass is a blasphemous fable and
dangerous deceit, or the renewal of the great Sacrifice
offered on Calvary? There must be an authority to pro
nounce upon these points, and the Church of England
neither has nor claims to be such authority. From the
time of the Gorham Judgement, which left Baptism an
open question, down to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s
decision the other day, uncertainty, vagueness, and inde
cision have marked every attempt to formulate any definite
opinion. This last attempt has indeed justified ritualism
on the ground that it means nothing in particular, and
above all, nothing Roman. No wonder the Times spoke
of a “sense of unreality” in “the effort to treat, as neutral
or colourless, acts which we all know to be, in the view of
a party in the Church, technical symbols and unequivocal
doctrinal signs.” It is true that, with marvellous effrontery
a popular Anglican hymn asserts—
“We are not divided,
All one body we ;
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity.” *
But does any Anglican believe it to be true?
“Not
divided 1 ” Is there any one who will assert that the
“ doctrine ” preached in the first half-dozen Anglican
churches he comes across will be “ one ? —or that the
[It would appear that even Anglicans themselves have been • struck
by the absurdity of this statement, for in the new edition of Hymns
Ancient and Modern the verse begins :
“ Though divisions harass,
All one body we.”]
�Why I left the Church of England
21
teaching of what is termed, with unconscious irony, the
“ religious press,” has any claims to be considered ident
ical ? If the “ doctrine ” is one, why do we find in the
same Church two such organizations as the English Church
Union and the Church Association, each diametrically
opposed to the other, and the latter continually prosecut
ing the clergy who represent the views of the former ?
Is there anywhere such a spectacle of division as this —
a division which, as soon as the bonds of State Establish
ment shall have been broken asunder, cannot fail to be
even more manifest than it is at present.
“ Not divided ! ” It must be nearly thirty years ago, I
think, that St. Paul’s, Lorrimore Square, was in the fore
front of Anglicanism. There was a change of vicar, and
the congregation so little realized that they were “ one in
doctrine,” with their new clergyman, that a great part of
them seceded, and formed the nucleus of what is now the
large body of worshippers attending St. Agnes’, Kennington.
But why if they were “not divided,” if they were “one in
doctrine,” did they not stay where they were ?
“Not divided!” Is not division the very essence of
Protestantism ? and are not the divisions in the Establish
ment sufficient proof that it is Protestant? “We have
within the Church of England,” said the Times on one
occasion, “ persons differing not only in their particular
tenets, but in the rule and ground of their belief.”
Put it another way. Take the case of a Nonconformist
who' desires to become a member of the Church of
England: suppose him to be some one in this neighbour
hood : is he to be taken to St. Paul’s or to St. Alphege’s ?
Who is to decide ? Surely it is not a matter of indifference.
Mr. Ruskin has said that “ The Protestant who most
imagines himself independent in his thought, and private
in his study of Scripture, is nevertheless usually at the
mercy of the nearest preacher who has a pleasant voice
and ingenious fancy.” * Arid surely the faith which is
put forward as that of the Church of England, depends
entirely on the belief of the individual parson referred to,
How different is the case with the Catholic Church !
Our Fathers Have Told Us, iii, 125.
�22
Why I left the Church of England
I have said that the Church of England neither has nor
claims authority; and my last words shall be devoted to
making this plain. If she has authority, as our High
Church friends assert, whence does she derive it ? Not
from the old Church of England, for by the Reformation
of Elizabeth, the old Catholic episcopate was swept away.
Of the sixteen surviving Catholic Bishops, all save one—
Kitchin of Llandaff, who took no part in the Reformation,
nor in the consecration of Parker—were imprisoned, and
Parker and those consecrated by him were intruded into
the sees of the imprisoned Bishops. But granting that
Parker and the rest were validly consecrated, whence did
they get jurisdiction ? Certainly not from the old Catholic
Bishops ; most certainly not from the source whence these
obtained it, namely, the Pope; not by the fact of consecra
tion, for orders and jurisdiction are distinct, and received
independently of each other; not from either of Parker’s
consecrators—Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins—
for not one of these was in possession of a see, and they
could not give what they themselves did not possess. The
only answer possible, however unpalatable it may be to
High Churchmen, is, that they got jurisdiction from the
Crown, or not at all.
Every Protestant bishop now takes the oath of suprem
acy, by which he professes that the Sovereign is the “ only
supreme governor” of the realm “in spiritual and ecclesi
astical things, as well as in temporal.” Whence the
sovereign obtained this supremacy, or what “ warranty of
Scripture ” can be adduced for it, 1 do not know ; nor do
I think it easy to ascertain.
Moreover, the Establishment not only does not possess
authority, but she expressly disclaims it. The First General
Council of the Church prefaced its teaching with—“It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us: ” and the
Catholic Church, right down to the present day, has spoken
with like authority. But what does the Church of England
say ? Her anxiety not to be regarded as having any
authority is almost pathetic : “All Churches have erred,”
she says, “ in matters of faith ” and it is implied that she may
fail also. The Church has power, indeed to decree rites
�Why I left the Church of England
23
and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, but
it cannot decree anything unless it is taken out of Holy
Scripture. General Councils are not only dependent on
the will of princes, but when assembled, may err and have
erred, nor may the Church declare anything of faith which
is not read in Holy Scripture. These things she tells us in
her Articles of Religion. But, to go a step further, who
gave Holy Scripture its authority ? It claims none for
itself as a whole ; it nowhere tells us of what books it is
composed; Christians are nowhere told to read it; no text
bids us keeps Sunday holy, or authorizes infant baptism, or
the taking of oaths. Who vouches for the authority of
the Bible, I repeat ? who, but that Church which from the
earliest times has been its guardian and its only rightful
interpreter.
It is true that to claim authority is one thing and to
possess it is another. If saying we had a thing were
equivalent to having it, we should find nowadays authorized
teachers in abundance. But it is difficult to believe that a
body deriving its teaching power from God would take so
much trouble to deny the possession of it. The Catholic
Church does not act thus.
And when the spiritual head of the Establishment is
consulted, he shows himself her true son. Some years ago,
Mr. Maskell, who afterwards became a Catholic, asked the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Sumner, whether he might
or might not teach certain doctrines of faith ? “ To which,”
the Archbishop said, “ I reply : are they contained in the
word of God ? Whether they are so contained, and can be
proved thereby, you have the same means of discovering as
myself, and I have no special authority to declare.”
Here is the judgement passed upon the Church of
England by the learned Dr. Dollinger, a man who has
some claim to respect from Protestants, seeing that he had
the misfortune to die outside the unity of the Catholic
Church. “ There is no Church that is so completely and
thoroughly as the Anglican, the product and expression of
the wants and wishes, the modes of thought and cast of
character, not of a certain nationality, but of a fragment of
a nation, namely, the rich, fashionable, and cultivated
�24
Why I left the Church of England
classes. It is the religion of deportment, of gentility, of
clerical reserve. Religion and the Church are then required
to be above all things, not troublesome, not intrusive, not
presuming, not importunate.” “ It is a good church to live
in,” some one said, “ but a bad one to die in.”
The absence of authority and of definite teaching—these
were the reasons which induced me to leave the Church of
England. The step once taken, all was clear; and on
every side I found abundant evidence that, if there be a
Church of God upon earth, the Holy Catholic and Roman
Church alone can claim that title. That evidence I cannot
bring before you now—I have already detained you too
long. My Catholic hearers do not need it, and my
Protestant friends will do well to seek it from those better
qualified than myself, qualified to speak with an authority
which cannot attach to any sayings of mine. To both
Catholics and Protestants I would recommend the perusal
of the Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in
England, * which were delivered by John Henry Newman,
“ the noblest Roman of them all ”—not long after he left
the Establishment, thus, as Lord Beaconsfield said upon
one occasion, “ dealing the Church of England a blow from
which she still reels.” In those lectures you will find
almost every popular objection against the Church met with
a charm of literary style and with a courteousness of
expression which, so far as I know, has never been equalled ;
and even those who remain unconvinced of the truth of
the Church will be constrained to admit that there is at
least another aspect of things which seemed to them to
admit of only one, and that a bad one. It has been well
said that the truths of the Church are like stained glass
windows in a building: look at them from without, all is
confusion : but go inside, Jet the light of heaven stream
through them, and each fragment takes its place in the
glorious aud beautiful picture which is presented to your
delighted gaze. So, from without, the doctrines of the
Church seem dark and confused ; but the light of heaven
pours through them to those within.
* [Of these a shilling edition is now published by the Catholic Truth
Society.]
�
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
Why I left the Church of England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Britten, James [1846-1924]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "A Lecture delivered in March,1893, in St. George's School, Southwark, in answer to one given by a Mr. Fitzgerald, of the Protestant Alliance." Includes bibliographical references. Annotations in blue pencil. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC, WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1894?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1539
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church of England
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 (Why I left the Church of England), 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
Church of England
Conversion-Catholic Church
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f6d28807ceafc657599fc1bb488aeba.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vbtJCkWpZ-gpzCsS0J2-b61CHOqCB%7EmYxHdOT5wTE3Q5cgqXFz%7E5o3h0GBPn%7E3NzIGvILc6w1cwJe5ASXSDh6CP7UaCT3c2keb2VhxxD790ZKEK4pziOwTGIJvF9HqJaaUnie3in4tObLYm2%7EavoTnch1avYaA2JtJEB0XU6Z4YGF-YapG6wk-pgmL4A-f8LBxPpmBbENuDtGzhdLtO7aoPW6iv-BzIheGGfUA4aeGWDxNMUIVCaCg6YTnvXHt6Qh7bqVzXEUbk8y8NYaaOndUw%7EPmy7R5W2QJR7zP1iolQnHiXNULVYxs3Ke5qUd8EfBlLmJcr484SpZ7hE-nB%7Ebg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9134d7056c17eb6d369fc023dc01dd2e
PDF Text
Text
■
1
-
-
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
WH¥ I DO NOT BELIEVE
IN GOD.
BY
I
ANNIE BESANT.
r
J./
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 887.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BBADLAUGH,
63, ELEET STREET, E.C.
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
■There is no doubt that the majority of people in most
parts of the world—save in those in which Buddhism is
supreme—believe in the existence of a God. The kind of
God may vary indefinitely, but there is generally “some God
Or other ”. Now a growing minority in every civilised
■Country finds it intellectually impossible to make the affir
mation which is necessary for belief in God, and this
growing minority includes many of the most thoughtful
and most competent minds. The refusal to believe is
unfortunately not always public, so cruel is the vengeance
Worked by society on those who do not bow down to its
dretish.es; but as John Stuart Mill said: ‘1 The world would
be. astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its
brightest ornaments—of those most distinguished even in
popular estimation for wisdom and virtue—are complete
sceptics in religion” (“Autobiography,” p. 45).
It is sad that all should not recognise that, as the late
Professor Clifford put it, Truth is a thing to be shouted
from the housetops, not to be whispered over the walnuts
and wine after the ladies have left; for only by plain and
honest speech on this matter can liberty of thought be
won. Each who speaks out makes easier speech for others,
and none, however insignificant, has right of silence here.
Nor is it unfair,. I think, that a minority should be chal
lenged on its dissidency, and should be expected to state
clearly and definitely the grounds of its disagreement with
the majority.
Ere going into detailed argument it may be well to remind
the reader that the burden of affording proof lies on the
afiirmer of a. proposition; the rational attitude of the
human mind is not that of a boundless credulity, accepting
every statement as true until it has been proved to be
false, but is that of a suspension of judgment on every
�4
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
statement which, though not obviously false, is not sup
ported. by evidence, and of an absolute rejection of a state
ment self-contradictory in its terms, or incompatible with
truth® already demonstrated. To remove this position
from the region of prejudice in which theological discus
sion is carried on, it may be well to take the following*
illustration : a man asks me, “Do you believe that Jupiter
is inhabited by a race of men who have one eye in the
middle of their foreheads, and who walk about on three
legs, with their heads under their left arms ? ” I answer
“No, I do not believe it; I have no evidence that such
beings exist”. If my interlocutor desires to convince mo
that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of;
them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence
in support of his contention. The burden of proof evi
dently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such
beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him
to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly
claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God’s existence
to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden
of proof lies on him.
Tor be it remembered that the Atheist makes no general
denial of the existence of God; he does not say, “There is
no God”. If he put forward such a proposition, which he
can only do intelligently if he understand the term “God”,
then, truly, he would be bound to bring forth his evidence
in support. But the proof of a universal negative requires
the possession of perfect knowledge of the universe of
discourse, and in this case the universe of discourse
is conterminous with the totality of existence. No*
man can rationally affirm “There is no God”, until
the word “ God ” has for him a definite meaning, and until
everything that exists is known to him, and known with
what Leibnitz calls “perfect knowledge”. The Atheist’s
denial of the Gods begins only when these Gods are defined
or described. Never yet has a God been defined in terms
which were not palpably self-contradictory and absurd ;•
never yet has a God been described so that a concept of
him was made possible to human thought. Again I fall
back on an illustration unconnected with theology in order
to make clearly apparent the distinction drawn. If I am
asked: “Do you believe in the existence of a triangle in
space on the other side of Saturn?” I answer, “I neither
�WHY I HO HOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
5
lielieve in, nor deny its existence; I know nothing about it”.
But if I am asked: “Do you believe in the existence
there of a boundless triangle, or of a square triangle ? ”
-then my answer is : “I deny the possibility of the exist
ence of such triangles”. The reason for the different
answers to the two questions is that as I have never visited
the other side of Saturn I know nothing about the exist
ence or non-existence of triangles there ; but I deny the
possibility of the existence of a boundless triangle, because
the word triangle means a figure enclosed by three limiting
lines; and I deny the possibility of the existence of a square
triangle, because a triangle has three sides only while a square
has four, and all the angles of a triangle taken together
ar® equal to two right angles, while those of a square are
equal to four. I allege that anyone who believes in a
square triangle can have no clear concept either of a
triangle or of a square. And so while I refuse to say
“there is no God”, lacking the knowledge which would
justify the denial, since to me the word God represents no
.concept, I do say, “there is no infinite personality, there
is no infinite creator, there is no being at once almighty
and all-good, there is no Trinity in Unity, there is no
-eternal and infinite existence save that of which each one
• of us is mode”. Dor be it noted, these denials are justified
.by our knowledge: an undefined “God” might be a
limited being on the far side of Sirius, and I have no
knowledge which justifies me in denying such an existence;
but an infinite God, i.e., a God who is everywhere, who
has no limits, and yet who is not I and who is therefore
limited by my personality, is a being who is self-contra
dictory, both limited and not-limited, and such a being
■ cannot exist. No perfect knowledge is needed here. “ God
is an infinite being” is disproved by one being who is not
God. “God is everywhere ” is disproved by the finding
• of one spot where God is not. The universal affirmative
-is disproved by a single exception. Nor is anything
gained by the assertors of deity when they allege that he
is incomprehensible. If “God” exists and is incompre
hensible, his incomprehensibility is an admirable reason
for being silent about him, but can never justify the affirma
tion of self-contradictory propositions, and the threatening
. of people with damnation if they do not accept them.
I turn to examine the evidence which is brought forward
�6
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
in support of the existence of God, taking “ God ” to mean
some undefined being other than and superior to the
various forms of living and non-living things on thisearth—or those forming part of the 1 ‘material universe”
in which we exist—and related to these as creator and
controller. Now the existence of anything may be sensated or it may be inferred; the astronomer believed in
the existence of Saturn because he saw it; but he also
believed in the existence of the planet afterwards named
Neptune before he saw it, attaining this belief by way of'
induction from the otherwise inexplicable behavior of
Uranus. Can we then by the senses or by the reason find
out God ?
The most common, and to many the most satisfactory
and convincing evidence, is that of the senses. A child
bom into the world has open to him these sense avenues
of knowledge; he learns that something exists which is
not he by the impressions made on his senses; he sees, he
feels, he hears, he smells, he tastes, and thus he learns to
know. As the child’s past and present sensations increase
in number, as he begins to remember them, to compare,
to mark likenesses and unlikenesses, he gathers the
materials for further mental elaboration. But this sen
sational basis of his knowledge is the limit of the area on
which his intellectual edifice can be built; he may rear it
upward as far as his powers will permit, but he can neverwiden his foundation, while his senses remain only what
they are. All that the mind works on has reached it by
these senses; it can dissociate and combine, it can break
in pieces and build up, but no sensation no percept, and
no percept no concept.
When this fundamental truth is securely grasped it will'
be seen of what tremendous import is the admitted fact
that the senses wholly fail us when We seek for proof of
the existence of God. Our belief in the existence of all
things outside ourselves rests on the testimony of the
senses. The “objective universe” is that which we sensate. When we reason and reflect, when we think of love,,
and fear, when we speak of truth and honor, we know
that all these are not susceptible of being sensated, thatis, that they have no objective existence; they belong to
the Subject universe. Now if God cannot be sensated healso must belong to the Subject world; that is, he must
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
7
be a creation of the mind, with no outside corresponding
reality. Granted that we can never know “the thing in
itself ” ; granted that all we know is only the effect on the
■mind produced by something which differs from the effect
it produces ; yet this fundamental physiological distinction
remains between the Object and the Subject worlds, that
the Object world announces itself by nervous action which
is set up at the periphery, while the Subject world results
from the centrally initiated travail of the brain.
It might., indeed, be argued by the Theist that God may
exist, but may be incognisable by our senses, we lacking
the sense which might sensate deity. Quite so. There
may be existences around us but unknown to us, there
being no part of our organism differentiated to receive
from them impressions. There are rays beyond the solar
spectrum which are invisible to us normally, the existence
of which was unknown to us some years ago, but some
of which apparently serve among light rays for the ant;
so there may be all kinds of existences in the universe
of which we are unconscious, as unconscious as we were
of the existence of the ultra-violet rays until a chemical
reagent rendered them visible. But as we cannot sensate
them, for us they do not exist. This, then, cannot avail
the Theist, for an incognisable God, a God who can enter
into no kind of relation with us, is to us a non-existent
God. We cannot even conceive a sense entirely different
from those we possess, let alone argue over what we should
find out by means of it if we had it.
It is said that of old time the evidence of the senses for
the existence of God was available; the seventy elders
“ saw the God of Israel” ; Moses talked with him “ face
to face ”; Elijah heard his “ still small voice ”. But these
experiences are all traditional; we have no evidence at
first hand; no witness that we can examine ; no facts that
we can investigate. There is not even evidence enough
to start a respectable ghost story, let alone enough to bear
the tremendous weight of the existence of God. Yet, if
some finite “God” exist—I say finite, because, as noted
above, the co-existence of an infinite God anda finite creature
is impossible—how easy for him to prove his existence;
if he be too great for our “comprehension”, as some
Theists argue, he might surely bestow on us a sense which
■might, receive impressions from him, and enable us to
�8
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
reach, at least a partial, an imperfect, knowledge of him.
But if he exist, he wraps himself in darkness; if he exist,
he folds himself in silence. Leaning, as it were, over the
edge of being, men strive to pierce the dark abyss of the
unknown, above, below; they strain their sight, but they
see nothing; they listen, but nothing strikes their ear;
weary, dizzy, they stagger backwards, and with the dark
ness pressing on their eyeballs they murmur 11 God!
Bailing to discover God by way of the senses, we turn to
such evidence for his existence as may be found by way of
the reason, in order to determine whether we can establish
by inference that which we have failed to establish by
direct proof.
As the world is alleged to be the handiwork of God, it
is not unreasonable to scrutinise the phenomena of nature,
and to seek in them for traces of a ruling intelligence, of
a guiding will. But it is impossible even to glance at
natural phenomena, much less to study them attentively,
without being struck by the enormous waste of energy,
the aimless destruction, the utterly unintelligent play of
conflicting and jarring forces. For centuries “nature”
has been steadily at work growing forests, cutting out
channels for rivers, spreading alluvial soil and clothing it
with grass and flowers ; at last a magnificent landscape is
formed, birds and beasts dwell in its woods and on its
pastures, men till its fertile fields, and thank the gracious
God they worship for the work of his hands; there is a
far-off growl which swells as it approaches, a trembling
of the solid earth, a crash, an explosion, and then, in a
darkness lightened only by the fiery rain of burning lava,
all beauty, all fertility, vanish, and the slow results of
thousands of years are destroyed in a night of earthquake
and volcanic fury. Is it from this wild destruction of
slowly obtained utility that we are to infer the existence
of a divine intelligence and divine will ? If beauty and
use were aimed at, why the destruction? If desolation
and uselessness, why the millenniums spent in growth ?
During the year 1886 many hundreds of people in
Greece, in Spain, in America, in New Zealand, were killed
or maimed by earthquakes and by cyclones. Many more
perished in hurricanes at sea. Many more by explosions
in mines and elsewhere. These deaths caused widespread
misery, consigned families to hopeless poverty, cut short
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
9
•careers of use and of promise. They were caused by
“ natural ” forces. Is “ God ” behind nature, and are all
these horrors planned, carried out, by his mind and will ?
•John Stuart Mill has put the case clearly and forcibly :
“Next to the greatness of these cosmic forces, the quality
which most forcibly strikes everyone who does not avert his
•eyes from it is their perfect and absolute recklessness. They
go straight to their end, without regarding what or whom they
crush on the road. Optimists, in their attempts to prove that
‘ whatever is, is right ’, are obliged to maintain, not that nature
‘ ever turns one step from her path to avoid trampling us into
destruction, but that it would be very unreasonable in us to
•expect that she should. Pope’s ‘ Shall gravitation cease when
you go by ?’ may be a just rebuke to anyone who should be so
silly as to expect common human morality from nature. But
if the question were between two men, instead of between a
man and a natural phenomenon, that triumphant apostrophe
Would be thought a rare piece of impudence. A man who
should persist in hurling stones or firing cannon when another
man ‘ goes by ’, and having killed him should urge a similar
plea in exculpation, would very deservedly be found guilty of
murder. In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are
hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are Nature’s ,
■everyday performances. Killing, the most criminal act recog
nised by human laws, Nature does once to every being that
lives; and in a large proportion of cases, after protracted
tortures such as only the greatest monsters whom we read of
ever purposely inflicted on their living fellow creatures. If, by
an arbitrary reservation, we refuse to account anything murder
but what abridges a certain term supposed to be allotted to
human life, nature also does this to all but a small percentage
of lives, and does it in all the modes, violent or insidious, in
which the worst human beings take the lives of one another.
Nature impales men, breaks them as if on the wheel, casts them
to be devoured by wild beasts, burns them to death, crushes
them with stones like the first Christian martyr, starves them ;
With hunger, freezes them with cold, poisons them by the quick
■ or slow venom of her exhalations, and has hundreds of other
hideous deaths in reserve, such as the ingenious cruelty of a
Nabis or a Domitian never surpassed. All this, Nature does
with the most supercilious disregard both of mercy and of
Justice, emptying her shafts upon the best and noblest indiffer
ently with the meanest and worst; upon those who are engaged
in the highest and worthiest enterprises, and often as the direct
consequence of the noblest acts; and it might almost be imagined
as a punishment for them. She mows down those on whose
existence hangs the wellbeing of a whole people, perhaps the
�10
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
prospects of the human race for generations to come, with aslittle compunction as those whose death is a relief to them
selves, or a blessing to those under their noxious influence”"
(“Three Essays on Religion,” pp. 28, 29, ed. 1874).
It is not only from the suffering caused by the unde
viating course of the phenomena which from the invariable
sequence of their happening are called “laws of nature”
that we infer the absence of any director or controller of
these forces. There are many absurdities as well as
miseries, caused by the “uniformity of nature”. Dr.
Buchner tells us of a kid he saw which was born perfect
in all parts save that it was headless (“Force and Matter”,
page 234, ed. 1884). Here, for weeks the kid was a-forming,
although life in the outer world was impossible for it.
Monstrosities occur in considerable numbers, and each one
bears silent witness to the unintelligence of the forces that
produced it. Nay, they can be artificially produced, as
has been shown by a whole series of experiments, eggstapped during incubation yielding monstrous chickens. In
all these cases we recognise the blind action of unconscious
forces bringing about a ridiculous and unforeseen
result, if turned slightly out of their normal course.
From studying this aspect of nature it is certain that we
cannot find God. So far from finding here a God to
worship, the whole progress of man depends on his
learning to control and regulate these natural forces, so asto prevent them from working mischief and to turn them,
into channels in which they will work for good.
If from scrutinising the forces of nature we study the
history of the evolution of life on our globe, and the
physical conditions under which man now exists, it is
impossible from these to infer the existence of a benevolent
power as the creator of the world. Life is one vast battle
field, in which the victory is always to the strong. More
organisms are produced than can grow to maturity; they
fight for the limited supply of food, and by means of this
struggle the weakest are crushed out and the fittest survive
to propagate their race. Each successful organism stands
on the corpses of its weaker antagonists, and only by this
ceaseless strife and slaying has progress been possible.
As the organisms grow more complex and more developed,
added difficulties surround their existence; the young of
the higher animals are weaker and more defenceless at-
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
ii
■birth than those of the lower, and the young of man, the
highest animal yet evolved, is the most helpless of all, and
his hold of life the most precarious during infancy.
So clumsy is the “plan of creation” that among the
most highly-evolved animals a new life is only possibleby peril to life already existing, and the mother must
pass through long weeks of physical weariness and
hours of acute agony ere she can hold her baby in her
arms. All these things are so “natural” to us that weneed to think of them, not as necessary, but as deliberately
planned by a creative power, ere we can realise the mon
strous absurdity of supposing them to be the outcome of’
“design”. Nor must we overlook the sufferings caused
hy the incomplete adaptation of evolving animals to the
conditions among which they are developing. The human
race is still suffering from its want of adaptation to theupright position, from its inheritance of a structure from
quadrupedal ancestors which was suited to the horizontal
position of their trunks, but is unsuited to the vertical
position of man. The sufferings caused by child-birth,
and by hernia, testify to the incomplete adaptation of therace to the upright condition. To believe that all the
slow stages of blood-stained evolution, that the struggle
for existence, that the survival of the fittest with its other
side, the crushing of the less fit, together with a million
subsidiary consequences of the main “plan”, to believethat all these were designed, foreseen, deliberately selected
as the method of creation, by an almighty power, to believe
this is to believe that “ God ” is the supreme malignity, a
creator who voluntarily devises and executes a plan of the
most ghastly malice, and who works it out with a cruelty
in details which no human pen can adequately describe.
But, again, the condition and the history of the world
are not consistent with its being the creation of an
almighty and perfect cruelty. While the tragedy off
life negates the possibility of an omnipotent goodness asits author, the beauty and happiness of life negate equally
the possibility of an almighty fiend as its creator. Thedelight of bird and beast in the vigor of their eager life
the love-notes of mate to mate, and the brooding ectasy of
the mother over her young; the rapture of the song which
sets quivering the body of the lark as he soars upwards
in the sun-rays; the gambols of the young, with every
�12
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
curve telling of sheer joy in life and movement; the
beauty and strength of man and woman; the power of
intellect, the glory of genius, the exquisite happiness of
■sympathy; all these things could not find place in the
handiwork of a power delighting in pain. We cannot,
then, from the study of life on our globe infer the exist
ence of a God who is wholly good ; the evil disproves
him: nor can we infer the existence of a God who is
wholly evil; the good disproves him. All that we learn
from life-conditions is that if the world has a creator his
■character must be exceedingly mixed, and must be one
to be regarded with extreme suspicion and apprehension.
Be it noted, however, that, so far, we have found no reason
to infer the existence of any creative intelligence.
Leaving the phenomena of nature exclusive of man, as
yielding us no information as to the existence of God, we
turn next to human life and human history to seek for
traces of the “divine presence”. But here again we are
met by the same mingling of good and evil, the same
waste, the same prodigality, which met us in non-human
nature. Instead of the “Providence watching over the
affairs of men” in which Theists believe, we note that
“there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to
the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to
whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous ”.
A railway accident happens, in which a useful man, the
mainstay of a family, is killed, and from which a profligate
escapes. An explosion in a mine slays the hardwork
ing breadwinners at their toil, and the drunken idler
whose night’s debauch has resulted in heavy morning
sleep is “providentially” saved as he snores lazily at
home in bed. The man whose life is invaluable to a
nation perishes in his prime, while the selfish race-haunt
ing aristocrat lives on to a green old age. The honest
•conscientious trader keeps with difficulty out of the bank
ruptcy court, and sees his smart, unscrupulous neighbor
pile up a fortune by tricks that just escape the meshes of
the law. If indeed there be a guiding hand amid the
vicissitudes of human life, it must be that of an ironical,
mocking cruelty, which plays with men as puppets for
the gratification of a sardonic humor. Of course, the real
■explanation of all these things is that there is no common
factor in these moral and physical propositions; the
�WHY I BO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
1®
quantities are incommensurable; the virtues or vices of
a man ar® not among the causes which launch, or do not
launch, a chimney pot at his head.
Outside these “changes and chances” of human life,,
the thoughtful mind feels conscious of a profound
dissatisfaction with many of the inevitable conditions
of human existence: the sensative faculties are at
their keenest when the intelligence is not sufficiently
developed to utilise them; the perceptive faculties begin
to fail as the reflective touch their fullest development;
and when experience is ripest, judgment most trained,
knowledge most full, old age lays its palsy on thebrain, and senility shakes down the edifice just
when a life’s toil has made it of priceless value. To-,
recognise our limitations, to accept the inevitable, to amend
—so far as amendment is possible—both ourselves and
our environment, all this forms part of a rational philo
sophy of life ; but what has such self-controlled and keen
eyed sternness of resolve to do with hysterical outcries for
help to some power outside nature, which, if it existed as
creator, must have modelled our existence at its pleasure,
and towards which our attitude could be only one of bit
terest, if silent, rebellion ? To bow to the inevitable evil,
While studying its conditions in order to strive to make it
the evitable, is consistent with strong hope which lightens
life’s darkness; but to yield crushed before evil delibe
rately and consciously inflicted by an omnipotent intelli
gence—in such fate lies the agony of madness and despair.
Nor do we find any reliable signs of the presence of a
God in glancing over the incidents of human history.
We note unjust wars, in which right is crushed by might,
in which victory sides with “the strongest battalions”, in
the issue of which there appears no trace of a “ God that
judgeth the earth”. We meet with cruelties that sicken
us inflicted on man by man; butcheries that desolate a
city, persecutions that lay waste a province. In every
civilised land of to-day we see wealth mocking poverty,,
and poverty cursing wealth ; here, thousands wasted on a
harlot, and there children sobbing themselves in hunger to
sleep. Our earth rolls wailing yearly round the sun,
bearing evidence that it has no creator who loves and
guides it, but has only its men, children of its own
womb, who by the ceaseless toil of countless genera
�14
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
lions are hewing out the possibility of a better and gladder
world.
Similar testimony is borne by the slow progress of the
human race. Truth is always fighting; each new truth
undergoes a veritable struggle for existence, and if Her
cules is to live to perform his labors he must succeed in
strangling the serpents that hiss round his cradle. The
new truth must first be held only by one, its discoverer ; if
he is not crushed at the outset, a few disciples are won;
then the little band is persecuted, some are martyred, and,
it may be, the movement destroyed. Or, some survive,
and gain converts, and so the new truth slowly spreads,
winning acceptance at the last. But each new truth must pass
through similar ordeal, and hence the slowness of the up
ward climb of man. Look backwards over the time which
has passed since man was emerging from the brute, and
then compare those millenniums with the progress that has
been made, and the distance which still separates the race
from a reasonably happy life for all its members. If a
God cannot do better for man than this, man may be well
content to trust to his own unaided efforts. Weturn from
the phenomena of human life, as from those of non-human
nature, without finding any evidence which demonstrates,
or even renders probable, the existence of a God.
There is another line of reasoning, however, apart from
the consideration of phenomena, which must, it is alleged,
lead us to believe in the existence of a God. This is
the well-used argument from causation. Every effect
must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a
cause, is a favorite enthymeme, of which the suppressed
minor is, the universe is an effect. But this is a mere
begging of the question. Every effect must have a
cause; granted; for a cause is defined as that which
produces an effect, and an effect as that which is pro
duced by a cause; the two words are co-relatives, and
the one is meaningless separated from the other. Prove
that the universe is an effect, and in so doing you will
have proved that it has a cause; but in the proof of that
quietly-suppressed minor is the crux of the dispute. We
see that the forces around us are the causes of various
effects, and that they, the causes of events which follow
their action, are themselves the effects of causes which
preceded such action. From the continued observation
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
■of these sequences, ourselves part of this endless chain,
the idea of causation is worked into the human mind,
and becomes, as it were, part of its very texture, so that
we cannot in thought separate phsenomena from their
causes, and the uncaused becomes to us the incon
ceivable. But wo cannot rationally extend reasoning
wholly based on pheenomena into the region of the noumenon. That which is true of the phsenomenal universe
gives us no clue when we try to pass without it, and to
penetrate into the mystery of existence per se. To call
God “the first cause” is to play with words after their
meaning has been emptied from them. If the argument
from causation is to be applied to the existence of the
universe, which is, without any proof, to be accepted as
an effect, why may it not with equal force be applied to
“ God ”, who, equally without any proof, may be regarded
as an effect ? and so we may create an illimitable series of
Gods, each an assumption unsupported by evidence. If we
once begin puffing divine smoke-rings, the only limit to the
exercise is our want of occupation and the amount of suit
able tobacco our imagination is able to supply. The belief
of the Atheist stops where his evidence stops. He believes
in the existence of the universe, judging the accessible proof
thereof to be adequate, and he finds in this universe sufficient
cause for the happening of all pheenomena. He finds no
intellectual satisfaction in placing a gigantic conundrum be
hind the universe, which only adds its own unintelligibility
to the already sufficiently difficult problem of existence.
Our lungs are not fitted to breathe beyond the atmosphere
which surrounds our globe, and our faculties cannot
breathe outside the atmosphere of the phsenomenal. If I
went up in a balloon I should check it when I found it
carrying me into air too rare for my respiration; and I
decline to be carried by a theological balloon into regions
wherein thought cannot breathe healthily, but can only
fall down gasping, imagining that its gasps are inspiration.
There remain for us to investigate two lines of evidence,
either of which suffices, apparently, to carry conviction to
a large number of minds; these are, the argument from
human experience, and the argument from design.
I have no desire to lessen the weight of an argument
drawn from the sensus communis, the common sense, of
mankind. It is on this that we largely rely in drawing
�16
WIIY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
distinctions between the normal and the abnormal; it isthis which serves as test between the sane and the insane
no thoughtful student can venture to ignore the tre
mendous force of the consensus of human experience.
But while he will not ignore, he must judge : he must
ask, first, is this experience universal and unanimous ?
Secondly, on what experimental or other evidence is it
based ? The universal and unanimous verdict of human
experience, based on clear verifiable experience, is one
which the thinker will challenge with extreme hesitation.
Yet cause may arise which justifies such challenge.
Perhaps no belief has at once been so general, and so
undeniably based on the evidence of the senses, as the
belief in the movement of the sun and the immobility of
our globe. All but the blind could daily see the rising of'
the sun in the eastern sky, and its setting in the west; alL
could feel the firmness of the unshaken earth, the solid
unmoving steadfastness of the ground on which we tread.
Yet this consensus of human experience, this universality
of Tinman testimony, has been rejected as false on evidence
which none who can feel the force of reasoning is able to
deny. If this belief, in defence of which can be brought
the no plus ultra of the verdict of common sense, be not
tenable in the light of modern knowledge, how shall a
belief on which the sensus communis is practically non
existent, on which human testimony is. lacking in many
cases, contradictory in all others, and which fails to main
tain itself on experimental or other evidence, how shall it
hold ground from which the other has been driven ?
The reply to the question, “Is the evidence universal
and unanimous ? ” must be in the negative. The religion
of Buddha, which is embraced by more than a third of the
population of the globe, is an Atheistic creed; many
Buddhists pay veneration to Buddha, and to the statues of
their own deceased ancestors, but none pretend that these
objects of reverence are symbols of a divine power. Many
of the lower savage tribes have no idea of &od. Darwin
writes: “There is ample evidence, derived not from hasty
travellers, but from men who have long resided with
savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist,
who have no idea of one or more Gods, and who have no
words in their language to express such an idea” (“Descent
of Man,” pp. 93, 94, ed. 1875). Buchner (“Force and
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
17
Matter,” pp. 382—393) has collected a mass of evidence
showing that whole races of men have no idea of God at
all. Sir John Lubbock has done the same. When
savages reach a stage of intelligence at which they begin
to seek the causes of phenomena, they invariably postulate
many Gods as causes of the many objects around them.
A New Zealander who was told of the existence of the one
God by a missionary, asked him scoffingly if, among
Europeans, one man made things of every sort; and he
argued that as there were various trades among men, so
there were various Gods, each with his own business, and
one made trees, another the sea, another the animals, and
so on. Only when intelligence has reached a comparatively
high plane, is evolved the idea of one God, the creator and
the rurs^of the universe. Moreover this idea of “God”
is essentially an abstract, not a concrete idea, and the fancy
that there ia an entity belonging to it is but a survival of
Realism, a/meory which is discredited in everything save
in this one theological remnant.
It has been alleged by some writers that, however
degraded may be the savage, he still has some idea of
supernatural existences, and that error on this head has
arisen from the want of thoroughly understanding the
savage’s ideas. But even these writers do not allege that
the belief of these savages touches on a being who can be
called by the most extreme courtesy “God”. There may
be a vague fear of the unknown, a tendency to crouch
before striking and dangerous manifestations of natural
forces, an idea of some unseen power residing in a stone
or a relic—a fetish; but such things—and of the existence
of even these in the lowest savages evidence is lacking—
can surely not be described as belief in God.
Not only is the universal evidence a-wanting, but such
evidence as there is wholly lacks unanimity. What at
tribute of the divine character, what property of the
divine nature, is attested by the unanimous voice of human
experience ? What is there in common between the
Mumbo-Jumbo of Africa, and the “heavenly Father”, of
refined nineteenth century European Theism.? What tie,
save that of a common name, unites the blood-dripping
Tezcatlepoca of Mexico with him “ whose tender mercy is
over, all his works ” ? Even if we confine ourselves to the
Gods of the Jews, the Christians, and the Mahommedans,
�18
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
how great is the clash of dissension. The Jew proclaims
it blasphemy to speak of a divine Trinity, and shrinks
with horror from the thought of an incarnate God. The
Christian calls it blasphemy to deny the deity of the man
Christ Jesus, aqd affirms, under anathema, the triune
nature of the Godhead. The Mahommedan asserts the
unity of God, and stamps as infidel everyone who refuses
to see in Mahommed the true revealer of the divinity.
Each is equally certain that he is right, and each is
equally certain that the others are wrong, and are in peril
of eternal damnation for their rejection of the one true
faith. If the Christian has his lake of fire and brimstone
for those who deny Christ, the Mahommedan has his drinks
of boiling water for those who assert him. Among 'this
clash of tongues, to whom shall turn the bewildered
enquirer after truth ? All his would-be teachers are
equally positive, and equally without evidence. All are
loud in assertion, but singularly modest in their offers of
proof.
Now, it may be taken as an undeniable fact that where
there is confusion of belief there is deficiency of evidence.
Scientific men quarrel and dispute over some much con
troverted scientific theory. They dispute because the
experimental proofs are lacking that would decide the
truth or the error of the suggested hypothesis. While
the evidence is unsatisfactory, the controversy continues,
but when once decisive proof has been discovered all
tongues are still. The endless controversies over the ex
istence of God show that decisive proof has not yet been
attained. And while this proof is wanting, I remain
Atheist, resolute not to profess belief till my intellect can
find some stable ground whereon to rest.
We have reached the last citadel, once the apparently
impregnable fortress of Theism, but one whose walls are
now crumbling, the argument from design. It was this
argument which so impressed John Stuart Mill that he
wrote in his Essay on “ Theism ” : “I- think it must be
allowed that, in the present state of our knowledge, the
adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability
in favor of creation by intelligence. It is equally certain
that this is no more than a probability ” (“ Three Essays
on Religion ”, p. 174). This Essay was, however, written
between the years 1868 and 1870, and at that time the
�■WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
19
tremendous effect of the hypothesis of evolution had not
yet made itself felt; Mill speaks (p. 172) of the “recent
speculations ” on “ the principle of the ‘ survival of the
of the fittest’ ”, and recognising that if this principle were
sound “there would be a constant though slow general
improvement of the type as it branched out into many
different varieties, adapting it to different media and
modes of existence, until it might possibly, in countless
ages, attain to the most advanced examples which now
exist ” (p. 173), he admits that if this be true “ it must be
acknowledged that it would greatly attenuate the evidence
for ” creation. And I am prepared to admit frankly that
until the “how” of evolution explained the adaptations
in Nature, the weight of the argument from design was
very great, and to most minds would have been absolutely
decisive. It would not of course prove the existence of an
omnipotent and universal creator, but it certainly did
powerfully suggest the presence of some contriving intel
ligence at work on natural phenomena. But now, when
we can trace the gradual evolution of a complex and highly
developed organ through the various stages which separate
its origin from its most complete condition ; when we can
study the retrogression of organs becoming rudimentary
by disuse, and the improvement of organs becoming
developed by use; when we notice as imperfections in the
higher type things which were essential in the lower: what
wonder is it that the instructed can no longer admit the
force of the argument from design ?
The human eye has often been pointed to as a trium
phant proof of design, and it naturally seemed perfect in
the past to those who could imagine no higher kind of
optical instrument; but now, as Tyndall says, “Along
list of indictments might indeed be brought against the
eye—its opacity, its want of symmetry, its lack of achro
matism, its absolute blindness, in part. All these taken
together caused Helmholtz to say that, if any optician sent
him an instrument so full of defects, he would be justified
in sending it back with the severest censure” (“On
Light”, p. 8, ed. 1875). It is only since men have made
optical instruments without the faults of the eye, that we
have become aware how much better we might see than
we do. Nor is this all; the imperfections which would
show incompetence on the part of a designer become inte
�20
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
resting and significant as traces of gradual development,
and the eye, which in the complexity of its highest form
seemed, notwithstanding its defects, to demand such great
intelligence to conceive and fashion it, becomes more in
telligible when we can watch it a-building, and, as it were,
See it put together bit by bit. I venture to quote here
from a pamphlet of my own a very brief statement of the
stages through which the eye has passed in its evolution:
“ The first definite eye-spot that we yet know of is a little
colored speck at the base of the tentacles of some of the
Hydromedusse, jelly-fish in common parlance. They are
only spots of pigment, and we should not know they were
attempts at eyes were it not that some relations, the Discophora, have little refractive bodies in their pigment
spots, and these refractive bodies resemble the crystalline
cones of animals a little higher in the scale. In the next
class (Vermes), including all worms, we find only pigment
spots in the lowest; then pigment spots with a nerve
fibre ending in them; pigment spots with rod-shaped cells,
with crystalline rods ; pigment spots with crystalline cones.
Next, the cones begin to be arranged radially; and in
the Alciopidse the eye has become a sphere with a lens
and a vitreous body, layer of pigment, layer of rods, and
optic nerve. To mark the evolution definitely in another
way, we find the more highly developed eye of the
adult appearing as a pigment spot in the embryo, so
that both the evolution of the race and the evolution
of the individual tell the same story. In the Echino
derma (sea-urchins, star-fishes) we find only pigment
spots in the lower forms, but in the higher the rod-shaped
cells, the transparent cones projecting from pigment cells.
In the Arthropoda (lobsters, insects, etc.,) the advance
continues from the Vermes. The retina is formed more
definitely than in the Alciopidm, and the eye becomes more
complex. The compound eye is an attempt at grouping
many cones together, and is found in the higher members
of this sub-kingdom. In the lowest vertebrate, the Amphioxus, the eye is a mere pigment spot, but in the others
the more complex forms are taken up and carried on to
the comparative perfection of the mammalian eye” (“Eyes
and Ears”, pp. 9, 10). And be it noted that in the
most complex and highly developed eye there is still the
same relation of pigment layer, rod layer, cone layer,
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
21
seen in its earliest beginnings in the Discophora and the
worms.
The line of argument here applied to the eye may be
followed in every instance of so-called design. The ex
quisite mechanism of the ear may be similarly traced, from
the mere sac with otoliths of the Medusse up to the elabo
rate external, middle, and internal ears of man. Man’s
ear is a very complex thing. Its three chambers ; the
curious characteristics of the innermost of these, with its
three “semi-circular canals”, its coiled extension, like a
snail-shell, called the cochlea, its elaborate nervous mechan
ism ; the membrane between the middle and outer cham
bers, which vibrates with every pulsation of the air; we
can trace all these separate parts as they are added one to
one to the auditory apparatus of the evolving race. If we
examine the edge of the “ umbrella ” of the free-swimming
Medusa, we shall find some little capsules containing one
or more tiny crystals, the homologues of the inner ear; the
lower forms of Vermes have similar ears, and in some there
are delicate hairs within the capsule which quiver con
stantly ; the higher worms have these capsules paired and
they lie close to a mass of nervous matter. Lobsters and
their relations have similar ears, the capsule being some
times closed and sometimes open. In many insects a
delicate membrane is added to the auditory apparatus, and
stretches between the vesicle and the outer air, homologue
of our membrane. The lower fishes have added one semi
circular canal, the next higher two, and the next higher
three : a little expansion is also seen at one part of the
vesicle. In the frogs and toads this extension is increased,
and in the reptiles and birds it is still larger, and is curled
a little at the further end. In the lowest mammals it is
still only bent, but in the higher it rolls round on itself
and forms the cochlea. The reptiles and birds have the
space developed between the vesicle and the membrane,
and so acquire a middle ear; the crocodile and the owl
show a trace of the external ear, but it is not highly
developed till we reach the mammals, and even the lowest
mammals, and the aquatic ones, have little of it developed.
Thus step by step is the ear built up, until we see it com
plete as a slow growth, not as an intelligent design.
And if it be asked, how are these changes caused, the
answer comes readily : “ By variation and by the survival of
�22
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
the fittest ”. Since organisms and their environments re-act
on each other, slight variations are constantly occurring;
living organisms are ever in very unstable equilibrium,
chemical association and disassociation are continually going
on within them. Some of these changes are advantageous
to the organism in the struggle for existence; some are
indifferent; some are disadvantageous. Those that are
advantageous tend to persist, since the organism possessing
them is more likely to survive than its less fortunate com
petitors, and — since variations are transmissible from
parents to progeny—to hand on its favorable variation to
its young. On the other hand the disadvantageous varia
tions tend to disappear, since the organism which is by
them placed at a disadvantage is likely to perish in the
fight for food. Here are the mighty forces that cause evo
lution ; here the “ not ourselves which makes for righteous
ness”, i.e., forever-increasing suitability of the organism
to its environment.
It is, of course, impossible in so brief a statement as
this to do justice to the fulness of the explanation of all
cases of apparent design which can be made in this fashion.
The thoughtful student must work out the line of argu
ment for himself. Nor must he forget to notice the argu
ment from the absence of design, the want of adaptation,
the myriad failures, the ineptitudes and incompetences of
nature. How, from the point of view of design, can he
explain the numerous rudimentary organs in the higher
animals ? What is the meaning of man’s hidden rudimen
tary tail? of his appendix coeci vermiformis? of the
branchial clefts and the lanugo of the human being dur
ing periods of ante-natal life ? of the erratic course of the
recurrent laryngeal? of the communication between the
larynx and the alimentary canal ? I might extend the list
over a page. The fact that uninstructed people do not
appreciate these difficulties offers no explanation to the
instructed who feel their force; and the abuse so freely
lavished on the Atheist does not carry conviction to the
intellect.
I do not believe in God. My mind finds no grounds
on which to build up a reasonable faith. My heart revolts
against the spectre of an Almighty Indifference to the pain,
of sentient beings. My conscience rebels against the
injustice, the cruelty, the inequality, which surround me
�WHY" I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
23
on every side. But I believe in Man. In man’s redeeming
power; in man’s remoulding energy; in man’s approach
ing triumph, through knowledge, love, and work.
��
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
Why I do not believe in God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N074
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why I do not believe in God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e6b2e3078146e8b637722ea9d2db1471.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XqGF80uuj3KwTfOt8rFoWOp64puzYZCCJUW%7ECy2CZlPfHE0z0%7ET0k0dP8WyuuOFTWS9WqCjA9oKeT6J4sqlnJkDSgJK1Yf%7EemYXrSBaVLHOlDJxqbNKUgR%7EOeZLFGe%7E8f-cGtKGi7hN7JZ5WmS4yqaGE%7ErYFVlqAXk47DVkv1nSpYqJ5jORZM-dudn8EBzI%7E1nhV%7EqyOy-5TyhycmUqe1wnCcyVuPH3vq5T7WKhX19xsML%7EYJPvu2rfAMXjHQ6tW%7EzVl6LVsW7fsl%7EmMgPLbDTtsEkXlWGusrhb3KeIg8PbAMSlmIZqVsWzs%7EuoQn3VUglk%7E4XeXvv%7EYQtdlpzobpA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ded326e615bd5359732d359f79cbeb32
PDF Text
Text
“®hp I became a llnifarxan,”
BY
R. RODOLPH SUFFIELD.
THIRD THOUSAND.
�252 < l>
®lvn $ becanw a Stmtanan:
A DISCOURSE
BY THE
REV. R. RODOLPH SUFFIELD,
Of Reading, Berks;
DELIVERED IN THE UNITARIAN CHAPEL,
KENDAL,
On AUGUST 2ist, 1881,
And Published at the request of the Congregation.
§Unl)al:
Printed
by
Bateman
and
Hewitson, StrAmongate.
Price Twopence.
�liM irillirt I t
�“ WHY I BECAME A UNITARIAN.”
■“ The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and truth ; for such doth the
Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a spirit, and they
that worship him must worship in spirit and truth. ”
Johniv., 23, 24.
H Y I became a Unitarian ?” I will endeavour
to reply to that question, as well as I can,
in a single discourse. By the word Unitarian I
designate a Theist in the line of the Hebrew and
Christian tradition.
There are Evangelical Theists, Roman Catholic
Theists, Mahomedan Theists; there are Theists of
various Sects, Religions, and Schools of Thought;
there are Poly-theists, Trinitarian Theists, Christian
Theists.
Speaking accurately and philosophically, I am a
Cosmic-Theist. I am a Theist — i.e. I believe that
there is Divine Thought pervading and guiding the
universe—that Divine Thought we call Theos—God.
I adore God, I revere God, I trust in God, the
Supreme Power of the Universe; I hope in God, the
Supreme Beneficence; I trustfully hold filial spiritual
communion with God, the paternal, fostering soul of
the universe. Thus I am a Theist.
I am a Cosmic Theist. The word cosmic is the
adjective of the Greek word cosmos, which means the
totality—the universal whole as a progressive unity.
The word implies an orderly progression ; a combined,
continuous unity — always growing, always one.
Unity betwixt the past and the present.
Unity
under one thought, one law. Unity and growth —•
�6
Why I became a Unitarian.
oneness and development in the past, the present, and
the future.
I am a Cosmic Theist. I adore God, the soul of
this ever developing cosmos, the fostering spirit of
this one ever growing totality to which we belong.
Thus my religion is as universal as the universe.
But to descend from the universe to this little
planet, and to the race of man, the richest in endow
ments upon this earth.
I believe in the unity of mankind—that all men,
everywhere, are sons of God; i.e. are in spiritual com
munion with God, loved by God, cared for by God,
and to be for ever cared for by God and loved by Him.
Thus I believe in the unity between God and man.
I believe in the unity between man and man. A
unity, no sect, or church, or priesthood, or oppression,
or anathema can destroy. I believe in the unity
between God and nature—the unity between nature
and man. I believe in the unity of all religions and
sects and nationalities, for all are embraced in the
bosom of universal humanity. I believe in the unity
existing between the past and the present and the
future—collectively and individually. Thus I believe
in the one-ness, the unity of effects throughout the
entire duration of each individual life, in this and in
every future life; in the unity of action; the unity of
cause and effect; that our actions, whether evil or
good, foolish or wise, must ever, as part of the whole,
necessarily effect our future. Thus I believe in the
the unity of the law of retribution. Seeing everywhere
the unity of the divine plans, the unity of the divine
thought, I believe in the future development of this
same unity of plan.
I can see God in His effects, in his mode of work
ing, in the unity of his thought; but I cannot define,
or explain, or understand God’s nature, essence, or
mode of being.
�Why I became a Unitarian.
7
When I was a Roman Catholic I accepted, upon
the authority of the Church, the creeds explaining
God, and declaring that besides the Paternal Spirit,
there are two other Gods, one called Jesus Christ, and
the other called the Holy Ghost.
When, during the years 1868, 1869, and 1870,
there arose the grave deliberation within the Roman
Catholic Church as to where the infallible power
exists—whether in the episcopate dispersed or collected
—whether in all the faithful, or whether only in the
Bishops combined with the Pope, or whether in the
Pope alone—I gradually and reluctantly arrived at
the conviction that infallibility does not exist anywhere
amongst men. That all knowledge grows. That
religious knowledge—that the knowledge of God’s
laws, like all other knowledge, grows—that growth
greatly dependent upon our earnestness in the pursuit
of knowledge.
That to make a creed and fix it as an unmovable
law to bind successive generations of teachers and re
ligionists, is a violation of the spiritual law of our
being.
That liberty in religion is as essential as
liberty in science and in art—that it must grow like
the flowers, with light, and warmth, and space.
Thus, as a Cosmic Theist, I perceived that I must
worship God in isolation, unless I could find worship
pers who accept liberty and growth as essential con
ditions of their union and co-operation.
The infallibility of the Bible was as clearly a fiction
as the infallibility of the Pope.
The books of the Bible are valuable because they
record not stagnation but growth—growth through
many changing forms of error interwoven with all
portions of that book.
To pervert the Bible into an immovable creed,
would be to subvert truth and the nature of things.
To pervert any great teacher into a final and infallible
�8
Why I became a Unitarian.
teacher, would be to insult his memory—and from
having been a blessed helper to degrade him into a
perpetual obstructor.
I could be the loving and faithful disciple of Christ
and of St. Paul in the spiritual truths they taught and
illustrated, but not in the mistakes which they inherited
or transmitted as men.
With such convictions, where could I find places
of worship based on principles essentially true, and
sure to contain numerous sympathetic souls? All
the churches and sects, whether Roman, Anglican,
Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Evangelical—not to name
other smaller sects—impose upon their teachers condi
tions essentially opposed to the Divine law of growth.
They require of them an interior reception of state
ments as to religions and morals; nay, also as to the
origin of the world and of man, and command them
to harmonise their teachings and devotions to state
ments in many ways erroneous. The people who
attend such ministrations are in many cases formally
committed to the profession of antiquated and some
times injurious errors. When not formally committed,
they are substantially committed by acquiescence
under teachers bound, not only to the maintenance of
errors, but a groundwork of faith essentially false,
opposed to God’s conspicuous plan in the order of
nature.
When Milton had at length abandoned the popular
religious views of his countrymen, he found no place
of worship wherein he could honestly adore God, and
feeling how odious is hypocrisy, above all things in
religious matters, he worshipped in his own house.
Must such be my alternative? Happily for myself
not so. After Milton’s death, chapels were founded
at various times and places, wherein no conditions,
no form of creed, was imposed on minister or con
gregation. The trust deeds of those chapels declared
�Why I became a Unitarian.
9
them to exist “ for the worship of God; ” and some
times the clause was added—“ for the use of Protestant
dissenters.” No book, no creed, no teacher, no man
being superadded to neutralise and violate the law of
development, of growth. They could develope or
deteriorate, they could progress, they could retrogade,
they could perish. It was the law of nature, and
therefore divine in essential principles. The congre
gations worshipping in these unfettered chapels, passed
through many phases.
The most noticeable fact is that about 300 of them,
whilst commencing as orthodox Trinitarian, gradually
rose into Arianism, then semi-Arianism, then Socinianism, then Unitarianism. Thus I found existing
in my country some 300 congregations, still quite un
fettered, both as to minister and people; but at the
present time holding, in different phases, the Unitarian
Theology. Amongst them there were, I perceived,
various opinions as to the person and office of Christ,
as to the supernatural or natural position of Christ, of
Christianity, of the Bible; but I found them for the
most part loyally and gratefully pursuing the central
truth of their origin and co-operation, as worshippers
of God, free to follow their reason, their consciences,
and the holy law of Cosmic growth. Therein I re
cognised little groups of worshippers amongst whom
I could find a religious home.
My philosophic opinions as to cosmic growth,
cosmic unity, cosmic law, cosmic Theism, might be
only held by a few of those worshippers here and
there, but I perceived that my own philosophic con
victions harmonised with the essential principles on
which those religious societies were founded.
But negation of error is a supremely important
feature of truth, and I perceived that those religious
societies, though free in origin and in existence, and
as unfettered by creed now as ever—yet, for the time
�io
Why I became a Unitarian.
being, were composed of worshippers whose negations
were my own—and in consequence of the theology
generally flourishing among them, and therefore
guiding the free election of their minister, they were
popularly called “ Unitarian Chapels,” and their
ministers, “ Unitarian Ministers.” I perceived that
whilst the word “ Unitarian,” by popular parlance
common to them all, covered many shades of
divergence, yet there were negations of great import
ance beneficially and powerfully proclaimed by them
all—the very promulgation by them of those negations
of necessity emphasized great and universal truths.
Their denial of the justice of the imposition of creeds
on others, and on our successors, made them the
brave defenders of mental liberty.
But even that great fundamental principle would
not have justified me conscientiously or made me feel
peacefully happy in sharing their worship, unless
adequately sympathising with their negations—and
their negations were my own. They denied the
deity of Christ, they denied the personality of the Holy
Ghost, and therefore they denied the Trinity. They
denied the dogma of universal human corruption, of
damnation in an eternal hell, of priestly castes, of
priestly absolution, of sacramental efficacy.
They
denied the popular dogma of atonement by Christ’s
blood, and the scheme of redemption based upon that
figment. Thus, their very negations constituted them
the only consistent maintainers of the paternal char
acter of God, and the fraternal equality of man.
Their negation of creeds, as essential to God’s favour,
constituted them the special maintainers of the uni
versal truth, that righteousness is the true test, that
good men exist in all religions, that whilst opinions
must vary in consequence of the various degrees of
mental growth and knowledge, sincerity to erroneous
convictions can exist in the most opposing sects—a
�Why I became a Unitarian.
II
truly humane negation, and consequent truth; for
persons guided by it, proclaim not merely tolerance
toward those holding error, but perfect liberty, nay
honour to them when sincere and otherwise good.
Lastly, though I saw many Unitarians according to
the Bible and to Christ a position I deemed exaggerated
and erroneous, yet even with them I perceived an essen
tial bond of unity and agreement, inasmuch as they
always claimed for conscience and reason the mental
and moral supremacy over life and action. So I was not
forced to suffer the spiritual disadvantages of religious
isolation, for I could honestly and happily find amongst
Unitarian worshippers a religious home, and the
benefits of religious sympathy, and the consolations
of collective religious worship. And during eleven
years I have never regretted my choice. Religious
fellowship is always a blessing to oneself, but it is
moreover a benefit to others, to be enabled to invite
their attention to communities of worshippers wherein
the most philosophic and independent thinker can
co-operate without an hypocrisy and without an
equivocation—to chapels wherein children are taught
moral and sacred lessons, but always in harmony with
the highest attained truth—to chapels wherein the
various epochs of life and of its close, are sanctified
by acts of devotion not founded on the mythological
or interwoven with the superstitious.
Let not susceptible and timid souls apprehend in a
position so dignified and philosophic, a painful sever
ance from all the hallowed associations and memories
of the past. We believe in the evolution of religion,
not in the destruction of its substance. The Unitarian
Chapel is in the venerable line of the Christian tradi
tion, and the halo of ancient pieties surround it.
Whilst appreciating the Sacred Books of other
religions, we always read at our religious services from
�12
Why I became a Unitarian.
the Sacred Books, Jewish and Christian, whence our
higher faith has been evolved.
If we reject the patristic dogma of the Trinity, let
it be remembered that the word Trinity nowhere
exists in the Bible. That the only passage in the
New Testament wherein it was taught (i John v. 7)
has been ignomiously cast out of the revised version
as a deliberate fraud. If we reject the personality of
the Holy Ghost, and declare that the “ Holy Spirit ”
is an operation not a person, let it be remembered
that the orthodox dogma is nowhere affirmed in our
Sacred Books. If we reject the dogma of the deity
of Christ, we therein follow Christ, his Apostles, and
his mother, the declarations of his friends and of his
enemies. Christ said, “ To sit on my right hand and
on my left is not mine to give11 come not to do
my own will but the will of him that sent me,— I do
nothing of myself; ” “ Of that day knoweth no man,
nor the angels, neither the son, but my Father only
“The Father is greater than I;” “ I go to my God,
and your God; ” “ Remove from me this cup, never
theless not what I will but what Thou wilt; ” “ My
doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me; ” “I seek
not my own glory, but I honour my Father.” He
was a baby, suckled and nursed, he was a little boy,
was obedient to his parents, was taught and was
scolded by them. He was tempted, he prayed to
God, gave thanks to God, resigned himself to God,
was obedient to God. He taught his disciples to pray
to God, not even naming him. At the approach of
death he exclaimed, “ My God, my God why hast
thou forsaken me.” He would not even allow himself
to be called “ good,” declaring that epithet to befit
only God. His mother speaks of herself and Joseph
her husband as his parents, his father and his mother.
The revised version has, in obedience to ancient MSS.,
substituted “Father” for “Joseph,” thus emphasizing
�Why I became a Unitarian.
13
the relationship. All the language and actions
directed to Jesus and adopted by him, harmonize with
his position as the human born Messiah, never with
the possibility of his being God. The conduct of his
mother, brothers, disciples, and female friends after
his death, do not bear a trace of any notion entertained
that their deceased relative and friend was God. The
first utterances of disciples proclaiming the new religion
emphatically speak of Jesus as a “ man approved of
God.” Let anyone read the speeches of St. Stephen,
at his martyrdom, of St. Peter, at the first Pentecost,
of St. Paul, at Athens, and judge whether it is credible
that those men believed in the Deity of Christ, in
atonement from hell by his blood, in the patristic and
Evangelical scheme of redemption. Christ is spoken
of as having been criminally “ murdered.” If that
“ murder ” had not been committed, would mankind
have been lost in hell ? During the last 100 years,
Unitarian scholars have been proving that the few
stray passages adduced to suggest the Deity of Christ,
disappear as evidential: some are spurious, some are
mistranslations, some are perverted by punctuation,
some have words changed or interpolated, some are
merely Judaic expressions suitable to the Messiah, or
Platonic expressions applied by the contemporaneous
Jew Philo to any great man. Thus Dr. Doddridge
declared that the text on which he rested the Deity of
Christ, and which kept him from embracing the Uni
tarian Theology, was Rev. i, 11, wherein the expres
sion, “ I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,”
is applied to Christ In the revised version, the text
drops out as spurious, it is only to be found in passages
wherein God the Father is spoken of. In 1 Tim. iv.
8, “ God,” as applied to Christ, becomes “ he who was
manifested in the flesh.” Acts xx, 28, “ Church of
God ” becomes, in marginal reading, “ Church of the
Lord.” Jude 4, 11 Denying the only Lord God,” be-
�14
Why I became a Unitarian.
comes “Denying our only Master.” Jude 29, “To
the only wise God our Saviour,” becomes “To the
only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ be glory.”
Similarly such passages as Rom. ix. 5, Phil. ii. 6, lose
in the revised version any evidential bearing upon the
Deity of Christ. Unitarian scholarship has triumphed
almost all along the line, and in a few more years, it
will be found that the much abused Unitarian
Theologians are correct in the matters not yet con
ceded. Already the word “ atonement ” drops out of
the New Testament in its revision; and the passages
alluding to the shedding of Christ’s blood assume now
an aspect not calculated to maintain the popular dogma.
Three hundred years ago it was thought shocking,
when Luther denied to St. Paul the authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and attributed it to Apollos.
Now no scholar of note attributes that epistle to the
Apostle; and most critics urge that “St. John’s
Gospel” was written, not by an Apostle, but as late
as a.d. 135-150, probably by John of Ephesus.
If Christ’s body had been (as some Unitarians in
common with our orthodox brethren suppose) mir
aculously raised from the tomb and lifted up to heaven,
it would no more prove his Deity, than when similar
incidents were attributed to Elias and others; but it
is deserving of notice that the revised version suggests
that the very portions of the Gospel narrating Christ’s
ascension are spurious, are interpolations.
However, let us turn from technical controversies
to the ever unfolding teaching of the universe and of
humanity. Let us realise the great precepts of Christ,
“ the love of God and the love of man; ” let us
realise his thought that “ our neighbour ” is not merely
our countryman or co-religionist, but our brother, man
everywhere, whether Roman Catholic or Atheist,
Moslem or Zulu, Buddhist or Evangelical, Unitarian
or Brahmin, Agnostic or Jew. “Be good and do
�Why I became a Unitarian.
15
good; ” “ advance human knowledge; ” “ promote
human liberty; ” “ foster human happiness.”
Such great human principles I found in the front
among the Unitarian free churches, and after eleven
years I can still cordially repeat the expression I
uttered regarding them when first I sought amidst
their friendly fellowship the privileges of religious
worship: —
After long and deep thought, study, prayer, and counsel, I
decided that it would be impossible for me honestly to continue
to act as a priest. The infallibility of the Pope, and, of the
Scriptures, alike, I question, and the dogmas resting solely on
either of those authorities, I am not able on that account to
admit.
It is my desire to unite with others, and to assist them in the
worship of God, and in the practice of the two-fold precepts of
charity, unfettered by adhesion on either side, to anything,
beyond those great fundamental principles as presented to us
by Jesus Christ.
Having understood that those who are commonly called
Unitarians, Free Christians, or Christian Theists, thus agree in
the liberty inspired by self-diffidence, humility, and charity, to
carry on the worship of God, without sectarian requirements or
sectarian opposition ; that they possess a simple but not vulgar
worship, a high standard of virtue, intelligence, and integrity;
and these after the Christian type, moulded by the Christian
traditions, and edified by the sacred Scriptures ; holding the
spirit taught by Jesus Christ, and the great thoughts by virtue
of which he built up the ruins of the moral world ; and yet not
enforcing the reception of complicated dogmas as a necessity,
or accounting their rejection a crime : a communion of Christian
worshippers, bound loosely together, and yet by the force of
great principles enabled quietly to maintain their position, to
exercise an influence elevating and not unimportant, and to
present religion under an aspect which thoughtful men can
accept without latent scepticism, and earnest men without the
aberrations of superstition, or the abjectness of mental servi
tude to another—such approved itself to my judgment, and
commended itself to my sympathy.
With those religionists possessing no creed but God
and Liberty, Benevolence and Progress, you can think
and learn and be mentally free, and yet enjoy the
�16
Why I became a Unitarian.
blessings of religious communion with your fellowmen.
Then religion will be a joy and not an anathema, an
inspiration, not a bond. It will stimulate to all forms
of human knowledge, to all the beneficence of human
progress. It will enable you to realize that law is a
growth, that right and wrong exist in the nature of
things—that there is one supreme virtue—the effort to
promote happiness ; one supreme sin—selfishness. Let
the mythologies go—we will serve them no more—we
will rise out of sectarian creeds into humanity, and
only be anxious during this short life to love and to
serve others, and to strive to make them wiser and
happier. —Amen.
�
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
Why I became a Unitarian: a discourse ... delivered in the Unitarian Chapel, Kendal, on August 21st, 1881
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Suffield, Robert Rodolph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Kendal
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "Published at the request of the Congregation". [Title page]. Part of Morris Misc. Tracts 4.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bateman and Hewitson
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4866
Subject
The topic of the resource
Unitarianism
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 (</span>Why I became a Unitarian: a discourse ... delivered in the Unitarian Chapel, Kendal, on August 21st, 1881<span>), 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
Unitarianism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/071a486dec65ed69f8aa33d77aca5988.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PcOMOJJot9FUxC5GEAtCJ6sMlFRkeKknXRl0FCrGRCjfwSl%7EXPw33aQ6q0iT3CrEYzSGN%7E9ViDOwYmsQ1TnbkAmZ%7E4TphArREshaDEgNV-u1UboFaTwiAoBqBcZtY2GBcDit9EOhzQTWjPb0pFE-otvRZ9ZXAs%7E9AjHfPj1UiHw08ImIdGAeO6G9DZ1pO0v%7EShclqs1XQhqjnJ689vqTZjvjWRf1ZKFEzuKe0%7E4LnDfDzYVQZvHhXYjLzXQ4BYUUHWjxn3b8LMk81yRMEc-d9oACgKX46JVmVjd7wziFRCigl9EOuvO1Wtud-YFke3OOeTS3jp18FldBRKv5Tb6dtg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
94debbb13ba624731f04e80f53e086b4
PDF Text
Text
4f»
WHY I BECAME
A THEOSOPHIST.
BY
ANNIE
BESANT.
(Fellow of the Theosophical Society.)
LONDON
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
PRICE
FOURPENCE.
•
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
�6^"
national secular society
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
---------- >---------Endurance is the crowning quality
And patience all the passion of great hearts ;
These are their stay, and when the leaden world
Sets its hard facs against their fateful thought,
And brute strength, like a scornful conqueror,
Clangs his huge mace down in the other scale,
The inspired soul but flings its patience in,
And slowly that outweighs the ponderous globe.
One faith against a whole world's unbelief,
One soul against the flesh of all mankind.
Growth necessarily implies change, and, provided the
change be sequential and of the nature of development,
it is but the sign of intellectual life. No one blames the
child because it has out-grown its baby-clothes, nor the
man when his lad’s raiment becomes too narrow for him ;
but if the mind grows as well as the body, and the intel
lectual garment of one decade is outgrown in the following,
cries are raised of rebuke and of reproach by those who
regard fossilisation as a proof of mental strength. Just now
from some members of the Freethought party reproaches
are being levelled at me because I have proclaimed myself
■a Theosophist. Yet of all people Freethinkers ought to
be the very last to protest against change of opinion per se ;
for almost every one of them is a Freethinker by virtue of
mental change, and the only hope of success for their
propaganda in a Christian country is that they may persuade others to pass through a similar change. They are
•continually reproaching Christians in that their minds are
not open to argument, will not listen to reason; and yet,
if one of themselves sees a further truth and admits it,
they object as much to the open mind of the Freethinker
as to the closed mind of the Christian. To take up the
�4
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
position assumed by some of my critics is to set up a new
infallibility, as indefensible, and less venerable, than that
of Rome. It is to claim that the summit of human know
ledge has been reached by them, and that all new know
ledge is folly. It is to do what Churches in all ages have
done, to set up their own petty fences round the field of
truth, and in so doing to trace the limits of their own
cemeteries. And for the Freethinker to do this is to be
false to his creed, and to stain himself with the most
flagrant inconsistency; he denounces the immovability of
the Church as obstinacy, while he glorifies the immovability
of the Freethinker as strength ; he blames the one because
it shuts its ears against his new truth, and then promptly
shuts his own ears against new truth from some one else.
Let us distinguish : there is a vacillation of opinion
which is a sign of mental weakness, a change which is a
turning back. When all the available evidence for a
doctrine has been examined, and the doctrine thereupon
has been rejected, it shews a mental fault somewhere if
that doctrine be again accepted, the evidence remaining
the same. It does not, on the other hand, imply any
mental weakness, if, on the bringing forward of new
evidence which supplies the lacking demonstration, the
doctrine previously rejected for lack of such evidence, be
accepted. Nor does it imply mental weakness if a doctrine
accepted on certain given evidence, be later given up on
additions being made to knowledge. Only in this way is
intellectual progress made; only thus, step by step, do we
approach the far-off Truth. A Freethinker, who has
become one by study and has painfully wrought out his
freedom, discarding the various doctrines of Christianity,
could not rebelieve them without confessing either that ho
had been hasty in his rejection or was insecure in his new
adhesion : in either case he would have shewn intellectual
weakness. But not to the Freethinker can be closed any
new fields of mental discovery ; not on his limbs shall be
welded the fresh fetters of a new orthodoxy, after he has
hewn off the links of the elder faith; not round his eyes,
facing the sunshine, shall be bound the bandage of a
cramping creed ; not to him shall Atheism, any more than
Theism, say : “ Thus far shalt thou think, and no further
Atheism has been his deliverer; it must never be his
gaoler: it has freed him; it must never tie him down..
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
5
Grateful for all it has saved him from, for all it has taught
him, for the strength it has given, the energy it has
inspired, the eager spirit of man yet rushes onward,
trying: “ The Light is beyond! ”
I maintain, then, that the Freethinker is bound ever to
keep open a window towards new light, and to refuse to
pull down his mental blinds. Freethought, in fact, is an
intellectual state, not a creed; a mental attitude, not a
series of dogmas. No one turns his back on Freethought
who subjects every new doctrine to the light of reason,
who weighs its claims without prejudice, and accepts or
rejects it out of loyalty to truth alone. It seems necessary
to recall this fundamental truth about Freethought, in
protest against the position taken up by some of my critics,
who would fain identify a universal principle with a special
phase of nineteenth century Materialism. The temple of
Freethought is not identical with the particular niche in
which they stand.
Nor is the Freethought platform so narrow a stage as
Mr. Foote would make out in his recent attack on me. He
accuses me of using the Freethought platform “ in an un
justifiable manner ”, because I have lectured on Socialism
from it, and he is afraid that I may lecture on Theosophy
from it and 11 lead Freethinkers astray ”. I have hitherto
regarded Freethinkers as persons competent to form their
own judgment, not mere sheep to be led one way or the
other. There is a curious clerical ring in the phrase, as
though free ventilation of all opinions were not the very
life-blood of Freethought. It is a new thing to seek to
exclude from the Freethought platform any subject which
concerns human progress. In his younger and broader
days, Mr. Foote lectured from the Freethought platform
on Monarchy, Republicanism, the Land Question, and
Literature, and no one rebuked him for unjustifiable use of
it; now he apparently desires to restrict it to attacks on
theology alone. I protest against this new-fangled narrow
ing of the grand old platform, from which Carlile, Watson,
Hetherington, and many another fought for the right of
Free Speech on every subject that concerned human wel
fare, a noble tradition carried on in our own time by
Charles Bradlaugh, who has always used the Freethought
platform for political and social, as well as for anti-theological, work. I know that of late years Mr. Foote has
�6
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
narrowed his own advocacy, but that gives him no claim to
enforce on others a similar narrowness, and to denounce
their action as unjustifiable when they carry on the use of
the platform which has always been customary. For my
own part, I have so used it since I joined the Freethought
party: I have lectured on Radicalism and on Socialism,
on Science and on Literature, as well as on Theology, and
I shall continue to do so. Of course if the National Secular
Society should surrender its motto, “We seek for Truth ”,
and declare, like any other sect, that it has the whole
truth, there are many who would have to reconsider their
position as members of it. If the National Secular Society
should follow Mr. Foote’s recent departure, and seek to
exclude from the platform all non-theological subjects, it
has the right to do so, though it ought then to drop the
name of Secular and call itself merely the Anti-Theological
Society; but until it does, I shall follow the course I have
followed these fifteen years, of using the platform for
lecturing on any subject that seems to me to be useful.
When the National Secular Society excludes me from its
platform I must of course submit, but no one person has a
right to dictate to the Society what matters it shall discuss.
A few weeks ago a Branch of the National Secular Society
wrote asking me to lecture on Theosophy: was I to answer
that the subject was not a suitable one for them to
consider ? Mr. Foote in one breath blames me for not
explaining my position to the Freethought party, and in
the next warns me off the platform from which the
explanation can best be made. I had no paper in which
I could give my reasons for becoming a Theosophist, and
I am told that to use the platform is unjustifiable I Leaving
this, I pass to the special subject of this paper, “Why I
became a Theosophist”.
Mr. Foote writes, with exceeding bitterness, that “amidst
all her changes Mrs. Besant remains quite positive
What are all these changes ? Like Mr. Foote and most of
the rest of us, I passed from Christianity into Atheism.
After fifteen years, I have passed into Pantheism. The
first change I need not here defend; but I desire to say
that in all I have written and said, as Atheist, against
supernaturalism, I have nothing to regret, nothing to
unsay. On the negative side Atheism seems to me to be
unanswerable; its case against supernaturalism is com
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
7
plete. And for some years I found this enough : I was
satisfied, and I have remained satisfied, that the universe is
not explicable on supernatural lines. But I turned then to
scientific work, and for ten years of patient and steadfast
study I sought along the lines of Materialistic. Science, for
answer to the questions on Life and Mind to which Atheism,
as such, gave no answer. During those ten years I learned
both at second hand from books and at first hand from
nature, something of what was known of living organisms,
of their evolution and their functions. Building on a sound
knowledge of Biology I went on to Psychology, still striving
to follow nature into her recesses and to wring some answer
from the Eternal Sphinx. Everywhere I found collecting
of facts, systematising of knowledge, tracing of sequences :
nowhere one gleam of light on the question of questions :
“ What is Life ? what is Thought
Not. only was
Materialism unable to answer the question, but it declared
pretty positively that no answer could ever be given.
While claiming its own methods as the only sound ones,
it declared that those methods could not solve the mystery.
As Professor Lionel Beale says (quoted in “ Secret
Doctrine”, vol. i, p. 540): 11 There is a mystery in life—
a mystery which has never been fathomed, and which
appears greater, the more deeply the pheenomena of life
are studied and contemplated. In living centres—far
more central than the centres seen by the highest magni
fying powers, in centres of living matter, where the eye
cannot penetrate, but towards which the understanding
may tend—proceed changes of the nature of which the
most advanced physicists and chemists fail to afford, us
the conception: nor is there the slightest reason to think
that the nature of these changes will ever be ascertained
by physical investigation, inasmuch as they are certainly
of an order or nature totally distinct from that to which
any other phsenomenon known to us can be relegated.”
Elsewhere he remarks: “Between the living state of matter
and its non-living state there is an absolute and irrecon
cilable difference; that, so far from our being able to
demonstrate that the non-living passes by gradations into,
or gradually assumes the state or condition of, the living,
the transition is sudden and abrupt.; and that matter
already in the living state may pass into the non-living
condition in the same sudden and complete manner. . . .
�8
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
The formation of bioplasm direct from non-living mafter
is impossible even in thought, except to one who sets
absolutely at nought the facts of physics and chemistry”
(“Bioplasm,” pp. 3 and 13). Under these circumstances,
it was no longer a matter of suspending judgment until
knowledge made the judgment possible, but the positive
assurance that no knowledge could be attained on the
problem posited. The instrument was confessedly un
suitable, and it became a question of resigning all search
into the essence of things, or finding some new road. It
may be said : “Why seek to solve the insoluble? ” But
such phrase begs the question. Is it insoluble because
one method will not solve it ? Is light incomprehensible
because instruments suitable for acoustics do not reveal its
nature ? If from the blind clash of atoms and the hurtling
of forces there comes no explanation of Life and of Mind,
if these remain sui generis, if they loom larger and larger
as causes rather than as effects, who shall blame the
searcher after Truth, when failing to find how Life can
spring from force and matter, he seeks whether Life be
not itself the Centre, and whether every form of matter
may not be the garment wherewith veils itself an Eternal
and Universal Life ?
Riddles in Psychology.
No one, least of all those who have tried to understand
something of the “ riddle of this painful universe”, will
pretend that Materialism gives any answer to the question,
“ How do we think ? ”, or throws any light on the nature
of thought. It traces a correlation between living nervous
matter and intellection; it demonstrates a parallelism
between the growing complexity of the nervous system
and the growing complexity of the phenomena of
consciousness; it proves that intellectual manifestations
may be interfered with, stimulated, checked, altogether
stopped, by acting upon cerebral matter; it shows that
certain cerebral activities normally accompany psychical
activities. That is, it proves that on our globe, necessarily
the only place in which its investigations have been carried
on, there is a close connexion between living nervous
matter and thought-processes.
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
9
As to the nature of that connexion knowledge is dumb,
and even theory can suggest no hypothesis. Materialism
regards thought as a function of the brain; ‘1 the brain
secretes thought”, says Carl Vogt, “as the liver secretes
bile”. It is a neat phrase, but what does itw&n? In
every other bodily activity organ and function are on the
same plane. The liver has form, color, resistance, it is an
object to the senses; its secretion approves itself to those
same senses, as part of the Object World; the cells of the
liver come in contact with the blood, take from it some
substances, reject others, recombine those they have
selected, pour them out as bile. It is all very wonderful,
very beautiful; but the sequence is unbroken; matter is
acted upon, analysed, synthesised afresh; it can be sub
jected at every step to mechanical processes, inspected,
weighed; it is matter at the beginning, matter all through,
matter at the end; we never leave the objective plane.
But “the brain secretes thought” ? We study the nerve
cells of the brain; we find molecular vibration; we are
still in the Object World, amid form, color, resistance,
motion. Suddenly there is a Thought, and all is changed.
We have passed into a new world, the Subject World;
the thought is formless, colorless, intangible, imponder
able ; it is neither moving nor motionless; it occupies no
space, it has no limits; no processes of the Object World
can touch it, no instrument can inspect. It can be analysed,
but only by Thought: it can be measured, weighed, tested,
but only by its own peers in its own world. Between the
Motion and the Thought, between the Object and the Sub
ject, lies an unspanned gulf, and Vogt’s words but darken
■counsel; they are misleading, a false analogy, pretending
likeness where likeness there is none.
Many perhaps, as I have said, like myself, beginning
with somewhat vague and loose ideas of physical pro
cesses, and then, on passing into careful study, dazzled by
the radiance of physiological discoveries, have hoped to
find the causal nexus, or have, at least, hoped that here
after it might be found by following a road rendered
glorious by so much new light. But I am bound to say,
after the years of close and strenuous study both of
physiology and psychology to which I have alluded, that
the more I have learned of each the more thoroughly do
I realise the impassibility of the gulf between material
�10
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
motion and mental process, that Body and Mind, however
closely intermingled, are twain, not one.
Let us look a little further into the functions of Mind,
as e.g., Memory. How does the Materialist explain the
phenomena of Memory ? A cell, or group of cells, has
been set vibrating • hence a thought. Similar vibrations
are continually being set up, and every cell in the cere
brum must have been set vibrating millions of times
during infancy, youth, and maturity. The man of fifty
remembers a scene of his childhood; that is, a group of
cells—every atom of which has been changed several
times since the scene occurred—sets up a certain series of
vibrations which reproduces the original series, or let us
say the chief of the original series, and so gives rise to the
remembrance, the vibration being prior in time, necessarily,
to the remembrance. I will not press the further diffi
culty, as to the initiation of this motion and the complexi
ties of “Association” in intensifying vibration so as to
bring the thought above the threshold of consciousness..
It will suffice to try and realise what is implied in the
setting up of this series of vibrations, each cell vibrating
in conjunction with its fellows as it vibrated forty years
before, despite the myriad other combinations ^possible,
each one of which would cause other thought. \_A wellstored memory contains thousands of “thought pictures” ;
each of these must have its vibratory cell-series in the- k.
human cerebrum. Is this possible, having regard to the
laws of space and time, to which, be it remembered, cell
vibrations are subject ?
But these difficulties are on the surface ; let us go a stepfurther. In dealing with psychology, we must study the
abnormal as well as the normal. Normally, thought
results from sense-impression ; abnormally, sense-impres
sion may result from thought. Thus, a young officer was
told off to exhume the corpse of a person some time buried ;
as the coffin came into view the effluvium was so over
powering that he fainted. Opened, the coffin was found
to be empty. It was the vivid imagination of the young
man that had created the sense-impression, for which there
was no objective cause. Again, a novelist, absorbed in
his plot, in which one of his characters was killed by
arsenic, showed symptoms of arsenical poisoning. Here
the mouth, oesophagus and stomach were affected by a
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
11
cause that existed only in the mind. I have failed to find
any Materialist explanation of a large group of phsenomena,
of which these are types.
Take again the extraordinary keenness of perception
found in some cases of disease. A patient suffering from
one of certain disorders will hear words spoken at a distance
far beyond that of ordinary audition. It seems as though
the lowering of muscular power and of general vitality
coincided with the intensifying of the perceptive faculties
—a fact difficult to explain from the Materialist stand
point, though the explanation saute aux yeux from the
Theosophical, as will be seen further on.
Or consider the phsenomenaof clairvoyance, clairaudience,
and thought-transference. Here, if a person be thrown
into an abnormal nerve condition, he can see and hear at
distances which preclude normal vision and audition. A
clairvoyant will read with eyes bandaged, or with a board
interposed between reader and book. He will follow the
closed or opened hand of the mesmeriser, and give its
position and condition. Here, I do not give special in
stances, as the cases are legion and are easily accessible to
anyone who desires to investigate. A large number of
careful experiments have put cases of thought-transference
beyond possibility of reasonable denial, and can be referred
to by the student. I cannot burden this short pamphlet
with them, especially as it is merely intended as a tracing
of the road along which I have travelled, not as an
exposition of the whole case against Materialism.
Mesmerism and hypnotism, again, suggest the existence
in man of faculties which are normally latent. All sense
perception in the mesmerised is overcome by the will of
the mesmeriser, who imposes on him “ sense-perceptions ”
antagonistic to facts : e.g., he will drink water with enjoy
ment as wine, with repugnance as vinegar, etc. The body
is mastered by the mind of another, and responds as the
operator wills. Experiments in hypnotism have yielded
the most astounding results; actions commanded by the
hypnotiser being performed by the person hypnotised,
although the two were separated by distance, and though
some time had elapsed since the hypnotic operation had
been performed, and the person hypnotised restored
apparently to the normal conditions. (See the experi
ments of Dr. Charcot and others.) So serious have been
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
‘ the results of these experiments that a society is now in
course of formation in London, which seeks to restrict the
practice of hypnotism to the medical profession and persons
duly and legally qualified to practice it. “For this pur
pose”, says the acting Secretary, “it is proposed to found
8» school of hypnotism in London, at which the science will
be properly taught by the best exponents, scientifically
j demonstrated by lecture and experiment, and its beneficial
uses correctly defined and expounded”. Dr. Charcot has
used hypnotism in the place of anaesthetics, and has
i successfully performed a dangerous operation on a hypnoi tised patient, whose heart was too weak to permit the use
«of chloroform. Dr. Grillot uses it for “ moral cures ”, and
. hypnotises dishonest persons into honesty. A congress on
LiJi
.subject is sitting in Paris, while this pamphlet is
passing through the press.
i Allied to these are the phenomena of double-consciousL ness, many records of which are preserved in medical
K works ; here, in some cases, a double life has been led, no
memory, of one state existing in the other, and each life on
re-entering a state being taken up where it was dropped
on leaving it. With only one brain to function, how can
this duality of consciousness be explained ? Hallucinations,
visions of all kinds, again, do not seem to me to be re
ducible under any purely Materialist hypothesis : “ matter
and motion ” do not solve these phenomena of the psychic
world.
Another riddle in psychology is that of dreams. If
thought be the result only of molecular vibration, how
can dreams occur in which many successive events and
prolonged arguments occupy but a moment of time ?
Vibrations, I again remind the reader, are subject to the
conditions of space and time. Succession of thoughts
must imply succession of vibrations on the Materialist
hypothesis, and vibrations take time; yet thousands of
these, which, waking, would occupy days and weeks, are
compressed into a second in a dream.
Quite another class of phenomena is that in which
abilities are manifested for which no sufficient cause can
be discovered. Infant prodigies, like Hofmann and others,
whence come they ? We know what the brain of a very
young child is like, and we find young Hofmann impro
vising with a scientific knowledge that he has not had
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
13
time to acquire in the ordinary way. “ Genius ”, we say,
with our fashion of pretending to explain by using a
word; but how can Materialism, which will have matter
give birth to thought, find in the newly-made brain of
this child the cerebral modifications necessary for pro
ducing his melodies ? And when a servant in a farmhouse,
ignorant in her waking hours, talks Hebrew in her sleep,
how are we to regard her brain from the Materialist
Standpoint ? Or when the calculating boy answers a com
plex calculation when the words are barely out of the
questioner’s mouth, how have the cells performed their
duties ? a problem that becomes the more puzzling when
we find that the increase of circulation, etc., which
normally accompany brain activity, have not, in his case,
Occurred.
These are only a few riddles out of many, but they are
samples of the bulk. To some of us they are of over
powering interest, because they seem to suggest dimly
new fields of thought, new possibilities of development,
new heights which Humanity shall hereafter scale. We
do not believe that the forces of Evolution are exhausted.
We do not believe that the chapter of Progress is closed.
When a new sense was developing in the past its reports
at first must have been very blundering, often very mis
leading, doubtless very ridiculous at times, but none the
less had it the promise of the future, and was the germ of
a higher capacity. May not some new sense be developing
to-day, of which the many abnormal manifestations around
us are the outcome? Who, with the past behind him,
shall dare to say, “ It cannot be ” ? and who shall dare to
blame those whose longing to know may be but the yearn
ing of the Spirit of Humanity to rise to some higher
plane ?
The Theosophical Society.
Before showing the method suggested in Theosophical
teachings for obtaining light on the above questions, or
sketching the view of the universe given by occult science,
it may be well to remove some misconceptions concerning
the Theosophical Society, my adhesion to which has brought
on my devoted head such voluminous upbraiding. I fear
that the objects of the Society will come somewhat as an
�14
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
anti-climax after the denunciations. They are three in
number, and any one who asks for admittance to the
Society must approve the first of these :
1. To be the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood.
2. To promote the. study of Aryan and other Eastern
literatures, religions, and sciences.
3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the
psychical powers latent in man.
Nothing more! Not a word of any form of belief; no
imposition of any special views as to the universe or man ;
nothing about Mahatmas, cycles, Karma or anything else.’
Atheist and Theist, Christian and Hindu, Mahommedan
and Secularist, all can meet on this one broad platform
and none has the right to look askance at another.
The answer to the inquiry, “Why did you join the
Society ? ” is very simple. There is sore need, it seems to
me, m our unbrotherly, anti-social civilisation, of this dis
tinct affirmation of a brotherhood as broad as Humanity
itself. Granted that it is as yet but a beautiful Ideal, it
is well that such an Ideal should be lifted up before the
eves of men. Not only so, but each who affirms that ideal,
and tries to conform thereto his own life, does something,
however little, to lift mankind towards its realisation, to
hasten the coming of that Day of Man. Again, the third
object is one that much attracts me. The desire for know
ledge is wrought deep into the heart of every earnest
student, and for many years the desire to search out the
forces that lie latent in and around us has been very
present to me. I can see in that desire nothing unworthy
of a Freethinker, nothing to be ashamed of as a searcher
after truth. “We seek for Truth” is the motto of the
National Secular Society, and that motto, to me, has been
no lip-phrase.
Beyond this, the membership of the Theosophical
Society does not bind its Fellows. They can remain
attached to any religious or non-religious views they may
have previously held, without challenge or question from
any. They may become students of Theosophy if they
choose, and develop into Theosophists; but this is above
and beyond the mere membership of the Society.
This fact, well known to all members of the Society,
shows how unjust was the attack on Mdme. Blavatsky,
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOBHIST.
15
accusing her of inconsistency because she said, there was
nothing to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from joining the Theo-sophical Society. There is nothing in the objects to
prevent anyone from joining who believes, as do all
Atheists, I think, in the Brotherhood of Man.
While this pamphlet is passing through the press a
curious judicial decision on the status of the Society
reaches me from America. A Branch Society at St. Louis
applied for a Decree of Incorporation, and in ordinary
•course the Report, based on sworn testimony, was delivered
to the court by its own officer, and on this the decree was
issued. The Report found that the Society was not a
religious but an educational body; it “has no religious
creed, and practises no worship”. The Report then pro
ceeded to deal with the Third Object of the Society, and
found that among the phenomena investigated were
“Spiritualism, mesmerism, clairvoyance, mind-healing,
mind-reading, and the like. I took testimony on this
question, and found that while a belief in any one of
these sorts of manifestations and phsenomena is not re
quired, while each member of the Society is at liberty to
hold his own opinion, yet such questions form topics of
enquiry and discussion, and the members as a mass are
probably believers individually in phenomena that are
abnormal and in powers that are superhuman as far as
science now knows.” Perhaps those Secularists who have
been so eager to credit me with beliefs that I have not
dreamed of holding, will accept this deliverance of a court
of justice, as they evidently refuse to take my word, as to
the conditions of membership in the Theosophical Society.
When, for instance, I find Mr. Foote in the Freethinker
crediting me with belief in the “ transmigration of souls”,
I can but suppose that he is moved rather by a desire to
discredit me than by a desire for truth. Indeed, the head
long jumping at unfavorable conclusions, and the outcry
raised against me, have been a most painful awakening
from the belief that Freethinkers, as such, would be less
bigoted and unjust than the ordinary Christian sectary.
The Report proceeds: “Theobject of this Society, whether
attainable or not, is undeniably laudable. Assuming that
there are physical and psychical phenomena unexplained,
Theosophy seeks to explain them. Assuming that there
are human powers yet latent, it seeks to discover them. It
�16
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
maybe that absurdsties and impostures are in fact incident to
the nascent stage of its development. As to an undertaking
like Occultism, which asserts powers commonly thought
superhuman, and phenomena commonly thought super
natural, it seemed to me that the Court, though not as
suming to determine judicially the question of their verity
would, before granting to Occultism a franchise, enquire
at least whether it had gained the position of being reput
able, or whether its adherents were merely men of narrow
intelligence, mean intellect, and omnivorous credulity. I
accordingly took testimony on that point, and find that a
number of gentlemen in different countries of Europe, and
also in this country, eminent in science, are believers in
Occultism............ The late President Wayland, of Brown
University, writing of abnormal mental operations as shown
in clairvoyance, says : ‘ The subject seems to me well
worthy of the most searching and candid examination. It
is by no means deserving of ridicule, but demands the
attention of the most philosophical enquiry.’ Sir William
Hamilton, probably the most acute, and undeniably the
most learned of English metaphysicians that ever lived,
said at least thirty years ago : ‘ However astonishing, it
is now proved beyond all rational doubt,' that in certain
abnormal states of the nervous organism perceptions are
possible through other than the ordinary channels of
the senses.’ By such testimony Theosophy is at least
placed on the footing of respectability. Whether
by further labor it can make partial truths complete
truths, whether it can eliminate extravagances and
purge itself of impurities, if there are any, are pro
bably questions upon which the Court will not feel called
upon to pass.”
On this official Report the Charter of Incorporation was
granted, and it may be that some, reading this gravely
recorded opinion, will pause ere they join in the ignorant
outcry of “ superstition ” raised against me for joining the
Theosophical Society. Every new truth is born into the
world amid yells of hatred, but it is not Freethinkers
who should swell the outburst, nor ally themselves with
the forces of obscurantism to revile investigation into
nature.
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
17
Theosophy.
It may, however, be granted that most of those who •
enter the Theosophical Society do so because they have
some sympathy with the teachings of Theosophy, some
hope of finding new light thrown on the problems that
perplex them. Such members become students of Theo
sophy, and later many become Theosophists.
The first thing they learn is that every idea of the
existence of the supernatural must be surrendered. What- 1
ever forces may be latent in the Universe at large or in
man in particular, they are wholly natural. There is no :
such thing as miracle. Phsenomena may be met with that ar© strange, that seem inexplicable, but they are all
within the realm of law, and it is only our ignorance that
makes them marvellous. This repudiation of the super
natural lies at the very threshold of Theosophy: the
supersensuous, the superhuman, Yes; the supernatural,
No.
[I may here make a momentary digression to remark
that some students quickly fall back disappointed because '
they have come to the study of Theosophy with conceptions ■
drawn from theological religions of supernatural powers to be promptly acquired in some indefinite way. We shall •
see that Theosophy alleges the existence of powers greater
than those normally exercised by man, and alleges further
that these powers can be developed. But just because
there is nothing miraculous, or supernatural, about them
they cannot be suddenly obtained. A student of mathe
matics might as well expect to be able to work out a
problem in the differential calculus as soon as he can
Struggle through a simple equation, as a student of Theo
sophy expect to exercise occult faculties when he has
mastered a few pages of the “Secret Doctrine”. A
beginner may come into contact with someone whose
ordinary life occasionally shows in a perfectly simple and
natural way the possession of abnormal powers ; but he
must himself keep to his ABC for awhile, and possess L
his soul in patience.]
The next matter impressed on the student is the denial '■
of a personal God, and hencej as Mme. Blavatsky has
pointed out, Agnostics and Atheists more easily assimilate ’
�18
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
Theosophic teachings than do believers in orthodox creeds.
In theology, Theosophy is Pantheistic, “ God is all and
all is God”. “It is that which is dissolved, or the illusionary dual aspect of That, the essence of which is
eternally One, that we call eternal matter or substance,
formless, sexless, inconceivable, even to our sixth sense,
or mind, in which, therefore, we refuse to see that which
Monotheists call apersonal anthropomorphic God.” (“Secret
Doctrine ”, vol. i, p. 545.) The essential point is : “ What
lies at the root of things, ‘ blind force and matter or an
existence which manifests itself in ‘ intelligence ’ to use a
very inadequate word ? Is the universe built up by
aggregation of matter acted on by unconscious forces,
finally evolving mind as a function of matter : or is it the
unfolding of a Divine Life, functioning in every form of
living and non-living thing ? Is Life or Non-life at the
core of things ? Is ‘ spirit ’ the flower of ‘ matter or
‘ matter ’ the crystallisation of ‘ spirit ’ ? ” Theosophy
accepts the second of these pairs of alternatives, and this,
among other reasons, because Materialism gives no answer
to the riddles in psychology, of which I gave some samples
above, whereas Pantheism does ; and the hypothesis which
includes most facts under it has the greatest claim for
acceptance. On the plane of matter, materialistic Science
answers many questions and promises to answer more;
on the plane of mind she breaks down, and continually
murmurs “ Insoluble, unknowable ”. On the other hand,
assuming intelligence as primal, the developed and dawn
ing faculties of the human mind fall into intelligible order,
and can be studied with hope of comprehension. At any
rate, where Materialism confesses itself incapable, no blame
can be attached to the student if he seek other method for
solving the problem, and if he test the methods offered to
him by some who claim to have solved it, and who prove,
by actual experiment, that their knowledge of natural
laws in the domain of psychology, and outside it, is greater
than his own. So far, however, as Theosophy is concerned
in its acceptance of the Pantheistic hypothesis, it is not
necessary to make any long defence. Pantheism, for
which Bruno died and Spinoza argued, need not seek to
justify its existence in the intellectual world.
The theory of the Universe which engages the attention
of the student of Theosophy comes to him on the authority
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
19
of certain individuals, as does every other similar theory,
religious or scientific. But while all such theories are put
forward by individuals, there is this broad difference
between the tone of the priest and that of the scientific
teacher: one claims to rest on authority outside verifica
tion; the other submits its authority to verification. One
gays: “Believe, or be damned; you must have faith.”
The other says: “Things are thus; I have investigated
and proved them ; many of my demonstrations are incom
prehensible to you in your present state of ignorance, and
I cannot even make them intelligible to you off-hand ; but
if you will study as I have studied, you can discover for
yourself, and you can personally verify all my statements.”
The Theosophical theory of the Universe comes into the
latter category. The student is not even asked to accept it
any faster than he can verify it. On the other hand, if he
choose to be satisfied with the credentials of its teachers,
pending the growth of his own capacity to investigate, he
can accept the theory and guide his own life by it. In the
latter case his progress will be more rapid than in the
former, but the matter is in his own hands and his freedom
is unfettered.
I have spoken of “ its teachers ”, and it will be well to
explain the phrase at the outset. These teachers belong
to a Brotherhood, composed of men of various nationalities,
who have devoted their lives to the study of Occultism and
have developed certain faculties which are still latent in
ordinary human beings. On such subjects as’the con
stitution of man, they claim to speak with knowledge, as
Huxley would speak on man’s anatomy, and for the same
reason, that they have analysed it. So again as to the
existence of various types of living things, unknown to us:
they allege that they see and know them, as we see and
know the types by which we are surrounded. They say
further that they can train other men and women, and
show them how to acquire similar powers: they cannot
give the powers, but can only help others in developing
them, for they are a part of human nature, and must be
evolved from within, not bestowed from without.
Now it is obvious that, while the teachings of Theosophy
might simply stand before the world on their own feet, to
meet with acceptance or rejection on their inherent merits
And demerits, as they deal largely with questions of fact,
�20
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
they must depend on the evidence whereby they are sup
ported, and, at the outset, very largely on the competenceof the persons who give them to the world. The existence
of these teachers, and their possession of powers beyond
those exercised by ordinary persons, become then of crucial
importance. Were the powers to Be taken as miraculous,
and were they apart from the subject matter of their teach
ings, I cannot see that they would be of any value as
evidence in support of those teachings; but if they depend
on the accuracy of the views enunciated and demonstrate
those views, then they become relevant and evidential, asthe experiments of a skilled electrician elucidate his views
and demonstrate his theories.
We, therefore, are bound to ask, ere going any further:
do these teachers exist ? do they possess these (at present)
exceptional powers ?
The answers to these questions come from different
classes of people with different weight. Those who have
seen the Hindus among them in their own country,
talked with them, been instructed by them, corres
ponded with them, have naturally no more doubt of
their existence than they have of the existence of
other persons whom they have met. Persons who are
interested in the matter can see these people, crossexamine them, and form their own conclusions as to the
value of their evidence. A large number of people, of
whom I am one, believe in the existence of these teachers
on secondhand evidence, that is, on the evidence of those
who know them personally. And this evidence receives a
collateral support when one meets with quiet matter-ofcourse exercise of abnormal faculties, in every day life, on
the part of one alleged to be trained by these very men.
A deception kept up for months with absolute consistency
through all the small details of ordinary intercourse, with
out parade and without concealment, is not a defensible
hypothesis. And it becomes ludicrous to anyone who, in
familiar intercourse, has noted the quick, impulsive, open
character of the much abused and little-known Mdme.
Blavatsky, as frank as a child about herself, and speaking
of her own experiences, her own blunders, her own ad
ventures, with a naive abandon that carries with it a convic
tion of her truth. (I am speaking of her, of course, among
her friends; in face of strangers she can be silent and secret
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
21
■•enough.) It should be added that personal proof of the exist
ence of these teachers is given sooner or later to earnest
«indents, just as, in studying any science, a student after
awhile is able to obtain ocular demonstration of the facts
he learns secondhand. On the other hand, those who feel
that they have attained all possible knowledge and that
. nothing exists of which they are not aware, can deny the
-existence of these teachers and maintain, as stoutly as they
please, that they are a dream, a fancy. 11 The Masters ”,
«8 the students of Theosophy call them, are not anxious
for an introduction, and they are not, like the orthodox
God, angry with any who deny their existence. Shocking
as it may seem to nineteenth century self-sufficiency, they
are indifferent to its declaration that they are non-existent,
a.nd are in no wise eager to demonstrate to all and sundry
that they live. Let it, however, be clearly understood that
these teachers have nothing supernatural about them;
they are men who have studied a particular subj ect and
have become “ masters ” in it—Mahatmas, Great Souls,
tike Hindus call them—and who, because they know, can
do things that ignorant people cannot do.
From these Masters then, say Theosophists, we derive
-our teachings, and you will find, if you examine them,
that they throw light on the nature of man and guide him
along the path to a higher life. Man, according to Theo
sophy, is a compound being, a spark of the Universal
Spirit being prisoned in his body, as a flame in the lamp.
The u higher Triad” in man consists of this spark of the
Universal Spirit, its vehicle the human spirit, and the
v rational principle, the mind or intellectual powers. This
is immortal, indestructible, using the lower Quaternary,
• the body, with its animal life, its passions and appetites,
as its dwelling, its organ. Thus we reach the famous
«even-fold division, or the “seven principles” in man:
Atma, the Universal spirit; Buddhi, the human spirit;
Manas, the rational soul; Kamarupa, the animal soul with
its appetites and passions; Prana, the vitality, the principle
-Of life; Linga Sharira, the vehicle of this life ; Pupa, the
physical body. Theosophy teaches that the higher Triad
and lower Quaternary are not only separable at death, but
may be temporarily separated during life, the intellectual
part of man leaving the body and its attached principles,
and appearing apart from them. This is the much talked
�22
WHY I BECAME A THE030PHIST.
of “astral appearance”, and its reality can only be decided
by evidence, like any other matter of fact. Those whoknow nothing about it will, of course, deride belief in it
as superstition, as people like-minded with them derided
in the past each newly discovered power in nature. Hero
again, after awhile, the student has ocular demonstration,
and, when he reaches a certain stage, personal experience;
but, if he is dissatisfied with second-hand evidence, no
blame will fall on him for suspending his belief until he
obtains personal proof.
Clairvoyance and allied phenomena become intelligibleon this view of man, the projection of the human intelli
gence, while the body is in a state of trance, taking its
place as one of the temporary separations alluded to. The
Ego, thus freed, can exercise its faculties apart from thelimitations of the physical senses, and has escaped from
the time and space limits which are created by our normal
consciousness. It is noteworthy that persons emerging
from the mesmeric state have no memory of what has
occurred during that state; i.e., no impress has been left
on the physical organism by the experiences passed
through. But if the seeing or hearing is by the way
of the external senses, this could not be, for the cere
bral activity would have left its trace on the cerebral
material.
If, on the other hand, the experiences have been
supersensuous, there can be no reason to look for their
record in the sense-centres; and the outcome of the
experiment is merely the fact that, under these conditions,
the Ego is powerless to impress on the physical frame the
memory of its actions. So long, indeed, as the lower
nature is more vigorous than the higher, this impotency of
the Ego will continue ; and it is only as the higher nature
developes and takes the upper hand in the alliance, that
the physical consciousness will become impressible by it.
This stage has been reached by many, and then conscious
ness becomes unified, and higher and lower work in
harmony under the control of the will.
The weakening of tue body by disease sometimes brings
about, but in an undesirable way, a temporary supremacy
of the Higher Self, resulting in that keenness of percep
tion referred to on page 11. To obtain such keennessnormally, without injury to health, it would be necessary
�WHY I BECAME A THEO SOPHIST.
23
to refine and purify the physical organisation, and this,
among other things, may be effected in due course.
On the existence of this separable and indestructible
entity, the Ego, hinge the doctrines of Ee-incarnation and
Karma. Ee-incarnation—ignorantly travestied as transmi
gration of souls—is the rebirth of the Ego, as above defined,
to pass through another human life on earth. . During
its past incarnation it had acquired certain faculties, set in
motion certain causes. The effects of these, causes, and
of causes set in motion in previous incarnations and. not
yet exhausted, are its Karma, and determine the con
ditions into which the Ego is reborn, the conditions being
modified, however, by the national Karma, the outcome of
the collective life. The faculties acquired in previous
incarnations manifest themselves in the new life, and
genius, abnormal capacities of any kind, possession of
knowledge not acquired during the present existence, and
so on, are explained by Theosophy on this theory of re
incarnation. Infant prodigies, calculating boys, et hoc genus
omne, fall into order in quite natural fashion instead , of
rom ni ni ng as inexplicable phænomena. Erom the point
of view of Theosophy, nothing is lost in the Universe, no
force is extinguished. Faculties and capacities painfully
acquired during the long course of years do not perish at
death. When, after long sleep, the time for rebirth
comes, the Ego does not re-enter earth-life as a pauper ;
he returns with the fruits of his past victories, to make
further progress upwards.
The only proof of this doctrine, apart from the explana
tion it gives of the otherwise inexplicable cases of genius,
etc., and its inherent probability—given any intelligent
purpose in human existence—must, in the nature of
things, lie for us in the future if it exist at all; the
Masters allege it on their personal knowledge, having
reached the stage at which memory of past incarnations
revives ; the doctrine comes to us on their authority, and
must be accepted or rejected by each as it approves itself
to his reason.
Similarly the working of the law of Karma cannot be
demonstrated as can a problem in mathematics. The law
of Karma has been defined by Colonel Olcott as the law of
ethical causation ; Theosophists affirm that the harvest
reaped by man is of his own sowing, and that, although
�¡24
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
not always immediately, yet inevitably, every act must
work out its full results. We may argue to this law in
. the mental and moral worlds, by analogy from the physical.
Each force on the physical plane has its own result, and
. where many forces interact, each has, none the less, its
complete effect. On the higher planes, since the Universe
is one, we may reasonably look for similar laws, and one
of these laws is Karma. That it will be difficult to trace
its exact working in any instance lies in the nature of the
case. We may see a body rushing in a given direction,
and we know that the line along which it is travelling is
the resultant of all the forces that have impelled it; but
that resultant may have been caused, by any one of a
thousand combinations, and in default of the knowledge
of the whole history of its motion we cannot select one
combination and say, such and such are the forces. How
then can we expect to perform such a feat in the more
complicated interplay of all the Karmic forces that ultimate
m the character and environment of an individual ? The
general principle can be laid down; for the working out
of a particular case in detail we have not the material.
One. of my critics, Mr. G. W. Foote, asks me how I can
reconcile Karma with Socialism, and he affirms that the
Socialist, and “every social reformer, is fighting against
Karma”.. Not so in any effective sense. To bring fresh
forces to improve , the present is not to deny the effects of
past causes, but is only to introduce new causes which
shall modify present effects and change the future. It
may well be. that the present poverty, misery, and disease
spring inevitably from past evil, and this all scientific
thinkers must admit, whether or not they use the word
Karma; but that is no reason why we should not start
forces of wisdom and love to change them, and create
good Karma for the future instead of continuing to create
bad. By every action we modify the present and mould
the future; that the past has created so evil an heritage
but makes the need the sorer for strenuous effort now.
It must be remembered that Karma is not a personal
Deity, against whose will it might be thought blasphemous
to contend. It is simply a law, like any other law of
nature, and we cannot violate it even if we would. But it
110 more prevents us from aiding our fellow-men than
“the law of gravitation” prevents us from walking up.
�WHY I-BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
25
^■stairs. We. cannot prevent a man from suffering physical
pain if he breaks his leg, but the law of nature that pain
. follows lesion of sensitive tissues does not hinder us from
nursing the sufferer and alleviating the pain as much as
possible. Neither can we save a man from the sway of
Karmic law, but there is nothing to prevent us from
trying to lighten his suffering, and above all from en
deavoring to put an end to the causes which are continually
generating such evil results. Does Mr. Foote deny that
all around us is the outcome of past causes ? or does he
.say that because there is causation we must sit with folded
hands in face of evil ? The true view, it seems to me, is
that as present conditions are the results of past activities,
. so future conditions will be the results of present activities,
and we had better bestir ourselves to the full extent of our
powers to set going causes that will work out happier
results.1
What belief in Karma does is to prevent mere idle and
useless repining, and to teach a dignified and virile accept
ance of inevitable suffering, while bracing the spirit to
sustained endeavor to improve the present and thus inevit
ably improve the future. Nor must it be forgotten that
courage to face pain, and love, and generous self-sacrifice
for others, are all of them Karmic fruits, effects of past
•causes and themselves causes of fature effects. The
religionist, who hopes to escape from the consequences of
his own misdeeds through some side-door of vicarious
atonement, may shrink from the stern enunciation of the
law of Karma, but the Secularist who believes in the
reign of law can have no quarrel on this head with the
Theosophist. Difference can only arise when the Theosophist says: “You must pay every farthing of the debt
run up, either in this or in some future incarnation ”. The
non-Theosophical Secularist would consider that death
cancels all debts. To the Theosophist death merely sus
pends the payment, and the full undischarged account is
, presented to the dead man’s successor, who is himself in a
new dress.
Theosophy further teaches, in connexion with man,
1 See an article, “Karma and Social Improvement”, by the present
writer, in Lucifer for August, 1889. The question is there more
fully worked out.
�26
WHY I BECAME A THE0S0PHI8T.
that he may develope by suitable means not only the
psychic qualities of which glimpses are given in the ab
normal manifestations before alluded to, but power over
matter far. greater than he at present possesses, and
psychic abilities in comparison with which those now
looming before us are but as the capacities of infants to
those of grown men. In the slow evolution of the human
race these qualities will gradually unfold themselves;
further, they may be, so to say, “forced” by any who
choose to take the requisite means. And here comes in
the asceticism to which Mr. Foote so vehemently objects ;
he . declares that the acceptance of celibacy by an
individual for a definite object implies that “ Marriage is
now a mere concession to human weakness. Celibacy is
the counsel of perfection. The sacred names of husband
and wife, father and mother, are to be deposed as usurpers.
At the very best they are only to be tolerated. It is idle
to reply that celibacy is only for the ‘inner circle’. If it
be. the loftiest rule of life, it should be aimed at by all.”
With all due respect to Mr. Foote, his denunciation savors
somewhat of clap-trap, though well calculated to appeal to
the ordinary British Philistine of Mr. Matthew Arnold.
No one wants to depose any names, sacred or otherwise,
as usurpers. It sounds rather small after this tremendous
objurgation, but all the Theosophist says is, if you want to
obtain a certain thing you must use certain means; as who
should say, if you want to swim across that swift current
you must take off your coat. But if it be good, should
not everyone try for it ? Not necessarily. Music is very
good, but I should be a fool to practise eight hours a day
if I had but small talent for it; if I have great talent, and
want to become a great artist, I must sacrifice for it many
of the ordinary j oys of life; but is that to say that every
boy and girl must fling aside every duty of life and practise
incessantly, without the slightest regard to anything else ?
Only one out of millions has the capacity for that swift
development to which allusion is made, and celibacy is one
of the smallest of the sacrifices it demands for its realisa
tion. The spiritual genius, like other geniuses, will have
its way, but Mr. Foote need not fear that it will become
too common, and Theosophy does not advise celibacy to
those not on fire with its flame.
I ought perhaps in passing to say a word as to the
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOEHIST.
27
power over matter spoken of above, because a good deal
of fuss, quite out of proportion to their importance, hasbeen made about the “phenomena” with which Mdme.
Blavatsky’s name has been associated, and many peoplo
assume that it is pretended that they are “miracles ., or
are a phase of “ Spiritualistic manifestations . The bitter
attacks made on Mdme. Blavatsky by Spiritualists ought
to convince unprejudiced people that she has not.much m
common with them. As a matter of fact, her main object
in the greater number of cases, as she said at the time,
was to show that far more remarkable things than were
done among Spiritualists by “spirits” in the dark, could
be done in full daylight without any “ spirits ”, merely by
the utilisation of natural forces. All that she. claimed was
that she knew more about these forces than did the people
about her, and could therefore do things which they could
not. A good many of the apparent miracles turned merely
on the utilisation of magnetic force, a force about the
•marvels of which science is finding out more year after
year. Mdme. Blavatsky is able to utilise this force, which
everyone admits is around us, in us, and in non-living
things, without the apparatus used at the present time by
science for its manipulation. Other of the phenomena
were what she called “psychological tricks , illusions,
conjuring on the mental plane as does the ordinary
conjurer on the material, making people see what you
wish them to see instead of what really is. Others, again,
were cases of thought-transference. Another group, that
including the disintegration and reintegration of material
objects, is more difficult to understand. All I can say
myself as to this is that when I find a person, who leads a
good and most laborious life, and who exercises powers
that I do not possess, telling me that this can be done and
has been done within her own knowledge in a perfectly
natural way, I am not going to say “ deception ”,
“ charlatanry ”, merely because I do not understand; any
more than I should say so if Tyndall told me of one of his
wonderful experiments, as to which I did not understand
the modus operandi.
There remains a great stumbling-block in the minds of
many Freethinkers, which is certain to prejudice them
against Theosophy, and which offers to opponents a cheap
Subject for sarcasm—the assertion that there exist other
�28
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
living beings than the men and animals found on our own
globe. It may be well for people who at once turn away
when such an assertion is made to stop and ask themselves
whether they really and seriously believe that throughout
this mighty universe,. in which our little planet is but as
a. tiny speck of sand in the Sahara, this one planet only is
inhabited by living things ? Is all the Universe dumb
save for our voices ? eyeless, save for our vision ? dead,
save for. our life ? Such a preposterous belief was well
enough in the days when Christianity regarded our world
as the centre of the universe, the human race as the one
for which the creator had deigned to die. But now that
we are placed in our proper position, one among countless
myriads of worlds, what ground is there for the pre
posterous conceit which arrogates as ours all sentient
-existence ? Earth, air, water, all are teeming with living
things suited to their environment; our globe is over
flowing with life. But the moment we pass in thought
beyond our atmosphere everything is to be changed.
Neither reason nor analogy support such a supposition.
It was one of Bruno’s crimes that he dared to teach that
other worlds than ours were inhabited, but he was wiser
than the monks who burned him. All the Theosophist
avers is that each phase of matter has living things suited
to it, and. that all the Universe is pulsing with life.
“Superstition” shriek the bigoted. It is no more super
stition than the belief in Bacteria, or in any other living
thing invisible to the ordinary human eye. “ Spirit ” is a
misleading word, for, historically, it connotes immateriality
and a supernatural kind of existence, and the Theosophist
believes neither in the one nor the other. With him all living
things act in and through a material basis, and “ matter ”
and ‘ ‘ spirit ’ ’ are not found dissociated. But he alleges
that matter exists in states other than those at present
known to science. To deny this is to be about as sensible
as was the Hindu prince who denied the existence of ice,
because water in his experience never became solid.
Refusal to believe until proof is given is a rational
position; denial of all outside our own limited experience
is absurd.
�WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
29-
Minute®.
Before closing this explanatory pamphlet I must allude
to the kind of weapons being used against me by one or
two writers in the Freethinker. I speak of it here, because
I have no other way of answering the paragraphs which
appear in that journal week after week, and I will take
two or three as specimens of a kind of controversy which
JS not, I venture to think, worthy of the Freethought cause.
“ Mrs. Besant goes in for the transmigration of souls ”,
then follows an absurd statement about the souls of
ill-behaving Hindu wives passing into various animals.
This assertion is worse than a caricature, it is a misrepre
sentation; and as I am told that Mr. Wheeler “knows
more about Buddhism and Oriental thought generally than
Mrs. Besant is ever likely to learn ”, I cannot suppose
that the misrepresentation springs from ignorance. No
Theosophist believes in the transmigration of souls, or that
the human Ego can enter a lower animal; and a blunder
that might pass from an ignoramus is not excusable where
such great professions of learning are made. I take the
above statement as a type of the caricatures of Theosophy
to be found in the Freethinker.
There are other paragraphs which give a false idea by
suppression of part of the truth. Thus : Mr. Foote states
that si we do not intend to open our columns for the dis
cussion of Theosophy” (although he had attacked it), and
saying that he was going to publish a letter from a
Theosophist, he adds : “ The Theosophists must not expect
to use our columns any further. Mr. Wheeler reviewed
Mdme. Blavatsky’s book on its being sent to him for that
purpose, and it is not customary to discuss reviews.”
Butting aside the fact that Mr. Wheeler’s article was an
attack on Theosophy and on Mdme. Blavatsky personally,
rather than a review of the “ Secret Doctrine”, the above
sentence implies that the criticism of the Freethinker was
challenged by the Theosophists sending the book. This
Was not so: Mr. Wheeler wrote saying that my adhesion
to Theosophy would cause interest in the subject to be felt
by Freethinkers, and asking for a copy of the book for
review. This was an unusual course to take as preface to
a,.bitter personal attack, but, waiving the question oh
�so,
WHY I BECAME A THEOSOPHIST.
literary courtesy, the point is that the initiative came from
the Freethinker, not from the Theosophists. It is not
■consistent with Freethought . traditions to gratuitously
attack a person and then decline discussion. Again, Mr.
Foote writes: “We do not agree with the Medium and
Daybreak that Mr. Foote should have treated Mrs. Besant’s
‘ apostacy with silent contempt.’ A very different treat
ment was called for by her character and past services to
the cause.” The words in inverted commas do occur in
the Medium and Daybreak, but the context considerably
alters the meaning suggested by them as quoted bv Mr.
Foote. The passage runs :
“‘Mrs. Besaxt’s Theosophy’ is the title of a 16-page
two-penny worth by G. W. Foote, in which ‘ the Freethought
party’ is an ominous phrase. Like the ‘Church’ it stands
high above truth, and Mrs. Besant is censured for treating it
so ‘ cavalierly ’. In view of the lady’s new style of propaganda,
Mr. Foote is anxious for the ‘interests of the free-thought
party’. If the ‘philosophy’ of that body be so ‘sound and
bracing.’, why the weakness of Mrs. Besant, and the dangerous
tendencies of her new views ? Mr. Foote would have shown
laudable consistency, and more no-faith, if he had treated her
■apostacy with silent contempt.”
Comment is needless.
Then we have a number of personal attacks on Madame
Blavatsky; has not Mr. Foote suffered enough from the
slanderous statements of opponents to hesitate before he
gives currency to malignant libels on another? What
would he think of me if I soiled these pages with a repeti
tion of the stories told against him by the lecturers of the
Christian Evidence Society? Yet he adopts this foul
weapon, against Madame Blavatsky. “ No case ; abuse
the plaintiff’s attorney.” How utterly careless Mr. Foote
is. in picking up any stone that he thinks may inflict some
slight injury is shown by the following paragraph :
“We learn on the authority of a Theosophist that Madame
Blavatsky is going abroad for a few months, and has confided
the presidentship of the Theosophical Society into the hands of
her new convert, Mrs. Besant.”
The matter is trivial enough—save for the ungenerous
attempt to make out that the Theosophical Society must
be hard up for adherents if it had to fall back on a new
member as acting President—but it happens that Madame
�WHY 1 BECAME A TIIEOSOPHIST.
31
Blavatsky is not the president of the Theosophical Society,
and has never held that position. No “ Theosophist ”
could have made such a blunder, but a sneer was wanted^
so accuracy was thrown to the winds.
My chief reason for drawing attention to these blunders
is to shew that I have some cause to ask Freethinkers not
to adopt, without examination, Mr. Foote’s statements
about the beliefs or the lives of Theosophists, but to
justify their name by making personal investigation before
they decide.
To Members
oe th?
National Secular Society.
One last word to my Secularist friends. If you say to
me, “ Leave our ranks ”, I will leave them ; I force myself
on no party, and the moment I feel myself unwelcome I
will go. It has cost me pain enough and to spare to admit
that the Materialism from which I hoped all has failed
me, and by such admission to bring upon myself the dis
approval of some of my nearest friends. But here, as at
other times in my life, I dare not purchase peace with a
lie. An imperious necessity forces me to speak the truth
as I see it, whether the speech please or displease, whether
it bring praise or blame. That one loyalty to Truth I
must keep stainless, whatever friendships fail me or human
ties be broken. She may lead me into the wilderness,
but I must follow her ; she may strip me of all love, but I
must pursue her; though she slay me, yet will I trust in
her; and I ask no other epitaph on my tomb, but
She tried to follow Truth.
�
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
Why I became a theosophist
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N072
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theosophy
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 (Why I became a theosophist), 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
NSS
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/571c76e245aecd5031d5d0f7c7afdadd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UNQc2HI6FdcMBx7iN4RnaDDAEEnPkv4FuvfspSAlUnksQk7rLl3UaA3jidBAgWX-DCahf0x8uRx2uS%7EIlKXSHbJvdoOFQMF0oofnxCVaMr91thQRYkY%7EPSjMqO2z-1Sw8b5nHDXD1FMJWpbA-Ui0qu-qsyez6zzVcfK1bpCDQM56FROzI3SwFol3lQUplzSAr2E2mSiZERGdh6alj2rBOaJM3-ggi6BXiMct9ye4PH1sujFlMt2lbM%7EW-sIg03ghE0Ky23vS-Vf4WrJZC3LQEbvkK1Jq8UWMTyJ3JirbWOBKAiJMbcmkJsG%7EmdYoGxhzeJ0qDKysvF9SCKOxgDCaWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3689d6b03862eb066e2eb8d84370445b
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
Why I am a secularist
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London: Bournemouth
Collation: 7 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back cover.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Watts; Charles Cattell
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
G974
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
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 (Why I am a secularist), 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
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1f5be03025f79bec4a8b54239f59d4ef.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mZKbXAxeNJ6yLG5BE%7E3iDf9EjRll8WIR0eUcU7aDc1jSdvkEityoxGGsF07kPYPon-QtVUhZYZSgQRQwrvjb9HIZ0PVupe3%7E%7Es9xAhL8mR8R7y7vFMBP5h16mPWi3fVm6lFMBlJ8umgElnm3Czmav5VI5MMsLGlymFud1saYGxChABc6QfviYRVOiCmO1Xpixcvbe4ALOv6OspiEPPjJL9xaS5-xqc1b5GnATeMVw8BWa7o4NEbKGrkOLIDvXVE6isAEvcN9l2l9cUywCD9VXZny3KaD8aOQiniSE6KwbeVE3pwN-lJbALCrO5RrivZvxIzMQruhxTpROrJ24Zjo0A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b6c20a521f5789f1a57d0c96a6f0d45d
PDF Text
Text
-®k^sra»s°a'iTV
WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
AGNOSCO
(Author of “Freethinking and Free Inquiry," etc.)
London:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St.
Price One Penny.
��8^179
Mo/p
WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
“ Whatever freedom for ourselves we claim,
We wish all others to enjoy the same,
In simple womanhood’s and manhood’s name !
Freedom within one law of sacred might:
Trench not on any other’s equal right.”
—-Janies Thomson.
“ In proportion as we love truth more and victory less, we shall
become anxious to know what it is which leads our opponents to
think as they do.”—Herbert Spencer.
Oftentimes has the question forced itself upon such of
us as avow our heresy, “ Why am I a Freethinker ?”
Often, too, has the question been put to us by those
who do not share our opinions, “ Why are you a Free
thinker ?” The question is a natural one, and one which
is to be expected. All of us ought to be able to give
the reason why we hold the views we do ; if not at the
spur of the moment, at least after a little consideration.
Briefly to answer the question is the purpose of this
essay.
Before, however, we can do so, we must know what
meaning we are to put upon the word “ Freethinker.”
Among our opponents, whether from ignorance or with
intent, the word is used in a variety of senses, some of
them not over-complimentary. It will be necessary,
therefore, to examine a few of these alleged meanings ;
for, in thus showing what Freethinking is not, we shall
indirectly be showing what it is. Foremost among these
insinuations comes the well-worn taunt that a Freethinker
is a libertine, a man without moral restraint. This asser
tion is entirely the result of confusion of thought. “ A
Freethinker is a man who thinks freely and without being
bound down by authority,” our traducers tell us. “ Now,
�2
WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
a man who declines to be bound down by, and who re
fuses to respect, authority, is one without moral restraint,
a libertine, and a dangerous citizen.” A little attention
will show that the word “authority” is here used in two.
different senses. In the first sentence it means simply
a referee upon disputed matters, or a man whose words
or writings show him to have a more or less exhaustive
knowledge of the subject at issue, or one who is claimed
to be such. In the second sentence it is used as
equivalent to law or morality, as the case may be. To
put it plainly, the expression is equivocal—that is, it in
volves a quibble. By parity of reasoning, it might be
:said that, a few years ago, the Protestant Episcopal
Church was not disestablished in Ireland, because a
church belonging to the Protestant Episcopal body can,
to this day, be found in almost every village in that
country. It is very evident here that a confusion of
thought has arisen through regarding “ church ” in the
one instance as meaning a body-corporate, and in the
other a building. The reasoning by which a Freethinker
is converted into a libertine is equally fallacious, although,
as put by opponents, the error is not so apparent.
Taking a matter-of-fact, instead of a logical, view of
the question, it may be noted that it is said by those
who are most conversant with criminals that a really
intelligent adversary to the popular dogmas is rarely, if
ever, seen within prison walls. Arguing after the manner
which I have just exposed, it is said by certain in
terested, but unscrupulous, individuals that all drunkards,
gamblers, and so on, are Freethinkers. It is evident
that, if these men had respected authority, in the sense
of the law, they would not have been where they are.
They are men without moral restraint, libertines, and
*
therefore Freethinkers. This is certainly a pretty piece
of arguing in a circle ! I venture to assert that, by means
such as this, you could prove anything you felt inclined
to prove. To claim as Freethinkers unintellectual
“ nothingarians ” is equally absurd. For Freethinking
implies thinking, and thinking is an act of the intelli
gence. Everybody who has come in contact with the
lowest classes knows that, in common with primitive
men, they have little ability for forming an independent
�WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
3
judgment. But the word “ Freethought ” means inde
pendent thought, independent judgment. Like the
others, this allegation against Freethinkers turns out to
be worthless.
It is sometimes urged that Freethought is another
word for infidelity or unbelief. The absurdity of this
statement will be seen when it is pointed out that “ un
belief ” is a word having a meaning differing according
to the opinions of the user. Mohammedanism is un
belief to a Christian, Christianity is infidelity to a Moslem,
and so on. The doctrine that the earth is round is un
belief to the man who believes it to be flat. I have,
however, introduced this for the purpose of exposing
another example of confusion of thought. A Freethinker,
being an infidel (I have seen it stated), is necessarily an
untrustworthy man. The word “ infidel ” is here used
in two distinct senses. Literally, an infidel is one who
does not share your faith.
*
A Moslem, not sharing
the faith of a Christian, is called an infidel, and
•vice versa. As otherwise used, the word bears a secon
dary sense, and, to a logician, is a perfectly distinct word.
It is a pity that such playing upon words is indulged in
by sober controversialists. Let the words be used in one
sense or the other, but not in both, in the same connection.
It is sometimes said that Freethinking is identical with
scepticism. This is not so. Freethinking is positive,
scepticism is negative. Every man who changes his
opinion is a sceptic; but he is sceptic only so long as
he halts between two opinions. A convert from Protes
tantism to Catholicism is a sceptic until he makes a
definite acknowledgment of his Catholicism. Scepticism
is the transition period of belief.
The average dictionary definition of a Freethinker is
one who disbelieves in revelation.” This definition,
however, confuses the product with the process, the
effect with the pause. Disbelief in revelation is not
necessarily a factor in Freethinking. That it usually
* Why not, as Professor Huxley suggested to Dr. Wace, say
.miscreant t Its literal and ancient meaning is “unbeliever” (miscroyant), and it has the advantage of being extremely unpleasant
io the person to whom it is applied.
�4
WHY
AM A FREETHINKER.
accompanies the latter is due to the principle of Freethought leading men to question received opinions, and
to form what appears to them to be more rational and
invulnerable views of nature. Whether a Freethinker
accepts revelation or otherwise, he rejects the argument
drawn from the antiquity of the belief. Revelation, likeevery other theory, must be tried solely upon its merits.
Frequently is it asserted to be equivalent to Atheism.
The word “ Freethinker,” however, has no connection
whatever with any questions relating to a god or to
divinities. It represents neither theological beliefs nor
unbeliefs, but a method of philosophic inquiry. Such
words as “Atheism,” “Agnosticism,” “ Positivism,” and
the like, imply Freethinking, it is true; but it is not
correct to say that any one of them is synonymous with
it. To make the matter clearer, let us look at in another
way. Suppose it were asserted dogmatically that there
is no God, nor anything answering thereto; suppose it
were said that this was the belief of all the great men—
all the great warriors, all the great statesmen, all the
great poets, prophets, and philosophers, all the great
teachers, preachers, and scientists—who had been since
the world began ; suppose it were said that the truth of
this belief was proved by the fact that it had been held
for thousands of years; suppose it -were enforced by
pains and penalties and social ostracism; then, I say,
the man who dared to say, “I am a Theist; I believe
in the existence of God,” would be a Freethinker in
every legitimate sense of the word.
A considerable space has now been taken up in discuss
ing what Freethinking is not; but the arguments have,
I trust, been so put as to have long ago suggested to
the mind of the reader what it is. That it expresses,
not a religious system, but a method of philosophic
inquiry, has just been stated; in fact, I have elsewhere
maintained that, to be valid, the principle must be
applicable, not only to religion, but to science and poli
tics, and every form of human thought and activity. As
I have already defined it: “ Freethinking is the right of
thinking upon any subject independently and without
undue restraint, without unnecessary reverence for autho
rity and without being influenced by the fact that
�WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
5
certain beliefs have been held upon that subject from
time immemorial.”* Beyond the collection of facts
every authority is to be regarded as a theorist like our
selves, and the closeness of his observations, the exactness
of his reasoning, and the apparent truth of his theory—
not his name—must be our guide. The only legitimate
restraint is that which flows from the nature of things—
those restraints which are due to the limitations of our
faculties, or are necessary to our life in society. Briefly,
the definition of Freethinking may be summarised in
the words of the poet: “Trench not on any other’s equal
right.”
Having thus made manifest what Freethought is, I
can now give a few reasons for being a Freethinker.
These I shall discuss as three propositions—viz., Freethinking is a necessary condition of progress ; it is the
outcome of the history of the race and of man’s mental
and social evolution ; and its principle forms the rational
basis of ethics.
If we compare China and Western Europe; if we
compare Spain with England, or the Catholic with the
Protestant Church, we note that in one of each pair
progress is an unknown quantity. And with this we find
a profound respect for ancestral opinions, or thought
fettered by the authority and dogmas of the Church, or
a compound of the two.
Long ago Bacon told us that “ knowledge is power.”
Equally true is it that knowledge is essential to
human progress. Mark the man of business. Had he
no knowledge of his profession, he would make no pro
gress in it. The man who lives in a country village,
where every year’s business is a repetition, or nearly so,
of that of the previous year, does not rise to the top of
the tree. He whom we come to recognise as the head
of his profession is the man who has obtained a com
plete knowledge of every branch of it. Still more true
is it that the systematised, unified knowledge which we
call science—that knowledge which is so completely
organised that our astronomers can discuss the chemical
composition of stars so distant that light, travelling at
* “ Freethinking and Free Inquiry,” p. 8.
�6
WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
the enormous rate of eleven million miles per minute,
or nearly two hundred thousand every second, takes
centuries to reach us; that our biologists can trace, in
two million or more species of living beings, the action
of those same laws of matter and motion by which a
nebula becomes a world, a cloud falls as rain or con
denses as snow, by which the candle burns, or the frost
bursts a water-pipe, by which the earth is kept revolving
round the sun, or a limited liability company divides
into chairman, directors, and shareholders, and its share
holders into “ founders ” and “ ordinary ”—has a vast
influence in the progress of mankind. To what is our
progress due ? Is it to the spread of education among
the masses ? Those most potent factors in education,
our books and newspapers, are printed by the applica
tion of the laws of mechanics. We are made familiar
with the sayings and doings of other nations by the
electric telegraph. The principles of higher mathematics
show themselves to be our servants in every map. We
are informed of the beauties of other lands, of the pecu
liarities of other races, of the appearances of other
worlds, by means of the photograph. Do we owe our
progress to political improvements? The science of
ethics and the sub-science of jurisprudence meet us
here; empirically though the older statesmen had formed
their knowledge of political economy, yet they had it to
some extent. From the time of Pitt, however, we find
that this science has been held to be one of the founda
tions of political action. “ Pitt was the first English
minister who really grasped the part which industry was
to play in promoting the welfare of the world. He
was........... a statesman who saw that the best security for
peace lay in the freedom and widening of commercial
intercourse between nations; that public economy not
only lessened the general burdens, but left additional
capital in the hands of industry ; and that finance might
be turned from a mere means of raising revenue into
a powerful engine of political and social improvement.”*
Perchance our progress is due to industrial improvement.
* Green’s “ Short History of the English People
769, 770.
1880 ; pp,
�WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
7
Here, more than anywhere else, do we realise the great
■debt we owe to science. Whether your house be lit with
gas or electricity, it is to science that you owe it. The
purification of the coal-gas from ammoniacal and bitu
minous impurities, and the segregation of the crystals
of naphthalin, are all chemical processes. So is sugarrefining; so is the fermentation which produces alcohol.
That nitrogen, when combining, takes up a large quan
tity of motion, in addition to what it already contained,
which it will give up on decomposition, is a fact partly
chemical, but chiefly physical; and the blast used in
mines, whether dynamite, or gunpowder, or bellite (which
■contains an extra quantity as ammonium nitrate), brings
the fact into practical use. Turning from the production
to the conveyance of commodities, the application of the
physical facts connected with the pressure of steam meets
us everywhere. The shipbuilder in modern use applies
to his vessels the mathematical angle of least resistance.
The mechanical laws exemplified by the engineer need
merely mentioning. To astronomy we owe our ability
to predict the tides. And to what principle are these
sciences due ? Surely to the right of independent thinking.
Conventionalism, the mere repetition of the opinions of
the multitude, never yet added to the world’s progress.
The real agent is now, ever has been, and ever will be,
untrammelled freedom of thought. And I am a Free
thinker because I believe that humanity can progress,
that humanity ought to progress, and that humanity will
progress.
Were I to discuss at length the historical view of
Freethought, I should require more pages than are allotted
to me for the completion of the whole argument. A
study of history will show us that humanity has pro
gressed by a series of revolutions—or, rather, that a
series of revolutions stand as landmarks to point out to
us the advance of the race. In the early Church, hete
rodoxy took the form of petty squabbles about the nature
of Christ. Passing over to the time of Wyclif, we come
face to face with a healthier form of criticism. This
famous divine distinctly proclaimed the gospel of Free
Inquiry. One significant fact it is necessary to refer to.
�8
WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
Just before Wyclif’s time the old feudalism had begun
to decay. The men who formerly had been slaves to
the barons now became free men. While this social
freedom was being born there was coming into existence
that political liberty which we associate with that Great
Charter of England which contains those memorable
words : “ To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay right or
justice.” It was certainly no accident that brought forth
at almost the same period the great struggles for freedom,
social, political, and religious. If we turn from Wyclif
to the reformers of the close of the next century, we are
conscious not only of greater learning, but also of greater
freedom both from dogma and from conventional think
ing. Sir Thomas More, in his “ Utopia,” preached a
gospel of liberty, to which Wyclif was a stranger. In his
ideal state considerable freedom of opinion was tolerated.
Amid the squabbles of the Tudor period, in which
Protestant bigotry vied with the bigotry of the older
creed, we to-day can see, to use the words of Green,
*
that “ the real value of the religious revolution of the
sixteenth century to mankind lay, not in its substitution
of one creed for another, but in the new spirit of in
quiry, the new freedom of thought and of discussion,
which was awakened during the process of the change.”
A century later brings us to Lord Bacon, whose Freethinking was as much an advance upon More’s as that
of the latter was upon Wyclif’s. Merely to quote the
names of Lord Herbert and Hobbes, Locke and Hume,
Bentham and Mill, Darwin, Huxley, and Spencer, will
serve to show that every advance in thought has left
conventionalism further behind than did the last. And it
might be added that human life is so short, human capa
bilities so limited, human opinions so diverse, that it
seems presumptuous for any man to claim absolute recti
tude. Further, modern philosophy has everywhere con
firmed the opinion of the inhabitants of More’s “Utopia,”1
who were “persuaded that it is not in a man’s power to
believe what he list.”
I am a Freethinker because Freethought is the out* “ Short History,” p. 352.
�WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
9
*
come of man’s mental and social evolution. Psychologists,
or those scientists who deal with the facts presented by a
study of the mind, tell us that thoughts—or, as they are
called, cognitions—and sensations can be divided into
two groups, those which are presentative and those
which are representative. These groups merge into one
another, and names are given to the different grades in
each. They tell us, too, that during man’s evolution
the simplest presentative cognitions come first, and the
more representative last. Liberty is one of the most re
presentative of cognitions, and justice is another. Every
one of us knows the joy we feel when our daily or weekly
work is done and we can realise our hoped-for liberty.
And the origin of the gratification we receive from
freedom, of a more abstract sort, such as political or
religious, is to be found in the joys experienced from
most concrete liberties during generations past. And,
as Freethinking is more representative than any of the
liberties of which it is composed, political liberty, social
liberty, religious liberty, and so on, so we may regard it
as a later product of evolution. Just as liberty is the
characteristic of more highly-developed men, and is not
experienced by savages, so Freethinking is the necessary
outcome of a still higher stage of mental evolution.
Primitive man displays neither exactness of thought,
scepticism, nor criticism, and little or no modifiability of
*
belief.
As we should expect from one in whose mind
these more abstract ideas are absent, he is almost wholly
influenced by the beliefs of his rulers or of his ancestors.
He is a consistent upholder of the rights of authority
and antiquity ! We are told that “ the Fijians are
slaves to custom............ Though they may condemn a,
thing in itself, yet, if it is ‘ the custom,’ they abide by
it. Custom decides the most trifling observance.”! Of
the Dyaks, Rajah Brooke tells us that “ custom seems
simply to have become the law, and breaking custom
leads to a fine.” Kolff tells us of the Arafuras that there
is no other “ authority among them than the decisions of
* For a longer discussion on this point see “Freethinking
and Free Inquiry,” p. 60.
+ Rev. J. Waterhouse’s “The King and People of Fiji ” (Wes
leyan Con. Off. ; 1866), p. 309.
�IO
WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
their elders, according to the customs of their fore
fathers.” So ruled by custom are the Turcomans that
even Mohammedanism among them has to adapt itself
to their customs. “ Long-acknowledged customs,” we
are told, control the Bechuanas of South Africa. Space
will not allow me to give any more examples of how
completely primitive man is ruled by the opinions of his
ancestors. And the myths which have gathered round
the names of great men show us how great has been his
respect for authorities. This is all we can expect among
men whose individual actions are spasmodic and cannot
be trusted. Shall we be reckoned among these ? I
sincerely hope not. During the progress of civilisation
the influence of custom has been considerably weakened.
The perusal of the history of our constitution will leave
us no doubt as to the dwindling of authority. At first
the House of Commons was entirely at the mercy of the
king. He called it together when he pleased, and dis
missed it when he pleased. Its duty was simply to lay
before him petitions; the king, with his council, made
the laws. Gradually, but surely, has the popular House
gained its supremacy. But, while it has done so, it has
lost much of its own authority. It is now governed by
the nation at large, and relies for its existence upon the
people.
Shall we be condemned, then, for completing what
human nature has already worked out ? Society is yet
far from being perfect. Let us, then, not rest upon our
oars; let us be up and doing. Let us remember that
our goal lies above us, and not in the depths beneath.
Heedless of the rocks that crumble beneath our feet,
heedless of pitfail or cranny, fearless of avalanche or
ice, having left the reeky atmosphere of bond-thought
behind us, let us not be content until we have planted
upon the summit of thought the standard which has
borne through all our watchword, “ Excelsior,” in the
purer air of unadulterated freedom.
I am a Freethinker because the principle of Freethought forms the rational standard of morals. Moral
action can come into play only when two or more indi
viduals are concerned by that action. As Mr. Spencer
�WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
I»
says, in his “ Data of Ethics ” : “ Acts are called good
or bad according as they are well or ill adjusted to ends
and he says elsewhere: “The ultimate standards by which
all men judge of behaviour are the resulting happiness
or misery. _ We consider drunkenness wrong because of
the physical degeneracy and accompanying moral evils
entailed on the drunkard and his dependents. Did theft
give pleasure both to taker and loser, we should not find
it in our catalogue of sins.”* This extract contains the
whole gist of my argument. We consider that the
highest morality which gives the greatest possible free
dom to every one, and at the same time produces the
least friction between all. Two armies go out to war.
Now, every man is at liberty to kill any of his oppo
nents. If we take a horde of savages, like the Turco
mans, we have still less restraint. But their war cannot
be called moral. Their freedom is purchased at the cost
of the lives and liberties of their enemies. We do not
consider murder and theft wrong because they have been
condemned by several great men ; nor because they have
been considered wrong from time immemorial. We
consider them wrong because they infringe the liberties
of the victim. In deciding this question we, as Professor
Fowler says, “ look to the manner in which the action
will affect the happiness or pleasure of those whom it
concerns, or their welfare or well-being, or the develop
ment or perfection of their character.”! We do not
regard prudence as right because miracles have been
worked in its favour, but because the want of it throws the
individual upon the charity of others, and thus makes him
a burden upon them. Unchastity is condemned because
the practice of it would entail the complete, or at least
partial, extinction of parental and filial cares and obliga
tions, connubial unhappiness, and the physical and moral
enfeeblement of offspring. It would, in fact, entail in
juries not only upon one’s neighbours, but also on untold
future generations. Untruthfulness not only brings
misery on the subject by incapacitating him from the
trust of others ; but, taken in its widest sense, as includ
ing deception, breach of faith, etc., it lays its victim open
* “ Education,” p. 102.
+ “ Progressive Morality,” p. 91.
�WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
to misery and unhappiness of all kinds. The evil effects
of injustice need scarcely be discussed. We have all
heard of men who, by a miscarriage of justice, have been
reduced from easy circumstances to beggary. And we
have sympathised with those who, from the injustice of
their “ sweating ” employers, are dragging out, in the
slums of our great cities, a life which is scarcely better than
death itself. We have - wandered somewhat from our
point, still we shall be better able to see that the standard
of rational ethics can be Expressed in that motto of
Freethinking : “ Trench not on any other’s equal right.”
I have now briefly summarised the reasons for my
Freethinking. These do not certainly exhaust the sub
ject ; but they will, no doubt, suffice for the present.
This shall be my creed as a Freethinker: I believe in
equal freedom for all men, so far as their natures will
allow. To me, one of the grandest articles of religion
yet formulated is to be found in these lines of our
Freethinking poet:—
“ Freedom within one law of sacred might:
Trench not on any other’s equal right.”
�iisl
Well
We hope wli^MEiaHsEEtf;
suits of his
An admirable
and religion, wln^^BE^K
greatest thinkers. ^EjsL
an extensive course oi^^B
and said upon great sui^
index, is strongly recoinm.
58 pp., in neat w?
The Old and New
By TULI^Mm
Contents:—What the Old Testament
Old Testament Unhistoric and Unscienlili
The Subject of the Four Gospels.
Well calculated to serve the purpose for which it is i”
at home in his subject, and has many able points.—Free
The only authorised edition, 30 pp., in neat wrawB®
ORTHODOXY: AN IMPEACH^
By R. G. INGERSOLL.
By the same Author.
The Women of the Bible. With a Sketch of Colonel Inger
soll, by Charles Watts.
Price id.
The Oath Question. A splendid statement of the Freethought
Position.
Price id.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, E.C.
�WHY I AM A FREETHINKER.
to misery and unhappiness of all kinds. The evil effects
of injustice need scarcely be discussed. We have all
heard of men who, by a miscarriage of justice, have been
reduced from easy circumstances to beggary. And we
have sympathised with those who, from the injustice of
their “sweating” employers, are dragging out, in the
slums of our great cities, a life which is scarcely better than
. J
death itself. We hav^ wandered somewhat from our
point, still we shall be better able to see that the standard
. I
of rational ethics can be Expressed in that motto of ■'
Freethinking : “ Trench not on any other’s equal right.jI have now briefly summarised the reasons for rrhay
Freethinking. These do not certainly exhaust the
ject; but they will, no doubt, suffice for the prenework
This shall be my creed as a Freethinker: I beJitian’ ^ew
equal freedom for all men, so far as their nat-----------allow. To me, one of the grandest articles xs., by post
yet form'ulated is to be found in these
Freethinking poet:—
“ Freedom within one law of sac(
Trench not on any other’s ec
(JLD.
_en accorded unstinted praise in all
art, it is entitled to take high rank
lginal in conception, the story is told
_ity—every character is so natural—that
ay entranced, and is impelled to pursue
<• It may safely be asserted that no orthoise from a perusal of the work without having
a and his intellectual capacities widened. “ The
is just the book to put into the hands of a liberal
as to understand and appreciate the faith of the
.tic.
ust issued, New Edition, price 2d., by post 2j£d.,
THE
- CURSE OF CONVENTIONALISM.
On its first production this brochure, containing a terrible indict
ment of Orthodox Christianity, created a remarkable sensation
among the religious public. The Pamphlet is now issued in cheaper
and more popular form.
London : Watts & 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 & 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
Why I am a freethinker
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Agnosco
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication presumably between 1880 and 1900. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N042
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 (Why I am a freethinker), 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
Free Thought
Freethinkers
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a1725f9e4fd74e0d241b794dd91cb9cc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gpgMTW095v6jTQuG71Oiwb9P6E%7EuapRBenu8QnHNJJks6T2KVzndnJyEZIomLkoubeNrJu-FmpP2DRxHXTymJ7V0W95HrgONr6%7EkfPwBJsqEu%7EFEIYunpWF5wzwXhpv0%7EgBhFLZ0aBQ-r0AC77qp6MydvyVHKe749cluE2%7EyG4BCKqejhmXG4gZbpk7LpjXvIopU4cJehK4WuzflG-TxCbpPd3cNEzZZSOaPWcMiN4NopJcP64g36mQsE-YR1AHRdF8V0-IALmh9pB3xL4wIjWYg9A%7Ed7ZYd5%7E7SMwLSTaVxCY4KWNbOwRsgOaxMkkn4ZgmmUE5TmxZBEpi0WuZoLA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
071ae630a3e83935ad0fcbe07d3dce5a
PDF Text
Text
WHY DO RIGHT?
A SECULARIST’S ANSWER.
BY
CHARLES WATTS
( Vice- President of the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence.
��WHY DO RIGHT?
A
SECULARIST ’S
ANSWER.
Most persons can distinguish between right and wrong;
but it is not so easy to decide why certain actions are right,
and others the very reverse. According to orthodox
Christianity, the sanction for right-doing is a conviction
that our actions should accord with God’s will, and that we
should abstain from the performance of wrong acts through
fear of punishment in some future existence. These are
not the Secular reasons for doing the right thing or
avoiding the wrong. Apart from the difficulty of ascer
taining what the will of God is (for it is nowhere definitely
stated), the value of that will would consist in its nature.
We should ask, Is it just or reasonable to think that
obedience to that will would secure the happiness of the
community ? Is it not a fact that all that can be known of
the supposed will of the Christian God is to be learnt from
the Bible ? But then it should be remembered that the
many representations given of the Divine will in that book
are not only contradictory, but they would, if acted upon,
prove most dangerous to the well-being of society. For
instance, it is there stated that it is God’s will that we
should take no thought for our lives (Matt. vi. 25); that
we should not lay up for ourselves treasures on earth
(Matt. vi. 19); that we should resist not evil (Matt. v. 39);
that we should set our affections on things above, not on
things on the earth (Col. iii. 2); that we should love not
the world (1 John ii. 15); that if we offend in one point of
the law, we are guilty of all (James ii. 10); that we are to
obey not only good, but bad, masters (1 Peter ii. 18); and
that it is good morality to say, “ What, therefore, God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder ” (Matt. xix. 6);
that we should swear not at all (Matt. v. 34); that we
cannot go to Christ except the Father draw us (John vi. 44);
�4
WHY DO RIGHT ?
that we are to labor not for the meat which perisheth
(John vi. 27); that we are to hate our own flesh and blood
(Luke xiv. 26); that those who leave their families for the
“ Gospel’s sake ” shall be rewarded here and hereafter
(Mark x. 29, 30); that men should believe a lie, that they
all might be damned (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12); that the world
cannot be saved by any name except that of Christ
(Acts iv. 12); that salvation should be obtained through
faith, and not of works (Ephes, ii. 8, 9); that the sick are to
rely upon the “ prayer of faith ” to save them (James v. 15);
that if any two Christians agree upon something, and send
a supplication to heaven for that something, it shall be
granted them (Matt, xviii. 19). Now, according to general
experience, if we complied with the will of God, as here
stated, society would not pronounce our actions as right,
but they would be condemned as being hurtful to the
commonwealth.
Secularism is opposed to the orthodox idea that we
should do right through fear of hell. This is the lowest
and most selfish reason for doing good that can be
given. According to the Secular idea, the desire to
do right should not be prompted by merely personal
considerations, but with the object of enhancing the
best interests of others, as well as our own. Besides,
the fear of hell has proved inoperative, either as an
incentive to right action, or as a deterrent to wrong
doing. Even those who profess to be influenced by this
motive have a greater dread of a policeman than of a devil,
and a more vivid conception of a jail than of a hell.
Penalties remote from life do not, by any means, exercise
the same powerful influence upon human conduct as do those
of the present time. The Secular idea of right and wrong
is, that neither is the mere accident of the time, and that
these terms do not represent a condition which is the
result of “ chance
on the contrary, they denote actions
which are the outcome of a law based upon the fitness of
things. The primary truths in morals are as axiomatic as
those in mathematics. Moreover, there is, in the mind of
every properly constituted person, an appreciation of right
and a detestation of wrong. We urge that vice should
be shunned because it is wrong to individuals, and also to
society, to indulge in it; and that virtue should be practised
�a secularist’s answer.
5
because it is the duty of all to assist, both by precept and
example, to elevate the human family. A writer in the
London Echo of August 22 last answers the question why
we should do good apart from theological considerations
in the following pertinent language: Because “certain
actions are followed by more happiness to the actor
than other actions, and because those actions which give
him the most happiness are such as are helpful to
others.
The most highly-developed men have dis
covered this to be true, and the ‘ average ’ man will
ultimately discover it and act on it. Just in proportion as
we become helpful to others we find our own happiness
increasing. And as all our actions inevitably spring from
the desire of our own happiness, it follows that we must go
on becoming more helpful to each other as we develop.
Even those foolish persons who now injure others know
this to a certain extent. Ask a burglar which gives him the
more happiness, to steal or to spend the money he steals
with the woman he lives with ? He will tell you that his
highest happiness is in giving pleasure to his Kate. Ask
Andrew Carnegie which gives him the more pleasure, to cut
his workmen’s wages down or to spend the money in
building a public library ? He will tell you he finds more
pleasure in spending the money for others than in wrench
ing it from his workmen.”
The word “right’’originally meant straightened; hence
the common saying, “putting things to rights,” is understood
as being equivalent to putting them straight or in order.
A writ of right is a legal method of recovering land that
has been wrongfully withheld from its owner, and to right
a ship is to restore it to an upright position. A man
whose acts are deemed good and useful is described as
being “upright ” and “straightforward.” The notion that
legal enactments determine what is morally right and
wrong is as fallacious as the idea that the Bible decides
the question. Many of the laws of our country are based
upon principles the very opposite of what we regard as
morality; while the conflicting teachings of the Bible
disqualify it from being a correct guide in ethical conduct.
It appears to us that, if there are no other standards of right
and wrong but those of the Bible and the law of the land,
then such standards by themselves must be arbitrary,
�WHY DO RIGHT ?
having no universal application to mankind. Possibly some
legal and scriptural commands may be right, but when
they are so it is not because they have the sanction of
Parliament or the Bible, but in consequence of their being
in harmony with the taste and requirements of the public.
That many of the decrees and teachings emanating from
these two sources have been considered wrong is evident
from the fact that men have persistently refused to obey the
one or to accept the other. Take the case of those Free
thinkers, philosophers, and scientists who have so often been
at variance with the Church, and who have refused to obey
certain laws of their country which they deemed wrong.
These men have not only been censured, but sometimes
they have been punished as wrong-doers; and yet,
ultimately, it was proved that they were in the right, and
that the Church and the law were in the wrong. The
standard of the Church and of the law was tradition, custom,
or common belief; the standard of those who were censured
was knowledge. As this knowledge increased the number
of offenders against the stereotyped forms of law, both
human and divine, increased also, until the old foundations
had to yield in favor of those more in harmony with free
dom and justice, and more in accordance with the intellect
of the nation.
By the Secular idea of right we mean that conduct which
is beneficial both to the individual and to the community—
conduct that is in agreement with an enlightened conception
of human duty. It may be admitted that the usefulness of
an act is not always present in the mind of the actor, but it
seems to us impossible to estimate the value of an action
the purpose or result of which is not useful. The real
worth of all actions depends upon the manner in which
they affect our judgment, our feelings, and our general well
being. When we assert that the sense of right-doing exists
in nature, it must not be supposed that we mean it can be
found in a mountain or in the sea; but our meaning is that
it is in that part of nature called human. It is this belief
in the natural basis of right-doing that inspires us with the
endeavor to improve that nature which is the source of all
that is noble. The Secular notion of right and wrong is
based upon reason and experience, which are the surest
guides known to man.
�a secularist’s answer.
7
In considering the question of right and wrong we ought
not to ignore any facts, however unpleasant they may be to
some of us. Human nature has its dark as well as its
bright side. There are men so constituted and so
surrounded by depraved conditions that, from their
actions, one would suppose they prefer doing wrong rather
than right. In many instances men are ferocious, cruel,
and brutal. They practise lying and deception, and injure
and destroy their fellow creatures. Such persons are too
often born in moral corruption and trained in the lowest
form of criminality; they grow up destitute of any selfrespect, and without any sense of right action. People of
this class are the unfortunate victims of a bad environment,
which has contaminated their natures both before and
after birth. If these “ heirs of unrighteousness ” were
spoken to as to the duty they owe to themselves and
to society, probably the replies would be: “As life and
society were thrust upon me, why should I respect either ?
Why should I prefer the straight to the crooked path—the
beautiful in nature to the repulsive ? What advantage is
truth to me when I profit by lying ? Why may I not
repudiate the tyranny involved in the injunction that I
ought to be virtuous ? If I am happy in following my
present course, why should I bother about the effects of my
conduct upon society ?” It will be readily seen that the
man who raises the foregoing questions has no conception of
moral duties and the influence of right action. Moreover,
it is well known that vicious and immoral men are the first
to object to the same kind of conduct which they practise
being directed against themselves. A man may delight in
lying, but no liar likes to be deceived, and no brute in
human form desires to be injured himself. Those who
inflict pain upon others are the first to shudder at the lash
being applied to themselves.
Society itself, notwithstanding the boasted influence of
the Bible and the loud professions of Christianity, has
peculiar ideas of right and wrong. It condemns the killing
of one man as a criminal act; but he who kills thousands is
made a hero. In the one case detestation is evoked, while
in the other honors are bestowed. Hence, the only sense
to which the soldier is amenable is that of duty, not of
right. The public regard his acts as being performed for a
�8
WHY DO RIGHT
1
good purpose—namely, that of destroying those who are
looked upon as enemies. Our forefathers, we are told,
made this island inhabitable by destroying the wild beasts
that once infested it; but it appears to us that a greater
work than that remains to be done, which is to subdue the
wild passions of man. Christianity has failed to accom
plish this desirable result. As the London daily Times
sometime since remarked : “We still seem, after hard upon
nineteen centuries of Christian influence and experience, to
be looking out upon a world in which the ideal of
Christianity, which we all profess to reverence, is wor
shipped only with the lips. . . . Throughout Europe we
find nations armed to the teeth, devoting their main
energies to the perfection of their fighting material and the
victualling of their fighting men, and the keenest of their
intellectual forces to the problem of scientific destruction.
Beneath the surface of society, wherever the pressure
becomes so great as to open an occasional rift, we catch
ominous glimpses of toiling and groaning thousands,
seething in sullen discontent, and yearning after a new
heaven and a new earth, to be realised in a wild frenzy of
anarchy by the overthrow of all existing institutions, and
the letting loose of the fiercest passions of the human
animal.”
Alas! it is too true that the world, for the most part,
has hitherto worshipped force. Poets, from Homer down
wards, have thrilled thousands with graphic descriptions of
scenes of splendor and of glory. Military renown has been
regarded with greater interest than have the triumphs of
ethical culture. Such men as Alexander the Great and
Napoleon have been exalted to the highest pinnacle of
fame, and their deeds have been extolled as if these men
had been the real saviors of the people. This is a mistaken
adulation and an undue exaltation, which is opposed to the
Secular idea of right. What can be more wicked than
devastating and depopulating countries in order that one
warrior may rival another in what is called military glory.
As John Bright said at Birmingham in 1858 : “ I do not
care for military greatness or military renown. I care for
the condition of the people among whom I live. . . .
Crowns, coronets, mitres, military display, the pomp of war,
wide colonies, and a huge empire are, in my view, all trifles,
�A secularist’s answer.
9
light as air, and not worth considering, unless with them
you can have a fair share of comfort, contentment, and
happiness among the great body of the people. Palaces,
baronial castles, great halls, stately mansions, do not make
a nation. The nation in every country dwells in the
cottage.” Right cannot advance if brutal force remains in
the front.
It may be urged that, if our estimate of men in modern
“ Christian England ” be correct, there is but little chance
of establishing any system of right. Happily, although
what we have written is unquestionably true in some cases,
it is not true of all men. There are other members of the
human family who possess dispositions which enable them
to act rightly, so that the world will be the better for the
part they have played in the great drama of life. These
workers for the public good are influenced by higher laws
than Bibles or Parliaments can command or enforce.
According to the Secular view of right, all persons should
be instructed in the duties of citizenship; they should
be impressed with the necessity of taking an active interest
in all things that pertain to the welfare of life, and to
consider political and social rights as well as those that
refer merely to ordinary every-day conduct. Of course, as
civilised beings, we require some centre of appeal, some
test by which we can determine what is right and what is
wrong. However defective our standard may be con
sidered, and however varied the results of an appeal
thereto may prove, we know of no higher authority to do
right than because it accords with the general good of
society. We regard it as utterly futile to go back to
Bible times, when theology was supreme, to find a test by
which modern conduct shall be regulated. Doing right in
those times meant obeying the will of the despot, and com
plying with the wish of the priest. At that period right
had no relation to the requirements and independence of
the individual. In the evolution of human life the chief
business of men is to translate might into righthand to
substitute mental freedom for intellectual subjection.
Under the influence of the Secular idea of right, it will be
found easier to speak the truth than to endeavor to deceive.
Candid and fair dealing will be looked upon as the sovereign
good of human nature; and the acquirement of, and
�10
WHY DO RIGHT ?
adherence to, this commendable habit will be found less
difficult than mastering the technicalities of law, the
reasonings of metaphysicians, or the verbose quibbles of
theologians.
The Secular method of establishing a true conception of
right is to continually augment our experiences with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. Although instances
may be quoted of greater fidelity being found in some of the
lower animals than is perceptible in many men, the power
of foreseeing events in the case of the most intelligent of
“ the brute creation ” is not very strongly marked. The
Secular idea of right is that the best judgment possible
should be exercised upon all occasions for the purpose of
discovering what is most calculated to promote individual
and general happiness. Moralists dilate upon the varying
rules of conduct that obtain in different nations and under
different governments. Now, while it is quite true that
various conflicting ideas of right and wrong exist in
different countries, that fact does not exempt people from
performing the duty of considering, in every case, what is
the right course to adopt to secure the welfare of the
nation in which they live. The principle of improvement
applies to all conditions and to all races of men. Take the
important feature of family life : on this point opinions are
entertained of the most opposite character. In one country
men believe in one god and in having many wives, while
in another country men believe in three gods and having
only one wife. And yet both beliefs are deemed right.
The Secular idea is that we should study what is right for
us to do under the conditions in which we live. In this
country there is no doubt that the development of the
affections, and of a due regard to the rights and enjoyment
of others, points to the conclusion that the union of one
man with one woman is the best solution of the marriage
problem. True, the Bible sanctions polygamy, but with
that we are not now concerned ; monogamy is accepted as
the best matrimonial arrangement for us under present
conditions.
It is supposed by some persons that it is too late to
discover anything new in morality. This, however, is a
mistake, because the acquirements of modern life impose
upon us duties that were unknown to the ancients, and
�A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
11
which require, upon our part, an intelligent apprehension
to enable us to perform them with credit to ourselves and
for the benefit of others. Science and learning are valuable
in proportion as they tend to make better men and
women, and inspire within them a desire to promote
general happiness. The endeavor to advance human
felicity is the best evidence of the existence of a living,
active morality, and of a proper sense of right. Let us,
then,
Rest not ! life is passing by,
Do and dare before you die.
Something mighty and sublime
Leave behind to conquer time.
Glorious ’tis to live for aye
When these forms have passed away.
Why should we be good ? Theologians would have us
believe that the only satisfactory reply to such a query
must come from Christianity. But, as we have already
shown, the Christian’s reasons for being good are both
selfish and ineffectual. We hope to show that there
are better reasons for goodness than the desire to
please God and to secure everlasting happiness in “ realms
beyond.” The theological delusion, that religion alone
supplies the motive for personal excellence, has arisen
through people entertaining the erroneous idea that
natural means are impotent to cure the evils that dominate
society. It has, however, been discovered that vice must
be dealt with like all else that is human. A supernatural
remedy for moral disease appears to the student of nature
no more reasonable than a supernatural cure for any of
the physical diseases which “flesh is heir to.” When a
man feels the pangs of some physical malady, he knows
that there is some derangement in the organ in which it
occurs ; in addition to applying a remedy, if he be wise, he
will endeavor to discover the cause, so as to avoid the
malady in future. Now, Secularists consider that the
same course should be taken with moral diseases, which
often arise from a morbid condition of the brain, produced
sometimes by the bad arrangements of society, or through
not acting up to the proper duties of life. Virtue and vice
are not mere accidents of the time, but are as much the con
sequence of the operation of natural laws as the falling of
�12
WHY DO RIGHT ?
a stone or the growth of a flower. The causes of crime
should be investigated as carefully as the causes of cholera
and other epidemics have been. The physical and the
moral are more closely connected than is generally sup
posed, and the influence of the one upon the other is
beyond all doubt very great. Man’s mental and moral
natures both depend upon material organs, and are there
fore influenced by physical forces; and it is not unusual for
the same causes that generate disease to produce crime.
So little, however, do people study the relation of mind to
brain that vice prevails where, with a little judicious
thought and action, virtue might be found. The Secularist
acknowledges these important facts, and, expecting no
supernatural help, he goes earnestly to work himself.
Holding that whatever happens occurs in accordance with
some law, he deems it his business to endeavor to ascertain
what that law is, that he may turn it to some practical
account.
We think that with the extensive knowledge which now
exists, allied with intellectual culture, it is not difficult to
demonstrate that man ought to do his duty for reasons
which belong alone to this life. By the word “duty” we
here mean an obligation to perform actions that have a
tendency to promote the personal and general welfare of
the community. This obligation is imposed upon us by
the requirements of society. For instance, the Secular
obligation to speak the truth is obtained from experience,
which teaches that lying and deceit tend to destroy that
confidence between man and man which has been found to
be necessary to maintain the stability of mutual societarian
intercourse.
Again, our obligation to live good lives is derived from
the fact that, as we are here and are recipients of certain
advantages from society, we therefore deem it a duty to
repay, by life service, the benefits thus received. To avoid
this obligation, either by self-destruction or by any other
means, except we are driven to such a course by what
have been termed “irresistible forces,’’would be, in our
opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable. As to the word
“ought,” the only explanation orthodox Christianity gives
to this term is a thoroughly selfish one. It says you
“ ought ” to do so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through
�A
secularist’s answer.
13
him you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand,
Secularism finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very
nature of things, as involving duty, and implying that
something is due to others. As the Rev. Minot J. Savage,
in his Morals of Evolution, aptly puts it: “ Man ought—
what ?—ought to fulfil the highest possibility of his being;
ought to be a man; ought to be all and the highest that
being a man implies. Why ? That is his nature. He
ought to fulfil the highest possibilities of his being; ought
not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because there is
something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he
ought to be that. Why ? Because that does not exhaust
the possibilities of his nature : he is capable of being some
thing more, something higher than a brain. We say he
ought to be a moral being. Why ? Because it is living
out his nature to be a moral being. He ought to live as
high, grand, and complete a life as it is possible for him to
live, and he ought to stand in such relation to his fellow
men that he shall aid them in doing the same. Why ?
Just the same as in all these other cases : because this, and
this only, is developing the full and complete stature of a
man, and he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest
sense of the word until he is that and does that; he is
only a fragment of a man so long as he is less and lower.”
The careful and impartial student of nature will discover
that therein continuous law is to be found, but no accidents
or contingencies. And what we call the moral state is one
wherein man is enabled to recognise the wisdom of com
pliance with this law. It is quite true that men may refuse
to obey the moral law, but, if they do, they must suffer in
consequence. This is one reason why men should be good,
inasmuch as the fact of being so brings its own reward. It
not only secures immunity from suffering, and adds to the
health fulness of society, but it exalts those who obey the
moral law in the estimation of the real noblemen of nature.
A man of honor—one whose word is his bond, who practises
virtue in his daily life—wins the respect and confidence of
all who know him, and he thereby sets an example that will
be useful to emulate; and he at the same time acquires for
himself a tranquility of mind known only to the consistent
devotee of human goodness. What is called Christian
�14
WHY DO RIGHT ?
morality has no sanction in merely natural sentiments and
associations. Nobility of action is supposed by orthodox
believers to be the result of a “ fire kindled in the soul by
the Holy Ghost.” St. Paul is reported to have entertained
the grovelling notion that, if this life is “ the be-all and
end-all,” then “we are of all men the most miserable”;
“ therefore,” says he, “ let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die.” Here the problematical happiness in a problematical
future is put forth as a higher incentive to goodness than
the wish to so regulate our conduct that it will produce
certain beneficial results in our present existence. Persons
who share the views of St. Paul, as set forth in 1 Cor. xv.,
will derive but little pleasure from the virtue of this world.
The satisfaction which should be felt in benefiting mankind
independently of theology falls unheeded on orthodox
believers. They fail to experience happiness simply by the
performance of good works. Virtue, to them, has no charms
if not prompted by the “ love of God.” Nobility, heroism
generosity, devotion, are all ignored unless stimulated by
the hope of future bliss. Christians deny the possibility of
virtue receiving its full reward on earth. If they think
their faith will conduct them safely to the “ next world,”
they appear to have no trouble about its effects in this. A
man who is good only because he is commanded to be so, or
through fear of punishment after death, is not in touch with
the philosophy of modern ethics. The true moral person
is one who does his duty, regardless of personal reward or
punishment in any other world. The Secular motive for
being good is that this world shall be the better for the
lives we have led, and for the deeds we have performed.
Regard for the moral law is not based upon a nega
tion, neither is it a mere question of expediency, but
rather a positive acting principle, working for practical
goodness. A really moral man is one who is interested in
the well-being of others—one who has discovered that he
belongs to the family of men, the social advancement of
which is dependent, more or less, upon each other. Unsocial
beings are those who care for nobody but themselves, and
whose sense of right-doing consists in studying their own
interests without concerning themselves about the welfare
of others. Emerson said : “ I once knew a philosopher of
this kidney. His theory was, ‘ Mankind is a damned rascal.
�a secularist’s answer.
15
All the world lives by humbug; so will I.’ ” Fortunately,
individuals of this type are becoming fewer and fewer, and
are being replaced by men and women in whom are to be
found aspirations for the true, the useful, and the elevating
functions of life. To such members of the human family
as these it can be made evident that truth and honor are
essential to their well-being, and that doing good is an
absolute necessity to the formation and the perpetuation of
a society based on confidence and trust. The virtue of
veracity is the foundation of the true social fabric. Law,
commerce, friendship, and all the embellishments of life rest
upon the great principle of veracity. It is this which gives
the surest stability to all moral obligation. While being
faithful to ourselves, we should never fail to manifest fidelity
in our associations with all members of the community.
Our aim ought always to be to so serve others that we may
help ourselves, and to so serve ourselves as to be helpful to
others. As Pope puts it :•—“ Self-love and social is the same.”
Emerson has said : “The mind of this age has fallen away
from theology to morals. I conceive it to be an advance.”
Undoubtedly this is true, for the intellect of the age is
more than ever finding its justification for being good in
the results of action, rather than in the commands of
creeds and dogmas. The inspiration to goodness is now
recognised as coming from earth, not heaven; from man,
not God. As a recent writer well puts the fact: “ It is
not a belief in an arbitrary personal God which ennobles a
life. Most of the burglars and murderers, most of the
unjust monopolists and cruel sweaters, believe in ‘God.’
It is goodness that ennobles a life, and goodness is not
necessarily associated with godliness. It is not a hope of
heaven that makes a life beautiful. Many who believe in
heaven are very hard to live with here. It is gentleness,
kindness, considerateness, friendliness, love, that make a
life beautiful; and these qualities are not necessarily
associated with a hope of heaven. It is not piety that
wins esteem. There are many pious persons whom you
would not trust with a five pound note. It is fair dealing,
honesty, and fidelity that win esteem; and they are not
associated with piety.”
�16
WHY DO RIGHT ?
Darwin, in his Descent of Man, gives potent reasons why
we should live good lives. He points out that the
possession of moral qualities is a great aid in the struggle
for existence; that people with strong moral feelings are
more likely to win in the race of life than persons who are
destitute of such feelings. Goodness has in itself its own
recommendation, inasmuch as it secures for its recipients
peace of mind, temperance in their habits, and a sense of
justice in their dealings with others. Men of honor, whose
lives are regulated by the principle of integrity, furnish the
best of all reasons for being good. They are happy in the
consciousness of the nobility of their own nature, and they
derive consolation from the knowledge that they render
valuable service to others by the dignified example they
set, and the exalted lives they live. Those who can see
the worth of virtue and of truth in human character are
embued with a spirit of emulation; they desire to be
associated with a superior order of society. Such members
of the community can readily see that without “ confidence
and trust” the commercial world would collapse. The
same principle applies to the whole of human life, for it is
not simply that “ honesty is the best policy,” but that it is
the only policy which will secure a tranquil state of
existence. Rectitude is the source of self-reliance in life
and at death. Men who are able to distinguish the good
from the bad are attracted by honor and refinement.
They shun malignity and vulgarity, and are repelled by
what is vicious and demoralising. Men should be good
because goodness qualifies them for friendship, and wins
for them the esteem of the best of their kind. Further, it
awakens within them a sense of what is most fitted to
enable them to adopt an elevated mode of living. They
become practical believers in that which is just and useful,
and they are thereby inspired to strive to realise their
ideal born of newer and higher perceptions of truth. Let
the lover of goodness once be admitted into the presence of
the intellectually gifted and morally heroic, and life will
present to him a new aspect. When we read of Plutarch’s
heroes; of Greece with her art and her literature; of Rome
with her Cicero and her Antoninus ; and of the muster-roll
of men and women whose memories are surrounded with a
halo of intellectual brilliancy and ethical glory, we no
�A SECULARISTS ANSWER.
17
longer regard the world as the habitation only of moral
invalids and of mental imbeciles. On the contrary, a
higher faith in the potency and grandeur of human good
ness is evoked, exalted thoughts are inspired within us,
and we are induced to believe that goodness will be more
than ever appreciated for its own sake, and that virtue
will be honored and revered for its intrinsic merits.
While admitting that the moral brightness of life is some
what tarnished by the base, the brutal, the suicidal, and
the insane characters that are still found in our midst, we
believe in the law of progress and the work of reform.
We recognise a powerful motive for being good in the belief
that such conditions may be produced that shall tend to
remove depravity and to establish righteousness. Such
disasters as the cholera, and numerous other epidemics that
once made uncontrolled havoc upon society, have been
checked by the application of suitable scientific remedies;
why, then, should not moral evils be made to yield to
judicious treatment ? When men understand that moral
law is as certain as physical law, and as necessary to be
obeyed if we are to have a healthy state in human ethics,
the reformation of the community will be capable of
achievement. Whether we regard man as the creature or
the creator of circumstances, or as both, it is certain that
his organism and its environment act and re-act upon each
other. While intelligence indicates the best way to pursue
in life, it is obvious that circumstances must be such as to
permit of our pursuing that way. From what we know of
human nature, it appears to us necessary that it should be
surrounded with inducements that have the power to draw
out the best that is in it. It has been well said that man
is a bundle of habits ; therefore moral forces become strong
as they become a part of the habit of life. We cannot
reasonably expect the State to be ruled by right and love
unless these virtues exist in the citizens. No nation has
ever attempted to live like a society of friends—without
gaols, policemen, etc.—because the idea of moral duty has
been only partially realised. In proportion as we properly
understand the nature of goodness, and regulate our lives
by its genius, so shall we be governed by ideas instead of
by force. The misfortune of our present societarian condition
is the difficulty attending its improvement. Although, like
�18
WHY DO RIGHT ?
trees, we grow and expand from within, there seems, as it
were, an iron band around us, that prevents our free expan
sion and our full growth. The quality of our acts may be
good in a certain degree, but it is not of the required
strength. The quality has been impoverished through
neglect and theological adulteration; and what is now
required is persistent and intelligent conduct, that shall
purify life, and rid it of the legacy of the ignorance, the
folly, and the superstition of the dark past. Our hope is
in purification ; we want earnestness and candor to take the
•place of the apathy and hypocrisy which have so long held
sway. Then real goodness will illuminate the hearts of
men, and virtue will shed its lustre upon the emancipated
humanity of the world.
Why should we be good 1 The answer, from a Secular
standpoint, is : Because goodness, in itself, is the basis of all
true happiness; it is the progenitor of peace, order, and
progress. To be good is a duty we owe to society as well
as to- ourselves. In virtue alone are to be found those
elements that ennoble character and exalt a nation. . The
unselfish love of goodness, and the desire to acquire a
practical knowledge of the obligations of life, have hitherto
been too much confined to the few, while the many have
neglected to strive to realise the highest advantages of
existence. The cause of this misfortune is not difficult to
discover. It is apparent in the radical evil underlying the
whole of the theological creeds of Christendom—namely,
an objection to concentrate attention on the present life,
apart from considerations of any existence “ hereafter.”
The mistake in the theological world is that its members
regulate their conduct and control their actions almost
exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology,
and their modes of thought are too much a reflex of an
imperfect antiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient
inspiration from this source fly into the fancied boun
daries of another world—a world which is enveloped
in obscurity, and upon which experience can throw no light.
History has been subverted by this theological error from
its proper purpose. Instead of beihg the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations ; instead of being
a guide to the future, it is really the master of the present.
�A secularist’s
answer.
19
The proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard
of appeal in these. The wisdom of the first century is
regarded as the infallible rule of the nineteenth. The
watchword of the Church is “As you were,” rather than
“As you are.” Christian theology hesitates to recognise
active progressive principles, but holds that faith was stereo
typed eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subsequent
actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Secularism
prefers the healthy and progressive sentiments thus ex
pressed by J. R. Lowell:—
New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth ;
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
Orthodox Christianity appeals to the desires and fears
of mankind. It is presented to the world under the two
aspects of hope and dread. Some persons regard it as a
system of love, offering them a pleasant future, stimulating
within. them hopes delightful to indulge, and supplying
their imagination with splendors enchanting to con
template. On the other hand, many reject Christianity
because it contains gloomy forebodings, presenting to them
a being who is represented as constantly sowing the seeds
of discord and unhappiness among society, who has nothing
but frowns for the smiles of life, and whose chief business
it is to crush and awe the minds of men with fear and
apprehension. If Christianity furnishes its believers with
hopes of heaven to buoy them up, it also gives them the
dread of hell to cast them down. The one is as certain as
the other. As soon as a child begins to lisp at its mother’s
knee, its young mind is impressed with the notion that
there is “ a Heaven to gain, and a Hell to avoid.” As the
child grows to maturity, this notion is strengthened by
false education and religious discipline, until at last the
opinion is formed which frequently culminates in making
the victim an abject slave to a fancy-created heaven and an
inhumanly-pictured hell. Christians sometimes assert that
to deprive them of their hope in heaven would be to rob
them of their principal consolation. If this be correct,
so much the worse for their faith. Better have no con
solation than to derive it from a creed which condemns to
eternal perdition the great majority of the human kind.
�20
WHY DO RIGHT ?
The true object of rewards and punishments should be
to encourage virtue and to deter vice. Most, if not all, of
the religions of the world have employed these agencies in
the promulgation of their tenets, not, however, as a rule,
in the correct form. Theologians have connected their
systems of rewards and punishments with the profession
of arbitrary creeds and dogmas that have little or no
bearing on the promotion of virtue or the prevention of
vice. The final reward offered by Christianity is made
dependent on beliefs more than on actions. This is unjust,
inasmuch as many persons are unable to accept the belief
that is supposed to secure the reward. Moreover, accord
ing to the Christian system, the same kind of encourage
ment is held out to the criminal who, after a life of crime,
repents and acknowledges his faith in Christ, as to the
philanthropist whose career has been one of excellence and
goodness.
Equally defective and objectionable is the system of
punishment as taught by Christians, making, as it does,
correction to proceed from a motive of revenge rather than
from a desire to reform. Through life we should never
cherish revenge, nor harbor malice. To forgive is a virtue
all should endeavor to practise. Governments who desire
to win national confidence do not seek to make the chief
feature of their punitive laws of a retaliative spirit; they
aim rather to enact measures that tend to the reformation
of the criminal. Now, the drawback to the threatened
punishment of Christianity is, that it offers no incentive to
reformation, for, when once in hell, the victim must for
ever remain, and there no opportunity is afforded for
improvement, and no facility offered for repentance. It
cannot be said that the sufferings of those in the bottomless
pit exercise any beneficial influence upon those on earth,
inasmuch as we cannot witness their torture, and, if we
could, instead of inspiring within us love and obedience,
doubtless it would excite detestation towards the being
who, possessing the power, refused to exercise it to prevent
mankind enduring such barbarous cruelty. The rejected
of heaven are here represented as being the victims of
unutterable anguish; as having to endure tortures which
no mind can fully conceive, no pen can adequately
portray.
�j.
A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
21
This Christian doctrine of punishment is based upon a
principle opposed to all good government. It allows no
grades in virtue or vice. It divides the world into two
classes—the sheep and the goats, leaving no intermediate
course. Now, mankind are not either all good or all bad;
there are degrees of innocence and guilt in each. Horace
recognised this ; hence he said :—
Let rules be fixed that may our rage contain,
And punish faults with a proportioned pain.
Punishment is valuable- only so far as it tends to the
reformation and the protection of society. It has been
shown that hell fire must fail in the former, and experience
proves that it is cpiite as impotent for the latter. Our law
courts are constantly revealing the fact that those who
profess the strongest faith in future retribution have
frequently been remarkable for savage brutality and
uncontrolled cruelty.
If it be asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adhe
rents as being superior to theological and other speculative
theories of the day ? the answer is, (1) Because Secularists
believe its moral basis to be more definite and practical
than other existing ethical codes; and (2) because Secular
teachingsappear to them to be more reasonable and of greater
advantage to general society than the various theologies of
the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in particular.
That Secular teachings are superior to those of orthodox
Christianity the following brief contrast will show.
Christian conduct is controlled by the ancient, and
supposed infallible, rules of the Bible; Secular action is
regulated by modern requirements and the scientific and
philosophical discoveries of the practical age in which we
live. Christianity enjoins as an essential duty of life to
prepare to die ; Secularism says, learn how to live truth
fully, honestly, and usefully, and you need not concern
yourself with the “how” to die. Christianity proclaims
that the world’s redemption can be achieved only through
the teachings of one person ; Secularism avows that such
teachings are too impracticable and limited in their
influence for the attainment of the object claimed, and that
improvement, general and individual, is the result of the
brain power and physical exertions of the brave toilers of
�22
WHY DO RIGHT ?
every country and every age who have labored for human
advancement.
Christianity threatens punishment in
another world for the rejection of speculative views in
this; Secularism teaches that no penalty should follow the
holding of sincere opinions, as uniformity of belief is
impossible. According to Christianity, as taught in the
churches and chapels, the approval of God and the rewards
of heaven are to be secured only through faith in Jesus of
Nazareth; whereas the philosophy of Secularism enunciates
that no merit should be attached to such faith, but that
fidelity to principle and good service to man should win the
right to participate in any advantages either in this or any
other world.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives
little or no assistance from orthodox Christianity. Not
withstanding the fact that Broad Churchism or Latitudinarianism has begun to make some concessions to reason and
scientific progress, and however strongly apparent may be
the desire for compromise on the part of the theologians,
there are still many of the most distinctive doctrines of
orthodoxy which are most decidedly opposed to the
standard of modern ethics and influence. Such, for example,
is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, where paternal
affection is ignored, and where the innocent is made to
suffer for the guilty; that right faith is superior to right
conduct apart from such belief ; and, most especially, that
unjust and equity-defying dogma of eternal condemnation.
It is really beyond the scope of such a system as the
orthodox one to promote the moral development of
humanity. This can only be effectually done by the
action of those social, political, and intellectual forces to
which we are indebted, as it were, for the building up of
man from the very first institution of society. These have
been, are, and ever must be, the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is
by them that we are what we are. It is: (1) the social
activities that have led to the formation, maintenance, and
improvement of human society; (2) the political activities
that have led to the formation, maintenance, and improve
ment of the general government, to the establishment of
States or nations, and to the recognition of the mutual
rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
�A secularist’s answer.
23
activities that have led to the interchange of human
thoughts, to the formation of literature, to the pursuits of
science and art, to the banishment of ignorance and the
decay of superstition, to the diffusion of knowledge, and,
finally, to all mental progress.
It is said that, without a fixed rule for conduct, all
guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not so; Secularism
recognises a safe and never-erring basis for moral action,
which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad
general maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the
supreme law.” This may be taken as a fundamental
principle for all time and all nations. The kind of action
which will produce such well-being depends, of course,
upon individual and national circumstances, varied in their
character and diversified in their influence. This
progressive morality is the principle of the Utilitarian
ethics which now govern the civilised world. It is not
merely the individual, but society at large, that is con
sidered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian
existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual
bee labors only for individual necessities. No ; but that all
is subordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the
drones increase, they are expelled or restricted, and well
would it be for our human society if all drones who
resisted improvement were banished from among us. In
the moral world, as in religious societies, there are too
many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the
good conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing
to contribute to the store of the ethical hive. The
morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their
kindly charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—
all these spring directly from their long-acquired and
developed experience. As the poet of Buddhism sings :—
Pray not, the Darkness will not brighten ! ask
Nought from the Silence, for it cannot speak !
Vex not your mournful minds with pious pains :—
Ah, brothers, sisters ! seek
Nought from the helpless gods by gift and hymn,
Nor bribe with blood, nor feed with fruit and cakes ;
Within yourselves deliverance must be sought;
Each man his prison makes '
�CHARLES WATTS’S WORKS.
The Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox
Christianity, is., by post is. 2d.
Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence. 4<d-, by
post 5d.
Secularism: Destructive and Constructive. 3d-> by post 4d.
The Glory of Unbelief. 3d., by post 4d.
Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is the More
Reasonable? 3d-, by post 4d.
A Reply to Father Lambert’s “Tactics of Infidels.” 6d.,
by post 7d.
Theological Presumption.
R. F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr.
2d., by post 2j^d.
The Natural and the Supernatural; or, Belief and Know
ledge. 3d., by post 4d.
Evolution and Special Creation. ContentsWhat is Evolu
tion ?—The Formation of Worlds—The Beginning of Life upon the
Earth—Origin of Man—Diversity of Living Things—Psychical
Powers—The Future of Man on Earth. 3d., by post 3%d.
Happiness in Hell and Misery in Heaven. 3d-, by post 3%d.
Science and the Bible. 4d-, by post 5d.
Bible Morality: Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and
Defective as an Ethical Guide. 3d., by post 3j^d.
Secularism: Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient
to Meet the Wants of Mankind ? Debate between the Editor
of the Evening AZh/Z (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll,
and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener, is., by post is. 2d.
Secularism: its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2%d.
Is there a Life Beyond the Grave ? 3d-, by post 3%d.
Education: True and False. (Dedicated to the London School
Board.)
2d., by post 2j^d.
Christianity and Civilisation: Why Christianity is Still
Professed. 3d., by post 3^d.
Saints and Sinners: Which? 3d., by post 4d.
The Horrors of the French Revolution. 3d., by post 4d.
The Existence of God; or, Questions for Theists. 2d., by
post 2%d.
Secularism: Its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2j^d.
Miscellaneous Pamphlets.
232 pp., in neat binding, 2S., by
post 2S. 3d.
London : Watts & 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 & 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
Why do right? a secularist's answer
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. 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
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
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 (<span class="highlight">Why</span> <span class="highlight">do</span> <span class="highlight">right</span>? a secularist's answer), 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
N680
RA1576
RA767
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
NSS
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e13a1a3baf4573dedb1085df0ee352e3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bkOVldQxJ8Pb7ni7RQrI-D%7EgJisScgXVv5HCC3UR-xS4wDKbQyzzIJbt3%7ExWOkfnHK7Ctc59y-tdwr4Xy0Tr7f-4DlclGXxJyUWMrEYYxzjhpdPP7wobdyX%7E2R9B-SpzHDjplPwRCMou0ysIjFj4WWdZVN2470TVfP0ulc72k4mLNO06sps5jul1URqzwq4Ntmnby7o%7E3WMUbhGdMu8Ld7VFXXFqgQGERWx5NYg4zFjlDsoqxyON%7EM4BnhgAY-QfbGbg1LwWkwoRlBVSlpmovntyxMGECq4UsVhEyvjBU07jqvgPfGCvuK5dOmRugzojmNFNUKq1FC9b59m9fP8BCw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
18e65bb164036a345f640bdb71cc74c5
PDF Text
Text
WHY DO MEN STARVE?
BY C. BRADLAUGH.
ht is it that human beings are starved to death, in a
wealthy country like England, with its palaces, its cathe
drals, and its abbeys ; with its grand mansions, and luxu
rious dwellings, with its fine enclosed parks, and strictly
guarded preserves ; with its mills, mines, and factories ; with
its enormous profits to the capitalists ; and with its broad
acres and great rent rolls to the landholder ? The fact that
men, old, young, and in the prime of life; that women, and
that children, do so die, is indisputable. The paragraph in
the daily journals, headed “ Death from Starvation,” or
« Another death from Destitution,” is no uncommon one to
the eyes of the careful reader.
In a newspaper of one day, December 24th, 1864, may
be read the verdict of a London jury that “ the deceased.
Robert Bloom, died from the mortal effects of effusion or>
the brain and disease of the lungs, arising from natural
causes, but the said death was accelerated by destitution,
and by living in an ill-ventilated room, and in a court
wanting in sanitary requirementsand the verdict of
another jury, presided over by the very Coroner who sat oil
the last case, “ that the deceased, Mary Hale, was found
dead in a certain room from the mortal effects of cold and
starvationas also the history of a poor wanderer from the
Glasgow City Poor House found dead in the snow.
In London, the hive of the world, with its merchant
millionaires, even under the shadow of the wealth pile, star
vation is as busy as if in the most wretched and impo
�2
WHY DO MEN STARVE?
verished village; busy indeed, not always striking the victim
so obtrusively that the coroner’s inquest shall preserve
a record of the fact, but more often busy quietly, in the
wretched court and narrow lane, up in the garret, and down
in the cellar, stealing by slow degrees the life of the poor.
Why does it happen that Christian London, with its mag
nificent houses for God, has so many squalid holes for the
poor? Christianity from its thousand pulpits teaches,
“ Ask and it shall be given to you,” “ who if his son ask
bread, will he give him a stone ?” yet with much prayer the
bread is too frequently not encugh, and it is, alas 1 not seldom
that the prayer for bread gets the answer in the stone of
the paved street, where he lays him down to die. The
prayer of the poor outcast is answered by hunger, misery,
disease, crime, and death, and yet the Bible says, “ Blessed
be ye poor.*’ Ask the orthodox clergyman why men starve,
why men are poor and miserable; he will tell you that
it is God’s will; that it is a punishment for man’s sins.
And so long as men are content to believe that it is God’s
Will that the majority of humankind should have too little
happiness, so long will it be impossible effectually to get
them to listen to the answer to this great question.
Men starve because the great bulk of them are ignorant
of the great law of population, the operation of which coiltrols their existence and determines its happiness Or misery.
They starve, because pulpit teachers have taught them for
centuries to be content with the state of life in which it has
pleased God to call them, instead of teaching them how to
extricate themselves from the misery, degradation, and igno
rance which a continuance of poverty entails.
Men starve because the teachers have taught heaven in
stead of earth, the next world instead of this. It is now
generally admitted by those who have investigated the sub
ject, that there is a tendency in all animated life to increase
beyond the nourishment nature produces. In the human
race, there is a constant endeavour on the part of its mem
bers to increase beyond the means of subsistence within
�WHY DO MEN STARVE?
3
their reach. The want of food to support this increase
operates, in the end, as a positive obstacle to. the further
; spread of population, and men are starved because the great
, mass of them have neglected to listen to one of nature’s
clearest teachings. The unchecked increase of population is
in a geometrical ratio, the increase of food for their subsist
ence is in an arithmetical ratio. That is, while humankind
would increase in proportion as 1, 2, 4, 8,16, 32, 64, 128,
256, food would only increase as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
The more the mouths the less the proportion of food. While
the restraint to an increase of population is thus a want of
food, and starvation is the successful antagonist of strug
gling human life, it is seldom that this obstacle operates im
mediately—its dealing is more often indirectly against its
victims. Those who die of actual famine are few indeed
compared with those who die from various forms of disease,
induced by scarcity of the means of subsistence. If any of my
readers doubt this, their doubts may be removed by a very
short series of visits to the wretched homes of the paupers
of our great cities. Suicide is the refuge mainly of those
who are worn out in a bitter, and, to them, a hopeless struggle
against accumulated ills. Disease, suffering, and misery
are the chief causes of the prevalence of suicide in our coun
try, and suicide is therefore one form, although comparatively
minute, in which the operation of the law of population may
be traced.
From dread of the pangs of poverty, men, women, and
children are driven to unwholesome occupations, which des
troy not only the health of the man and woman actually
employed, but implant the germs of physical disease in their
offspring. A starving woman seeking food mixes white
lead with oil and turpentine for a paltry pittance, which
provides bare existence for her and those who share it; in
a few weeks, she is so diseased she can work no longer, and
the hospital and grave in turn receive her. Men and
women are driven to procure bread by work in lead mines•
they rapidly dig their own graves, and not alone themselves,
�4
WHY DO MEN STARVE.
but their wretched offspring are death-stricken as the
penalty; the lead poisons the blood of parent and child
alike. Young women and children work at artificial flower
making, and soon their occupation teaches that Scheele’s and
Schweenfurth green, bright and pleasing colours to the eye,
are death’s darts too often fatally aimed. The occupation
may be objected to as unhealthy; but the need for food is
great, and the woman’s or child’s wages, wretchedly little
though they are, yet help to fill the mouths at home: so the
wage is taken till the worker dies. Here, again, the checks
to an increase of population all stop short of starvation—the
victims are poisoned instead of starved. So where some
forty or fifty young girls are crowded into a badly ventilated
work-room, not large enough for half the number, from early
in the morning till even near midnight, when orders press;
or in some work-room where slop clothes are made, and
twenty-five tailors are huddled together in a little parlour
scarce wide enough for three—they work to live, and die
slowly while they work. They are not starved, but is this
sort of asphyxiation much better ? The poor are not only
driven to unhealthy, but also to noisome dwellings. There
are in London, Liverpool, G-lasgow, Edinburgh, Man
chester, and other large cities, fearful alleys, with wretched
hoftses, and small ill-ventilated rooms, each room containing
a family, the individuals of which are crowded together
under conditions so wretched that disease, and often speedy
death, is the only possible result. In the East of London,
ten, eleven, and, in some cases, fourteen persons have
been found sleeping in one wretched little room. Is it
wonderful that some of these misery-stricken ones die
before they have time to starve? • Erom poverty the
mother, obliged to constantly work that the miserable
pittance she gets may yield enough to sustain bare life, is
unable properly to nurse and care for baby-child, and often
quick death, or slow but certain disease, ending ultimately
m the grave, is the result.
The poor live by wages. Wages popularly signify the
�WHY DO MEN 8TAB.VE ?
5
amount of money earned by the labourer in a given time;
but the real value of the money-wages is the amount in
quantity and quality of the means of subsistence which
the labourer can purchase with that money. Wages may
be nominally high, but really low, if the food and com
modities to be purchased are, at the same time, dear in price.
An undue increase of population reduces wages in more
than one way : it reduces them in effect, if not in nominal
amount, by increasing the price of the food to be purchased;
and it also reduces the nominal amount, because the nominal
amount depends on the ©mount of capital at disposal for
employ, and the number of labourers seeking employment.
No remedies for low wages, no seheme for the prevention
and removal of poverty can ever be efficacious until they
operate on and through the minds and habits of the masses.
It is not from rich men that the poor must hope for deliver
ance from starvation. It is not to charitable associations
the wretched must appeal. Temporary alleviation of the
permanent evil is the best that can be hoped for from such
aids. It is by the people that the people must be saved. Mea
sures which increase the dependence of the poor on charitable
aid can only temporarily benefit one portion of the labour
ing class while injuring another in the same proportion; and
charity, if carried far, must inevitably involve the recipients
in ultimate ruin and degradation by destroying their mutual
self-reliance. The true way to improve the worker, in all cases
short of actual want of the necessaries of life, is to throw him
entirely on his own resources, but at the same time to teach
him how he may augment those resources to the utmost. It is
only by educating the ignorant poor to a consciousness of the
happiness possible to them, as a result of their own exer
tions, that you can induce them effectually to strive for it.
But, alas 1 as Mr. Mill justly observes, “ Education is not
compatible with extreme poverty. It is impossible effec
tually to teach an indigent population.” The time occupied
in the bare struggle to exist leaves but few moments and
fewer opportunities for mental cultivation to the very poor.
�6
WHY DO WEN STAHWE?
The question of wages and their relation to capital and
population, a question which interests a poor man so much,
is one on which he formerly hardly ever thought at all, and;
on which even now he thinks much too seldom. It is neces
sary to impress on the labourer that the rate of wages de
pends on the proportion between population and capital. If'
population increases without an increase of capital, wages
fell; the number of competitors in the labour market
being greater, and the fund to povide for them not having
increased proportionately, and if capital increases without
an increase of population, wages rise. Many efforts havebeen made to increase wages, but none of them can be per
manently successful which do not include some plan for
preventing a too rapid increase of labourers. Population
has a tendency to increase, and has increased, faster than
capital; this is evidenced by the poor and miserable condi
tion of the great body of the people in most of the old
countries of the world, a condition which can only be
accounted for upon one of two suppositions, either that
there is a natural tendency in population to increase faster
than capital, or that capital has, by some means, been pre
vented from increasing as rapidly as it might have done. That
population has such a tendency to increase that, unchecked,
it would double itself in a small number of years—say
twenty-five—is a proposition which most writers of any
merit coneur in, and which may be easily proven. In some
instances, the increase has been even still more rapid. That
capital has not increased sufficiently is evident from the
existing state of society. But that it could increase under any
circumstances with the same rapidity as is possible to popu
lation, is denied. The increase of capital is retarded
by an obstacle which does not exist in the case of popu
lation. The augmentation of capital is painful. It can
only be effected by abstaining from immediate enjoyment.
In the case of augmentation of population precisely the
reverse obtains. There the temporary and immediate plea-,
sure is succeeded by the permanent pain. The only pos-i
�WHY DO MEN STAI1VE?
7
sible mode of raising wages permanently, and effectually
'benefitting the poor, is by so educating them that they shall
be conscious that their welfare depends upon the exercise of a
greater control over their passions.
In penning this brief paper, my desire has been to
provoke amongst the working classes a discussion and
careful examination of the teachings of political economy,
as propounded by Mr. J. S. Mill and those other
able men who, of late, have devoted themselves to ela
borating and popularising the doctrines enunciated by
Malthus. While I am glad to find that there are some
■amongst the masses who are inclined to preach and put in
practice the teachings of the Malthusian School of political
economists, I know that they are yet few in comparison
with the great body of the working classes who have been
taught to look upon the political economist as the poor
man’s foe. It is nevertheless amongst the working men
alone, and, in the very ranks of the starvers, that the effort
must be made to check starvation. The question is again
before us—How are men to be prevented from starving ?
Not by strikes, during the continuance of which food is
scarcer than before. No combinations of workmen can ob
tain high wages if the number of workers is too great. It
is not by a mere struggle of class against class that the poor
man’s ills can be cured. The working classes can alleviate
their own sufferings. They can, by co-operative schemes,
which have the advantage of being educational in their
operation, temporarily and partially remedy some of the
■evils, if not by increasing the means of subsistence, at
any rate by securing a larger portion of the result of
labour to the proper sustenance of the labourer. Systems
of associated industry are of immense benefit to the work
ing classes, not alone, or so much from the pecuniary
improvement they result in, but because they develop
in each individual a sense of dignity and independence,
which he lacks as a mere hired labourer. They can per
manently improve their condition by taking such steps as
�8
WHY DO MEN STARVE?
shall prevent too rapid an increase of their numbers, and,
by thus checking the supply of labourers, they will, as
capital augments, increase the rate of wages paid to the
labourer. The steady object of each working man should
be to impress on his fellow-worker the importance of this
subject. Let each point out to his neighbour not only the
frightful struggle in which a poor man must engage who
brings up a large family, but also that the result is to place
in the labour market more claimants for a share of the
fund which has hitherto been found insufficient to keep the
working classes from death by starvation.
The object of this pamphlet will be amply attained if it
serve as the means of inducing some of the working classes
to examine for themselves the teachings of Political Economy.
All that is at present needed is that labouring men and
women should be accustomed, both publicly and at home, to
the consideration and discussion of the views and principles
first openly propounded by Mr. Malthus, and since elaborated
by Mr. Mill and other writers. The mere investigation of
the subject will of itself serve to bring to the notice of the
masses many facts hitherto entirely ignored by them. All
must acknowledge the terrible ills resulting from poverty,
and all therefore are bound to use their faculties to discover
Ft’ possible its cause and cure. It is more than folly for the
working man to permit himself to be turned away from the
subject by the cry that the Political Economists have no
sympathy with the poor. If the allegation were true, which
it is not, it would only afford an additional reason why this
important science should find students amongst those who
most need aid from its teachings.
;
1
London: Austin & Co., Printers and Publishers, 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 & 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
Why do men starve?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
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
[1867]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4940
Subject
The topic of the resource
Social problems
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 (Why do men starve?), 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
Poverty
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e4388cf1e70834be45575fc50ab34d76.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BzmQb5R8W043xfe%7Exh8BQZ4-RNiACG8Htob6YxrDlQoCbIu2IlKdYBwdtNiIH6ApzjWfHoACXlBnSSorce2E5Hxga8LVS-9lwRSAAjVA0L3IPwGwKMKzbqJ0JKeWDr7fCalDHe8BUC5nMlmLU6bcvSuvlFhIUCl-je0dA2giVOtEhybdTOTBL2kjH0dNpRvLDxUIMbM0NfwZhc9yx0UuWMb6zpiH-NsuiMboLnHTGTTCD1K2rdoct08SxOd4n1pxUx7aj-QzMZr9s6SI8ahxKIIIoinrg3G4GbKzmMC310ZGY4EY33vQX9awvReLH4cdGiCyCy7Z2IPYWV7noyMTjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
24130d6aa440635deab51b5713c7b3f3
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY /
WHY AM I
AN AGNOSTIC?
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street, E.C.
1902.
�WORKS BY
The Late R. G. INGERSOLL
The House of Death.
Funeral Orations and
Addresses, is.
Mistakes of Moses, is.
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Devil. 6d.
Superstition. 6d.
Shakespeare. 6d.
The Gods. 6d.
The Holy Bible. 6d.
Reply
to
Gladstone.
With an Introduction by
G. W. Foote. 4d.
Rome or Reason ?
A
Reply to Cardinal Man
ning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals
3dOration on Walt Whit
man.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity’s
Debt
to
Thomas Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Christ. 2d.
Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
The Ghosts. 3d.
What Must I do to be
Saved ? 2d.
What is Religion ? 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin ? 2d.
Last Words on Suicide.
2d.
God and the State. 2d.
Faith and Fact.
Reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
God and Man.
Second
reply to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Tolera
tion.
A
Discussion
with the Hon. F. D.
Coudert and Gov. S. L.
Woodford. 2d.
Household of Faith. 2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme ? 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce.
2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake, id.
Live Topics, id.
Myth and Miracle, id.
Real Blasphemy, id.
Why am I an Agnostic ? 2d.
Christ and
Miracles.
id.
Creeds and Spirituality.
id.
The Christian Religion.
3d-
Orders to the amount of 5s. and ibpwards sent post free.
London:
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING Co., Ltd.,
2 Newcastle Street, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
------- ♦-------
The same rules or laws of probability must govern in
religious questions as in others. There is no subject—
and can be none—concerning which any human being is
under any obligation to believe without evidence. Neither
is there any intelligent being who can, by any possibility,
be flattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity. The
man who, without prejudice, reads and understands the
Old and Old Testaments will cease to be an orthodox
Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the
religion of any country without fear and without pre
judice will not and cannot be a believer.
Most people, after arriving at the conclusion that
Jehovah is not God, that the Bible is not an inspired
book, and that the Christian religion, like other religions,
is the creation of man, usually say : “ There must be a
Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his name, and the
Bible is not his word. There must be somewhere an
over-ruling Providence or Power.”
This position is just as untenable as the other. He
who cannot harmonise the cruelties of the Bible with the
goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonise the cruelties of
Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed
Deity. He will find it impossible to account for pesti
lence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery,
for the triumph of the strong over the weak, for the
countess victories of injustice. He will find it impos
sible to account for martyrs—for the burning of the good,
the noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and
the infamous.
How can the Deist satisfactorily account for the
sufferings of women and children ? In what way will
�4
he justify religious persecution—the flame and sword of
religious hatred ? Why did his God sit idly on his
throne and allow his enemies to wet their swords in the
blood of his friends ?
Why did he not answer the
prayers of the imprisoned, of the helpless ? And when
he heard the lash upon the naked back of the slave, why
did he not also hear the prayer of the slave ? And when
children were sold from the breasts of mothers, why was
he deaf to the mother’s cry ?
It seems to me that the man who knows the limita
tions of the mind, who gives the proper value to human
testimony, is necessarily an Agnostic. He gives up the
hope of ascertaining first or final causes, of comprehend
ing the supernatural, or of conceiving of an infinite
personality. From out the words Creator, Preserver,
and Providence, all meaning falls.
The mind of man pursues the path of least resistance,
and the conclusions arrived at by the individual depend
upon the nature and structure of his mind, on his experi
ence, on hereditary drifts and tendencies, and on the
countless things that constitute the difference in minds.
One man, finding himself in the midst of mysterious phe
nomena, comes to the conclusion that all is the result of
design; that back of all things is an infinite personality
—that is to say, an infinite man ; and he accounts for all
that is by simply saying that the universe was created
and set in motion by this infinite personality, and that it
is miraculously and supernaturally governed and pre
served. This man sees with perfect clearness that matter
could not create itself, and therefore he imagines a creator
of matter. He is perfectly satisfied that there is design
in the world, and that, consequently, there must have
been a designer. It does not occur to him that it is
necessary to account for the existence of an infinite
personality. He is perfectly certain that there can be
no design without a designer, and he is equally certain
that there can be a designer who was not designed.
The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place
of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter
was created, and that its creator was not. He assumes
�5
that a creator existed from eternity, without cause, and
created what is called “matter” out of nothing; or,
whereas there was nothing, this creator made the some
thing that we call substance.
Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an
infinite personality ? Can it imagine a beginning-less
being, infinitely powerful and intelligent ? If such a
being existed, then there must have been an eternity
during which nothing did exist except this being;
because, if the universe was created, there must have
been a time when it was not, and back of that there
must have been an eternity during which nothing but
an infinite personality existed. Is it possible to imagine
an infinite intelligence dwelling for an eternity in infinite
nothing ? How could such a being be intelligent ?
What was there to be intelligent about ? There was
but one thing to know—namely, that there was nothing
except this being ? How could such a being be
powerful ? There was nothing to exercise force upon.
There was nothing in the universe to suggest an idea.
Relations could not exist—except the relation between
infinite intelligence and infinite nothing.
The next great difficulty is the act of creation. My
mind is so that I cannot conceive of something being
created out of nothing. Neither can I conceive of any
thing being created without a cause. Let me go one
Stop further. It is just as difficult to imagine something
being created with, as without, a cause. To postulate a
cause does not in the least lessen the difficulty. In spite
of all, this lever remains without a fulcrum. We cannot
conceive of the destruction of substance. The stone can
be crushed to powder, and the powder can be ground to
such a fineness that the atoms can only be distinguished
by the most powerful microscope, and we can then
imagine these atoms being divided and subdivided again
and again ; but it is impossible for us to conceive of the
annihilation of the least possible imaginable fragment of
the least atom of which we can think. Consequently,
the mind can imagine neither creation nor destruc
tion. From this point it is very easy to reach the
�6
generalisation that the indestructible could not have
been created.
These questions, however, will be answered 'by each
individual according to the structure of his mind, accord
ing to his experience, according to his habits of thought,
and according to his intelligence or his ignorance, his
prejudice or his genius.
Probably a very large majority of mankind believe in
the existence of supernatural beings, and a majority of
what are known as civilised nations, in an infinite per
sonality. In the realm of thought majorities do not
determine.
Each brain is a kingdom, each mind is a
sovereign.
The universality of a belief does not even tend to
prove its truth. A large majority of mankind have
believed in what is known as God, and an equally large
majority have as implicitly believed in what is known
as the Devil. These beings have been inferred from
phenomena. They were produced for the most part by
ignorance, by fear and by selfishness. Man in all ages
has endeavored to account for the mysteries of life and
death, of substance, of force, for the ebb and flow of
things, for earth and star. The savage, dwelling in his
cave, subsisting on roots and reptiles, or on beasts that
could be slain with club and stone, surrounded by count
less objects of terror, standing by rivers, so far as he
knew, without source or end, by seas with but one shore,
the prey of beasts mightier than himself, of diseases
strange and fierce, trembling at the voice of thunder,
blinded by the lightning, feeling the earth shake beneath
him, seeing the sky lurid with thev olcano’s glare—fell
prostrate and begged for the protection of the Unknown.
In the long night of savagery, in the midst of pesti
lence and famine, through the long and dreary winters,
crouched in dens of darkness, the seeds of superstition
were sown in the brain of man. The savage believed,
and thoroughly believed, that everything happened in
reference to him ; that he by his actions could excite the
anger, or by his worship placate the wrath, of the
Unseen. He resorted to flattery and prayer. To the
�7
best of his ability, he put in stone, or rudely carved in
wood, his idea of this God. For this idol he built a hut,
a hovel, and at last a cathedral. Before these images
he bowed, and at these shrines, whereon he lavished his
wealth, he sought protection for himself and for the ones
he loved. The few took advantage of the ignorant many.
They pretended to have received messages from the
Unknown. They stood between the helpless multitude
ajnd the gods. They were the carriers of flags of truce.
At the court of heaven they presented the cause of man,
and upon the labor of the deceived they lived.
The Christian of to-day wonders at the savage who
bowed before his idol; and yet it must be confessed that
the god of stone answered prayer and protected his
worshippers precisely as the Christian’s God answers
prayer and protects his worshippers to-day.
My mind is so that it is forced to the conclusion that
substance is eternal; that the universe was without
beginning and will be without end ; that it is the one
eternal existence; that relations are transient and
evanescent; that organisms are produced and vanish;
that forms change—but that the substance of things is
from eternity to eternity. It may be that planets are
born and die, that constellations will fade from the
infinite spaces, that countless suns will be quenched—
but the substance will remain.
The questions of origin and destiny seem to be beyond
the powers of the human mind.
Heredity is on the side of superstition.
All our
ignorance pleads for the old. In most men there is
a feeling that their ancestors were exceedingly good and
brave and wise, and that in all things pertaining to
religion their conclusions should be followed. They
believe that their fathers and mothers were of the best,
and that that which satisfied them should satisfy their
children. With a feeling of reverence they say that
the religion of their mother is good enough and
pure enough and reasonable enough for them.
In
this way the love of parents and the reverence
for ancestors have unconsciously bribed the reason
�8
and put out, or rendered exceedingly dim, the eyes of
the mind.
There is a kind of longing in the heart of the old to
live and die where their parents lived and died—a ten
dency to go back to the homes of their youth. Around
the old oak of manhood grow and cling these vines.
Yet it will hardly do to say that the religion of my
mother is good enough for me, any more than to say the
geology, or the astronomy, or the philosophy of my
mother is good enough for me. Every human being is
entitled to the best he can obtain ; and if there has been
the slightest improvement on the religion of the mother,
the son is entitled to that improvement, and he should
not deprive himself of that advantage by the mistaken
idea that he owes it to his mother to perpetuate, in a
reverential way, her ignorant mistakes.
If we are to follow the religion of our fathers and
mothers, our fathers and mothers should have followed
the religion of theirs. Had this been done, there could
have been no improvement in the world of thought.
The first religion would have been the last, and the
child would have died as ignorant as the mother.
Progress would have been impossible, and on the graves
of ancestors would have been sacrificed the intelligence
of mankind.
We know, too, that there has been the religion of the
tribe, of the community, and of the nation, and that
there has been a feeling that it was the duty of every
member of the tribe or community, and of every citizen
of the nation, to insist upon it that the religion of that
tribe, of that community, of that nation, was better than
that of any other.
We know that all the prejudices
against other religions, and all the egotism of nation and
tribe, were in favour of the local superstition. Each
citizen was patriotic enough to denounce the religions of
other nations and to stand firmly by his own. And
there is this peculiary about man : he can see the absur
dities of other religions while blinded to those of his own.
The Christian can see clearly enough that Mohammed
was an imposter. He is sure of it, because the people
�9
of Mecca who were acquainted with him declared that
he was no prophet; and this declaration is received by
Christians as a demonstration that Mohammed was not
inspired.
Yet these same Christians admit that the
people of Jerusalem who were acquainted with Christ
rejected him ; and this rejection they take as proof
positive that Christ was the Son of God.
The average man adopts the religion of his country,
or, rather, the religion of his country adopts him. He is
dominated by the egotism of race, the arrogance of
nation, and the prejudice called patriotism. He does
not reason—he feels.
He does not investigate—he
believes.
To him the religions of other nations are
absurd and infamous, and their gods monsters of
ignorance and cruelty. In every country this average
man is taught, first, that there is a supreme being ;
second, that he has made known his will; third, that he
will reward the true believer ; fourth, that he will punish
the unbeliever, the scoffer and the blasphemer; fifth,
that certain ceremonies are pleasing to his god; sixth,
that he has established a church; and seventh, that
priests are his representatives on earth. And the average
man has no difficulty in determining that the god of his
nation is the true God ; that the will of this true God is
contained in the sacred scriptures of his nation ; that he
is one of the true believers, and that the people of other
nations—that is, believing other religions—are scoffers ;
that the only true church is the one to which he belongs;
and that the priests of his country are the only ones who
have had or ever will have the slightest influence with
this true God. All these absurdities to the average man
seem self-evident propositions; and so he holds all the
other creeds in scorn, and congratulates himself that he
is a favourite of the one true God.
If the average Christian had been born in Turkey,
he would have been a Mohammedan; and if the
average Mohammedan had been born in New England
and educated at Andover, he would have regarded the
damnation of the heathen as the “ tidings of great
j°y-”
�IO
Nations have eccentricities, peculiarities, and halluci
nations, and these find expression in their laws, customs,
ceremonies, morals, and religions. And these are in
great part determined by soil, climate, and the countless
circumstances that mould and dominate the lives and
habits of insects, individuals, and nations. The average
man believes implicitly in the religion of his country,
because he knows nothing of any other and has no desire
to know. It fits him because he has been deformed to
fit it, and he regards this fact of fit as an evidence of its
inspired truth.
Has a man the right to examine, to investigate, the
religion of his own country—the religion of his father
and mother ? Christians admit that the citizens of all
countries not Christian have not only this right, but that
it is their solemn duty. Thousands of missionaries are
sent to heathen countries to persuade the believers in
other religions not only to examine their superstitions,
but to renounce them, and to adopt those of the mission
aries. It is the duty of a heathen to disregard the
religion of his country and to hold in contempt the creed
of his father and of his mother. If the citizens of heathen
nations have the right to examine the foundations of
their religion, it would seem that the citizens of Christian
nations have the same right. Christians, however, go
further than this; they say to the heathen: You must
examine your religion, and not only so, but you must
reject it; and, unless you do reject it, and, in addition to
such rejection, adopt ours, you will be eternally damned.
Then these same Christians say to the inhabitants of a
Christian country: You must not examine; you must
not investigate; but whether you examine or, you must
believe, or you will be eternally damned.
If there be one true religion, how is it possible to
ascertain which of all the religions the true one is ?
There is but one way. We must impartially examine
the claims of all. The right to examine involves the
necessity to accept or reject. Understand me, not the
right to accept or reject, but the necessity. From this
conclusion there is no possible escape. If, then, we
�II
have the right to examine, we have the right to tell the
conclusion reached.
Christians have examined other
religions somewhat, and they have expressed their opinion
with the utmost freedom—that is to say, they have
denounced them all as false and fraudulent, have called
their gods idols and myths, and their priests impostors.
The Christian does not deem it worth while to read
the Koran. Probably not one Christian in a thousand
ever saw a copy of that book. And yet all Christians
are perfectly satisfied that the Koran is the work of an
impostor. No Presbyterian thinks it is worth his while
to examine the religious systems of India; he knows
that the Brahmins are mistaken, and that all their
miracles are falsehoods. No Methodist cares to read
the life of Buddha, and no Baptist will waste his time
Studying the ethics of Confucius. Christians of every
sort and kind take it for granted that there is only one
true religion, and that all except Christianity are abso
lutely without foundation. The Christian world believes
that all the prayers of India are unanswered ; that all
the sacrifices upon the countless altars of Egypt, of
Greece, and of Rome were without effect. They believe
that all these mighty nations worshipped their gods in
vain ; that their priests were deceivers or deceived ; that
their ceremonies were wicked or meaningless ; that their
temples were built by ignorance and fraud, and that no
god heard their songs of praise, their cries of despair,
their words of thankfulness; that on account of their
religion no pestilence was stayed ; that the earthquake
and volcano, the flood and storm, went on their ways of
death—while the real God looked on and laughed at
their calamities and mocked at their fears.
We find now that the prosperity of nations has
depended, not upon their religion, not upon the goodness
or providence of some god, but on soil and climate and
commerce, upon the ingenuity, industry, and courage of
the people, upon the development of the mind, on the
spread of education, on the liberty of thought and
action ; and that in this mighty panorama of national
life reason has built and superstition has destroyed.
�12
Being satisfied that all believe precisely as they must,
and that religions have been naturally produced, I have
neither praise nor blame for any man. Good men have
had bad creeds, and bad men have had good ones.
Some of the noblest of the human race have fought and
died for the wrong. The brain of man has been the
trysting-place of contradictions. Passion often masters
reason, and “ the state of man, like to a little kingdom,
suffers then the nature of an insurrection.”
In the discussion of theological or religious questions,
we have almost passed the personal phase, and we are
now weighing arguments instead of exchanging epithets
and curses. They who really seek for truth must be the
best of friends. Each knows that his desire can never
take the place of fact, and that, next to finding truth,
the greatest honor must be won in honest search.
We see that many ships are driven in many ways by
the same wind. So men, reading the same book, write
many creeds and lay out many roads to heaven. To the
best of my ability, I have examined the religions of
many countries and the creeds of many sects. They
are much alike, and the testimony by which they are
substantiated is of such a character that to those who
believe is promised an eternal reward. In all the sacred
books there are some truths, some rays of light, some
words of love and hope. The face of savagery is some
times softened by a smile—the human triumphs and the
heart breaks into song. But in these books are also
found the words of fear and hate, and from their pages
crawl serpents that coil and hiss in all the paths of men.
For my part, I prefer the books that inspiration has
not claimed. Such is the nature of my brain that
Shakespeare gives me greater joy than all the prophets
of the ancient world. There are thoughts that satisfy
the hunger of the mind. I am convinced that Humboldt
knew more of geology than the author of Genesis; that
Darwin was a greater naturalist than he who told the
story of the Flood ; that Laplace was better acquainted
with the habits of the sun and moon than Joshua could
have been, and that Haeckel, Huxley, and Tyndal
�13
know more about the earth and stars, about the history
of man, the philosophy of life—more that is of use, ten
thousand times—than all the writers of the sacred books.
I believe in the religion of reason—the gospel of this
world ; in the development of the mind, in the accumu
lation of intellectual wealth, to the end that man may
free himself from superstitious fear, to the end that he
may take advantage of the forces of nature to feed and
clothe the world.
Let us be honest with ourselves. In the presence of
countless mysteries; standing beneath the boundless
heaven sown thick with constellations; knowing that
each grain of sand, each leaf, each blade of grass, asks
of every mind the answerless question ; knowing that
the simplest thing defies solution ; feeling that we deal
with the superficial and the relative, and that we are for
ever eluded by the real, the absolute—let us admit the
limitations of our minds, and let us have the courage
and the candor to say: We do not know.
The Christian religion rests on miracles. There are
no miracles in the realm of science. The real philo
sopher does not seek to excite wonder, but to make that
plain which was wonderful. He does not endeavor to
astonish, but to enlighten. He is perfectly confident
that there are no miracles in nature. He knows that
the mathematical expression of the same relations,
contents, areas, numbers and proportions must forever
remain the same. He knows that there are no miracles
in chemistry; that the attractions and repulsions, the
loves and hatreds, of atoms are constant. Under like
conditions, he is certain that like will always happen ;
that the product has been and forever will be the same ;
that the atoms or particles unite in definite, unvarying
proportions—so many of one kind mix, mingle, and
harmonise with just so many of another, and the surplus
will be forever cast out.
There are no exceptions.
Substances are always true to their natures. They
have no caprices, no prejudices, that can vary or control
their action. They are “ the same yesterday, to-day,
and forever.”
�i4
In this fixedness, this constancy, this eternal integrity,
the intelligent man has absolute confidence. It is use
less to tell him that there was a time when fire would
not consume the combustible, when water would not
flow in obedience to the attraction of gravitation, or that
there ever was a fragment of a moment during which
substance had no weight.
Credulity should be the servant of intelligence. The
ignorant have not credulity enough to believe the actual,
because the actual appears to be contrary to the evidence
of their senses. To them it is plain that the sun rises
and sets, and they have not credulity enough to believe
in the rotary motion of the earth—that is to say, they
have not intelligence enough to comprehend the absur
dities involved in their belief, and the perfect harmony
between the rotation of the earth and all known facts.
They trust their eyes, not their reason. Ignorance has
always been and always will be at the mercy of appear
ance. Credulity, as a rule, believes everything except
the truth. The semi-civilised believe in astrology, but
who could convince them of the vastness of astronomical
spaces, the speed of light, or the magnitude and number
of suns and constellations ? If Hermann and Humboldt
could have appeared before savages, which would have
been regarded as a god ?
When men knew nothing of mechanics, nothing of
correlation of force, and of its indestructibility, they
were believers in perpetual motion. So when chemistry
was a kind of sleight-of-hand, or necromancy, something
accomplished by the aid of the supernatural, people
talked about the transmutation of metals, the universal
solvent, and the philosopher’s stone. Perpetual motion
would be a mechanical miracle; and the transmutation
of metals would be a miracle in chemistry; and if we
could make the result of multiplying two by two five,
that would be a miracle in mathematics.
No one
expects to find a circle the diameter of which is just
one-fourth of the circumference.
If one could find
such a circle then there would be a miracle in
geometry.
�i5
In other words, there are no miracles in any science.
The moment we understand a question or subject, the
miraculous necessarily disappears. If anything actually
happens in the chemical world, it will under like condi
tions happen again. No one need take an account of
this result from the mouths of others: all can try the
experiment for themselves. There is no caprice, and no
accident.
It is admitted, at least by the Protestant world, that
the age of miracles has passed away, and, consequently,
miracles cannot at present be established by miracles ;
they must be substantiated by the testimony of wit
nesses who are said by certain writers—or, rather, by
uncertain writers—to have lived several centuries ago ;
and this testimony is given to us, not by the witnesses
themselves, not by persons who say that they talked
with those witnesses, but by unknown persons who did
not give the sources of their information.
The question is : Can miracles be established except
by miracles ? We know that the writers may have been
mistaken. It is possible that they may have manufac
tured these accounts themselves. The witnesses may
have told what they knew to be untrue, or they may
have been honestly deceived, or the stories may have
been true as first told. Imagination may have added
greatly to them, so that after several centuries of accre
tion a very simple truth was changed to a miracle.
We must admit that all probabilities must be against
miracles, for the reason that that which is probable
cannot by any possibility be a miracle. Neither the
probable nor the possible, so far as man is concerned,
can be miraculous. The probability therefore says that
the writers and witnesses were either mistaken or dis
honest.
We must admit that we have never seen a miracle
ourselves, and we must admit that, according to our
experience, there are no miracles. If we have mingled
with the world we are compelled to say that we have
known a vast number of persons—including ourselves—
to be mistaken, and many others who have failed to tell
�the exact truth. The probabilities are on the side of our
experience, and, consequently, against the miraculous ;
and it is a necessity that the free mind moves along the
path of least resistance.
The effect of testimony depends on the intelligence
and honesty of the witness and the intelligence of him
who weighs. A man living in a community where the
supernatural is expected, where the miraculous is sup
posed to be of almost daily occurrence, will, as a rule,
believe that all wonderful things are the result of super
natural agencies. He will expect providential inter
ference, and, as a consequence, his mind will pursue
the path of least resistance, and will account for all
phenomena by what to him is the easiest method. Such
people, with the best intentions, honestly bear false
witness. They have been imposed upon by appear
ances, and are victims of delusion and illusion.
In an age when reading and writing were substantially
unknown, and when history itself was but the vaguest
hearsay handed down from dotage to infancy, nothing
was rescued from oblivion except the wonderful, the
miraculous. The more marvellous the story, the greater
the interest excited. Narrators and hearers were alike
ignorant and alike honest. At that time nothing was
known, nothing suspected, of the orderly course of nature
—of the unbroken and unbreakable chain of causes and
effects. The world was governed by caprice. Every
thing was at the mercy of a being, or beings, who were
themselves controlled by the same passions that dominate
man. Fragments of facts were taken for the whole, and
the deductions drawn were honest and monstrous.
It is probably certain that all the religions of the
world have been believed, and that all the miracles have
found credence in countless brains ; otherwise they could
not have been perpetuated. They were not all born of
cunning. Those who told were as honest as those who
heard. This being so, nothing has been too absurd for
human credence.
All religions, so far as I know, claim to have been
miraculously founded, miraculously preserved, and mira-
�i7
culously propagated. The priests of all claimed to have
messages from God, and claimed to have a certain
authority, and the miraculous has always been appealed
to for the purpose of substantiating the message and
the authority.
If men believe in the supernatural, they will account
for all phenomena by an appeal to supernatural means
or power. We know that formerly everything was
accounted for in this way except some few simple things
with which man thought he was perfectly acquainted.
After a time men found that under like conditions like
would happen, and as to those things the supposition of
Supernatural interference was abandoned ; but that inter
ference was still active as to all the unknown world. In
other words, as the circle of man’s knowledge grew,
supernatural interference withdrew, and was active only
just beyond the horizon of the known.
Now, there are some believers in universal special
providence™that is, men who believe in perpetual inter
ference by a supernatural power, this interference being
for the purpose of punishing or rewarding, of destroying
or preserving, individuals and nations.
Others have abandoned the idea of providence in
ordinary matters, but still believe that God interferes on
great occasions and at critical moments, especially in
the affairs of nations, and that his presence is manifest
in great disasters. This is the compromise position.
These people believe that an infinite being made the
universe and impressed upon it what they are pleased to
call “ laws,” and then left it to run in accordance with
those laws and forces ; that as a rule it works well, and
that the divine Maker interferes only in cases of accident,
pr at moments when the machine fails to accomplish the
original design.
There are others who take the ground that all is
natural; that there never has been, never will be, never
can be, any interference from without, for the reason
that Nature embraces all, and that there can be no
without or beyond.
The first class are Theists pure and simple; the
�i8
second are Theists as to the unknown, Naturalists as to
the known; and the third are Naturalists without a
touch or taint of superstition.
What can the evidence of the first class be worth ?
This question is answered by reading the history of those
nations that believed thoroughly and implicitly in the
supernatural. There is no conceivable absurdity that
was not established by their testimony. Every law or
every fact in nature was violated. Children were born
without parents; men lived for thousands of years;
others subsisted without food, without sleep ; thousands
and thousands were possessed with evil spirits, controlled
by ghosts and ghouls ; thousands confessed themselves
guilty of impossible offences, and in courts, with the
most solemn forms, impossibilities were substantiated by
the oaths, affirmations, and confessions of men, women,
and children.
These delusions were not confined to ascetics and
peasants, but they took possession of nobles and kings;
of people who were at that time called intelligent; of
the then educated. No one denied these wonders, for
the reason that denial was a crime punishable generally
with death. Societies, nations, became insane—victims
of ignorance, of dreams, and, above all, of fears. Under
these conditions human testimony is not, and cannot be,
of the slightest value. We now know that nearly all of
the history of the world is false, and we know this
because we have arrived at that phase or point of intel
lectual development where and when we know that
effects must have causes, that everything is naturally
produced, and that, consequently, no nation could ever
have been great, powerful, and rich, unless it had the
soil, the people, the intelligence, and the commerce.
Weighed in these scales, nearly all histories are found
to be fictions.
The same is true of religions.
Every intelligent
American is satisfied that the religions of India, of
Egypt,
Greece and Rome, of the Aztecs, were and are
false, and that all the miracles on which they rest are
mistakes.
Our religion alone is excepted.
Every
�i9
intelligent Hindoo discards all religions and all miracles
except his own. The question is When will pceple see
the defects in their own theology as clearly as they
perceive the same defects in every other ?
All the so-called false religions were substantiated by
miracles, by signs and wonders, by . prophets and
martyrs, precisely as our own. Our witnesses are no
better than theirs, and our success is no greater. If
their miracles were false, ours cannot be true. Nature
was the same in India as in Palestine.
One of the corner-stones of Christianity is the mir
acle of inspiration, and this same miracle lies at the
foundation of all religions.
How can the fact of. in
spiration be established ?
How could even the inspired
man know that he was inspired ? If he was influenced
to write and did write, and did express thoughts and
facts that to him were absolutely new, on subjects about
which he had previously known nothing, how could
he know that he had been influenced by an infinite being ?
And if he could know, how could he convince others ?
What is meant by inspiration ? Did the one inspired
set down only the thoughts of a supernatural being ?
Was he simply an instrument, or did his personality
color the message received and given ? Did he.mix his
ignorance with the divine information, his prejudices and
hatreds with the love and justice of the deity ? If God
told him not to eat the flesh of any beast that dieth of
itself, did the same infinite being also tell him to sell this
meat to the stranger within his gates ?
A man says that he is inspired—that God appeared to
him in a dream, and told him certain things. Now, the
things said to have been communicated may have been
good and wise; but will the fact that the communication
is good or wise establish the inspiration ? If, on the
other hand, the communication is absurd or wicked., will
that conclusively show that the man was not inspired ?
Must we judge from the communication ? In other
words, is our reason to be the final standard ?
How could the inspired man know that the communi
cation was received from God ? If God in reality should
�20
appear to a human being, how could this human bein°know who had appeared ? By what standard would he
judge . Upon this question man has no experience ; he
is not familiar enough with the supernatural to know
gods even if they exist. Although thousands have pre
tended to receive messages, there has been no message
m which there was, or is, anything above the invention
0 ,man< There are just as wonderful things in the unin
spired as in the inspired books, and the prophecies of the
heathen have been fulfilled equally with those of the
Judaean prophets. If, then, even the inspired man cannot certainly know that he is inspired, how is it possible
for him to demonstrate his inspiration to others ? The
last solution of this question is that inspiration is a mir
acle about which only the inspired can have the least
knowledge, or the least evidence, and this knowledge and
this evidence not of a character to convince even the
inspired.
There is certainly nothing in the Old or the New
Testament that could not have been written by unin
spired human beings. To me there is nothing of any
particular value in the Pentateuch. I do not know of a
solitary scientific truth contained in the five books com
monly attributed to Moses. There is not, as far as I
know, a line in the book of Genesis calculated to make a
human being better. The laws contained in Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are for the most
part puerile and cruel. Surely there is nothing in any of
these books that could not have been produced by unin
spired . men. Certainly there is nothing calculated to
excite intellectual admiration in the book of Judges or in
the wa.rs of Joshua ; and the same may be said of Samuel,
Chronicles, and Kings. The history is extremely childish,
full of repetitions, of useless details, without the slightest
philosophy, without a generalisation born of a wide sur
vey. Nothing is known of other nations; nothing im
parted of the slightest value; nothing about education,
discovery, or invention. And these idle and stupid
annals are interspersed with myth and miracle, with
flattery for kings who supported priests, and with curses
�21
and denunciations for those who would not hearken to
the voice of the prophets. If all the historic books of
the Bible were blotted from the memory of mankind,
nothing of value would be lost.
Is it possible that the writer or writers of First and
Second Kings were inspired, and that Gibbon wrote
“ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ” without
supernatural assistance ? Is it possible that the author
of Judges was simply the instrument of an infinite God,
while John W. Draper wrote “ The Intellectual Develop
ment of Europe ” without one ray of light from the other
world ? Can we believe that the author of Genesis had
to be inspired, while Darwin experimented, ascertained,
and reached conclusions for himself?
Ought not the work of a God to be vastly superior to
that of a man ? And if the writers of the Bible were in
reality inspired, ought not that book to be the greatest
of books?
For instance, if it were contended that
certain statues had been chiselled by inspired men, such
statues should be superior to any that uninspired man
has made. As long as it is admitted that the Venus de
Milo is the work of man, no one will believe in inspired
sculptors—at least until a superior statue has been found.
So in the world of painting. We admit that Corot was
uninspired. Nobody claims that Angelo had super
natural assistance. Now, if some one should claim
that a certain painter was simply the instrumentality of
God, certainly the pictures produced by that painter
should be superior to all others.
I do not see how it is possible for an intelligent human
being to conclude that the Song of Solomon is the work
of God, and that the tragedy of “ Lear ” was the work
of an uninspired man. We are all liable to be mistaken,
but the Iliad seems to me a greater work than the book
of Esther, and I prefer it to the writings of Haggai and
Hosea. ^Eschylus is superior to Jeremiah, and Shakes
peare rises immeasurably above all the sacred books of
the world.
It does not seem possible that any human being ever
tried to establish a truth—anything that really happened
�22
by what is called a miracle. It is easy to understand
how that which was common became wonderful by accre
tion—by things added, and by things forgotten—and it is
easy to conceive how that which was wonderful became
by accretion what was called supernatural. But it does
not seem possible that any intelligent, honest man ever
endeavored to prove anything by a miracle.
As a matter of fact, miracles could only satisfy people
who demanded no evidence; else how could they have
believed the miracle ? It also appears to be certain that,
even if miracles had been performed, it would be im
possible to establish that fact by human testimony. In
other words, miracles can only be established by miracles,
and in no event could miracles be evidence except to
those who were actually present; and in order for
miracles to be of any value, they would have to be
perpetual. It must also be remembered that a miracle
actually performed could by no possibility shed any light
on any moral truth, or add to any human obligation.
If any man has ever been inspired, this is a secret
miracle, known to no person, and suspected only by the
man claiming to be inspired. It would not be in the
power of the inspired to give satisfactory evidence of that
fact to anybody else.
The testimony of man is insufficient to establish the
supernatural. Neither the evidence of one man nor of
twelve can stand when contradicted by the experience
of the intelligent world. If a book sought to be proved
by miracles is true, then it makes no difference whether
it was inspired or not ; and if it is not true, inspiration
cannot add to its value.
The truth is that the Church has always—unconsci
ously, perhaps—offered rewards for falsehood. It was
founded upon the supernatural, the miraculous, and it
welcomed all statements calculated to support the foun
dation. It rewarded the traveller who found evidences
of the miraculous, who had seen the pillar of salt into
which the wife of Lot had been changed, and the tracks
of Pharoah’s chariots on the sands of the Red Sea. It
heaped honors on the historian who filled his pages with
�23
the absurd and the impossible. It had geologists and
astronomers of its own, who constructed the earth and
the constellations in accordance with the Bible. With
sword and flame it destroyed the brave and thoughtful
men who told the truth. It was the enemy of investiga
tion and of reason. Faith and fiction were in partner
ship.
To-day the intelligence of the world denies the mira
culous. Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The
foundation of Christianity has crumbled, has disappeared,
and the entire fabric must fall. The natural is true.
The miraculous is false.
�FREETHOUGHT
PUBLICATIONS.
THE AGE OF REASON (The Twentieth Century Edition).
By Thomas Paine, With a Biographical Introduction
and Annotations. By G. W. Foote. And a Beautiful
ortrait of Paine. Price 6d. Postage of single copies,
2d. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d.
THE BIBLE HANDBOOK for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. Edited by G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball.
A new edition, revised, and handsomely printed. Cheap
Edition, paper covers, Is. 6d. ; cloth, 2s. 6d.
FLOY ERS OF FREETHOUGHT. First Series. Fiftyone Selected Articles and Essays ; 221 pages. Cloth,
2s. 6d.; postage 3d. Second Series (cloth), 2s. 6d.
BIBLE ROMANCES. By G. W. Foote. The Second
(Revised) Edition Complete. 160 Pages. Bound in
Cloth. Price Two Shillings.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Chapters :—(1) Christ to
Constantine. (2) Constantine to Hypatia. (3) Monkery,
(4) Pious Forgeries. (5) Pious Frauds. (6) Rise of the
Papacy. (7) Crimes of the Popes. (8) Persecution of
the Jews. (9) The Crusades. 224 pp., cloth, 2s. 6d.;
postage 3d. Hundreds of references are given to
standard authorities. No pains have been spared to
make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswer
able Indictment of Christianity. The Tree is judged by
its Fruit.
FOREIGN MISSIONS : Their Dangers and Delusions. Bv
C. Cohen. Price 9d.
GRAND- OLD BOOK, THE. A Reply to the Grand Old
Man. An Exhaustive Answer to the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone s Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture, Is.
Bound in cloth, Is. 6d., postage lid.
Published Every Thursday,
“THE FREETHINKER.”
One of
Liveliest and Most Outspoken Journals
in the World.
Edited by G. W. Foote. Price Twopence.
the
Send for Specimen Copy. Post Free,
With Catalogue of the Company’s Publications.
The Freethought Publishing Company, Limited, 2 Newcastle St.,
Farringdon St., E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why am I an agnostic?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements inside front cover and on back cover. No. 93d in Stein checklist.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1902
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N413
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
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 (Why am I an agnostic?), 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
Agnosticism
NSS