Ingersoll of attacking a theology which, he tells us, is "opposed to all reason," and now "well nigh obsolete." I would simply say if it is "obsolete," it is the stock in trade of the Christian Church today. Take away from it this obsolete theology (which is "opposed to all reason,") and there is nothing left of Christianity worth speaking of; for the morality Christianity contains does not of right belong to it It is Pagan. It has been _appropriated_ by Christianity, and is not original with it. There is not a single moral precept in the Bible, but was taught before that book was written. (For proof of this, see Sir Wm. Jones, Max Muller, Lord Amberly, and "Supernatural Religion.") Therefore, when you take away the dogmas of Christianity--its "obsolete theology"--you take away Christianity itself to all intents and purposes. And hence the utter inconsistency and absurdity of our opponents in taxing us with merely attacking a dead theology, when that dead theology is all there is of a religion which they defend and wish to perpetuate. Seeing, then, that the theology of Christianity is admittedly dead, why not give it up and come over to us? for all you have left--the brotherhood of man--belongs to us: it is our RELIGION OF HUMANITY.
As the only salient point, to my mind, in Mr. Bray"s reply to Ingersoll is dealt with in the following letter, which I addressed to the _Spectator_, and which appeared in its columns, I have only s.p.a.ce here to reproduce that letter:--
To the Editor of the Canadian Spectator:
Sir,--In your issue of the 10th instant, in a discourse in reply to Col.
Ingersoll, I find the following:--
"The lecturer, who seemed to imagine that he understood everything else, was compelled to acknowledge that he did not understand why there should be so much hunger and pain and misery. Why, the world over, life should live upon life. When he has cast Jehovah out of the Universe, he is pained and puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow. With G.o.d he cannot account for it; without G.o.d he cannot account for it. If Col. Ingersoll, or any other of that school, can give me an intelligent theory of life, and satisfactory solution of the problem of the presence of evil and pain without G.o.d, I am prepared to consider it."
Now, Sir, having the honor (or dishonor, as the case may be,) to belong to that school, I venture to take up the gauntlet thus thrown down. From our stand-point we are able, we think, to give an intelligent theory of these things; and although it may not be wholly devoid of mystery, we claim it is less mysterious than the Christian theory. We claim that the Materialistic explanation of the Universe and its phenomena is more reasonable and less mysterious than the Theistic; and this is why we find ourselves compelled to adopt it and become Atheists. On the Materialistic hypothesis of development and evolution we are certainly _not_ "puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow," however much we may be pained at their fearful prevalence. It is only on the hypothesis of being under the governance of an omnipotent and infinitely _benevolent_ Being that we are utterly unable to account for such-a state of things. Although the ultimate tendency of the forces of the-Universe seems to be towards a higher, and higher, and more perfect condition, not only for man, but all animals, and even plants, yet these-forces are, as Science abundantly proves, utterly without mercy--without pity for man or any other animal. Therefore, on the evolution philosophy of things, we can reasonably predicate pain, sorrow, and wrong; and are not puzzled at their existence. It is only on the theory of a _good_ G.o.d controlling the Universe that we stand dumb with confusion and wonderment in the presence of all this woe, pain, misery, and wrong-with which the world is filled--this terrible "struggle for life," where the-strong prey upon the weak, where animal eats animal, and man eats-man!
The theologians have had upwards of two thousand years to reduce the Materialistic paradoxes of Epicurus on the existence of evil, but have they done so? If there be a G.o.d, and He is all-powerful, He _could_ remove the _surplus_ evil and pain from the world, and if He is all-good He _would_ remove it, is an argument which has never yet been answered by a Paley, a Butler, a Dawson, or any other Christian Theist or Bible apologist. I use the phrase "_surplus_ evil and pain" for this reason: As a sort of apology for the rank malevolence abroad in the world, and as an argument for the existence of a beneficent G.o.d, Christian Theists tell us that pain is necessary as an antecedent to the proper enjoyment of pleasure; that it is necessary to the growth and development of character; that the storm of the ocean is an essential pre-requisite to the adequate enjoyment of the subsequent calm; that all smooth sailing would be monotonous and insipid. Now, we will admit this for the sake of the argument; but there yet remains the ma.s.s of _surplus_ evil to be accounted for, which is wholly unnecessary for such corrective and distributive purposes. It may, perhaps, be necessary that the tempest toss the ship about on the bosom of the ocean in order that the living freight may have a keener appreciation of the succeeding calm, and also to develop awe and sublimity in their b.r.e.a.s.t.s; but to accomplish this it is scarcely to the purpose to send all to the bottom of the ocean! That we may have a proper relish for our food and a due appreciation of the blessings of a good appet.i.te, it may be necessary that we feel the pangs of hunger and starvation occasionally; but to give us this wholesome discipline it would seem hardly necessary that millions of human beings should actually be starved to death!
Now, on the theory of _inexorable law_* instead of a _beneficent Providence_, we are not surprised that a ship which is not strong enough to ride the storm should go to the bottom, even though five hundred bishops and clergymen be aboard supplicating an unknown G.o.d for succor.
On the theory of inexorable and merciless law in which we are fast bound, we are not "puzzled" that millions of human beings should starve to death when these laws or conditions of Nature are violated in over-population and a false political and social economy. Or when a Tay bridge goes down with its living freight under the pressure of train and tempest, the Atheist is neither surprised nor puzzled: but the Christian, who worships a benevolent (?) G.o.d and believes that not a hair falls from his head without His notice, can only look at such a malevolent horror in dumb silence and amazement--he has no explanation.
Our theory of the presence of evil in the world is, therefore, at least rational; but, is the Christian theory rational? Is it rational to-suppose that all the pain, sorrow, and evil in the world have been caused by the puerile circ.u.mstance of a woman eating an apple? This would be as monstrously unjust as it is irrational and absurd.
As to the origin and maintenance of life "without G.o.d," it is quite as comprehensible and rational without G.o.d as with one with the Christian conditions and qualifications. An universe of matter containing the "promise and potency of all forms and qualities of life" is as intelligible and comprehensible as a G.o.d _outside_ the Universe embodying the potency of all life. From the time that Lucretius declared that "Nature is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the G.o.ds," and Bruno that matter is the "universal mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb," down to Prof. Tyndall, who discerns in matter "the promise and potency of every form and quality of life," scientists have never been able to discover the least intrusion of any creative power into the operations of
* Materialists, in using the phrase "law of Nature," use a popular expression, but not in the popular sense as presupposing a law-giver. By "law of Nature" we simply mean natural sequence--the uniformity of Nature"s operations.
Nature and the affairs of this world, or the least trace of interference by any G.o.d or G.o.ds. In the primeval ages of ignorance and barbarism the G.o.ds were supposed to do everything, from the production of wind, rain, tempest, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, &c, down to dyspepsia and potato-bugs. Science now explains all these things and a thousand others. Indeed, in modern philosophy there is no room for the G.o.ds in the Universe, and nothing left for them to do. And there cannot be any room _beyond_ it for them, for "above Nature we cannot rise."
The Materialistic theory (and to it we subscribe) is that there is but _one existence_, the _Universe_, and that it is eternal--without beginning or end--that the matter of the Universe never could have been created, for _ex nihilo nihil fit_, (from nothing nothing can come,) and that it contains within itself the potency adequate to the production of all phenomena. This we think to be more conceivable and intelligent than the Christian theory that there are two existences--G.o.d and the Universe--and that there was a time when there was but one existence, G.o.d, and that after an indefinite period of quiescence and "masterly inactivity" He finally created a Universe either out of Himself or out of nothing--either one of which propositions is philosophically absurd.
And in either case, to say that G.o.d would be infinite would be equally absurd.
Respectfully,
ALLEN PRINGLE.
Napanee, Ont., April 23, 1880.
THE OATH QUESTION
(TO CANADIAN FREETHINKERS.)
As this Pamphlet will be widely circulated throughout Canada (especially Ontario), it will come into the hands of most Canadian Freethinkers, and I have therefore thought this an opportune time to bring this question, in which we are all so deeply interested, before the Freethinkers of Canada, and urge upon them the necessity of agitation for reform. The time has come, I think, for action in pet.i.tioning Parliament to remove the serious and most unjust disabilities under which we, as a cla.s.s, are now placed, and thus have equal rights extended to all citizens. As the law now stands we are deprived of our rights in the courts, and the ends of justice are often defeated, not only to our detriment but that of Christians themselves. If the presiding judge choose to adhere to the strict letter of the law the testimony of Atheists is refused. It is very easy to see how the gravest injustice could be inflicted upon Freethinkers and Christians alike under this unjust law. A Freethinker may be the only witness to a case involving the interests of a Christian, or he may be the only witness for himself as against a Christian; and by his not being eligible as a witness the ends of justice are defeated. Or an unscrupulous believer may claim that he is a Freethinker to get rid of giving evidence altogether. It is true there seems to rest with the Judges a large amount of discretionary power as to whom they will or will not accept to give evidence; and the majority, perhaps, of our Canadian Judges exhibit a commendable spirit of liberality in the matter of accepting the testimony of Freethinkers. But occasionally one is to be met with, too full of religion and bigotry to recognize our rights or extend any discretion in our favor. In the city of Toronto, a few months ago, the testimony of two respectable and intelligent witnesses was refused because they did not believe the dogmas of the popular religion.* As an offset to this, however, an Ottawa-Judge recently showed his fairness and liberality by allowing a Juryman Freethinker, who declined to take the oath, to make an affirmation. The Grand Juror referred to, Mr. John Law, of Ottawa, is described as-a gentleman of "unimpeachable honor and probity," and hence his simple affirmation being, as he stated, fully binding on his conscience, would, or certainly ought to, have more weight than the oaths of many witnesses (believers) who are taken into the witness box.
The presiding Judge, doubtless, so regarded the matter, and therefore, in his discretion, magnanimously allowed Mr. Law to affirm.
In England, under "The Evidence Amendment Act" of 1869,32* and 33 Vic, c. 68, s. 4, Atheists can make the following affirmation instead of taking the Christian oath, and the Court must allow all Freethinkers to do so who demand it:
"I solemnly promise and declare that the evidence given by me to the Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
We want a similar Act in Canada, and then Counsel will not be able as now to badger witnesses about "infidel belief," and turn the court into an inquisition; nor will a bigoted judge have it in his discretion to order Atheists down from the witness-box as not fit to give evidence.
At almost every sitting of our courts it is demonstrated beyond a doubt.
that believers in the Bible, who take the oath on that Book, do not all tell the truth under oath. Every judge and lawyer in the land knows this, and all know it who have much to do in courts of law. The simple word or affirmation of an honest man, whether Christian or Infidel, is better than a thousand oaths of many believers in the Bible, who are without hesitation taken into the witness-box. Moreover, the Atheist in making the above affirmation under the Act referred to, is subject to the same penalties for perjury as the Christian is in taking, the usual oath. There is, therefore, no good reason why we should! not have a similar Act here, and it behooves us to begin to move towards its consummation. Freethinkers are getting numerous in Canada, and they are, to say the least, as exemplary citizens, socially and morally, as their Christian neighbors? Why then should they be longer denied equal rights with their Christian neighbors?
* Since writing this I have been informed by one of the witnesses alluded to, that no blame can be fairly imputed to the presiding Judge in this case, as he felt compelled, against his sympathies, to carry out the unjust law.
In England they still have a State Religion, yet the rights of Rationalists in this respect are conceded to them. Here we have no state religion, and yet we suffer under religious disabilities which are utterly out of keeping with the spirit of the age, and which are fast being swept away in every civilized country. The Bradlaugh imbroglio recently in the English House of Commons has had the effect of opening some people"s eyes, especially those conservative Christians who are still afflicted with lingerings of that bigoted, intolerant, and persecuting spirit which formerly lighted the fires of Smithfleld, hung quakers, imprisoned so-called "blasphemers," and violated civil contracts in the name of G.o.d. In the last election in England, a few months ago, Charles Bradlaugh, the eminent Atheist and Republican, was elected to the English House of Commons for the borough of Northampton, and in entering the House he claimed his right, instead of taking the Parliamentary oath, to affirm under the Act referred to above. The House at first refused, vacillated, appointed Committees, and vigorously debated the matter; while the bigoted members at once proceeded to unbudget themselves in true Christian style against the "vermin"
Atheist. Meanwhile the levelheaded Atheist knew what he was about, and, as the sequel showed, proved himself more than a match for the English House of Commons. Meanwhile also, the people of England--the working cla.s.ses--were-watching the whole business, and finally when Bradlaugh was refused both oath and affirmation, and the intention to keep the Atheist out of Parliament became manifest, they (the people) promptly came to the front. Just then it began to dawn on "the powers that be"
that _vox populi, vox Dei_ had more truth than poetry in it. The people of England--the producers--(called "lower cla.s.ses" by the "upper"
_non_-producers) a.s.sembled in scores of thousands in indignation ma.s.s-meetings all over England, demanding the admission of Charles Bradlaugh (their best friend) to his rightful seat in the English House of Commons. The aforesaid "powers that be" took the alarm. Seeing that the "voice of the people" was even more potent than the "voice of G.o.d,"
they prudently bowed to its mandate. They perceived that no Clock Tower, or other tower in England would hold the workingman"s friend even for the s.p.a.ce of seven days. Bradlaugh must be released or the House of Brunswick might peradventure soon be in mourning--not, probably, for spilled blood, but for a crown, aye, a crown! No wonder the English Government feared to see Charles Bradlaugh enter the House of Commons. He had impeached the House of Brunswick. And it was no "soft impeachment." No, but a terribly hard indictment! Was it ever answered?
No, it was too true to answer. The only answer was from Lord Randolph Churchill in the House of Commons, and it was characteristic. This rabid monarchist, with much more Christian zeal than knowledge or discretion, took Bradlaugh"s "Impeachment of the House of Brunswick" and cast it viciously under his feet on the floor of the House of Commons. That was the way the "Impeachment" was answered! Well, as Shakspeare says, "let the galled jades wince!" But the Atheist had his revenge! They had put him in the Tower, but they very soon let him out. He had been somewhat accustomed to fighting the English Government, having beaten them twice, and he feared not. He was imprisoned one day, but released the next.
An Act was speedily pa.s.sed giving more even than Bradlaugh at first demanded--giving every member who wishes in future, the right to affirm instead of taking the Christian Oath. Bradlaugh has accordingly made his affirmation as he at first demanded, and has taken his seat in the English House of Commons as M. P. for Northampton,* And now let every Freethinker throughout the civilized world rejoice, for this is a great victory for our cause! The eloquent champion of our dearest rights has achieved a glorious victory on the very threshold of the English Parliament before he enters it! Let us take courage! The indomitable and invincible Iconoclast has now attained a position where his voice will be heard in behalf of liberty and the rights of man the world over! He is called "coa.r.s.e" by some over-cultured people, but his coa.r.s.eness is of the kind the world needs, and therefore _we_ do not object to it. The superst.i.tions, and errors, and wrongs, and oppressions still weighing down our fellow-men need bare-handed ("coa.r.s.e") handling, without gloves, and Bradlaugh wears none of these, but fearlessly throws down the gauntlet to falsehood and oppression whenever and wherever found.
But I fear I am getting a little off the Oath Question here in my enthusiasm for Charles Bradlaugh, Member of Parliament for Northampton.
* The press of Canada, with very few exceptions, have done Mr. Bradlaugh a great injustice in connection with the oath question, as they have (perhaps unintentionally) utterly misrepresented him. They have charged that he "flaunted his Atheism before the House of Commons," that he at first _refused_ to take the oath on conscientious grounds and subsequently "swallowed his scruples" and offered to take the oath; and that, therefore, the Atheist is without conscience and without principle, sacrificing all for place.
Now, this is all utterly untrue. He did not flaunt his Atheism before the House. He did not _refuse_ to take the oath, but simply claimed to be allowed to affirm. The Speaker having intimated to Mr. Bradlaugh that if he desired to address the House in explanation of his claim he would be permitted to do so, Mr. Bradlaugh said, "I have repeatedly, for nine years past, made an affirmation in the highest courts of jurisdiction in this realm: I am ready to make such a declaration or affirmation." And subsequently when Mr. Bradlaugh offered to take the oath, it was after he had made an explanation that although a portion of it to him was a meaningless form, yet that the oath as a whole, if he took it would be binding on his conscience substantially the same as an affirmation. These are the facts, all taken from authentic official sources, and not from what bigoted and prejudiced correspondents have sent us across the ocean. My authority is the record of the proceedings of the Parliamentary Committees on the Bradlaugh case, where the facts I have stated were distinctly brought out in evidence, to which source I beg to refer the newspapers of this country and call upon them to make the _amende honorable_ by setting this matter right before their readers.
In conclusion, I beg to again urge upon my fellow Freethinkers throughout Canada the necessity of taking such action as will secure for us our legal rights in the Courts of this country. I trust that the pet.i.tions to Parliament for an Evidence Amendment Act, which we design ere long to put in circulation, may be numerously signed and diligently circulated by the liberal friends in the various places to which they will be sent.
Selby, Lennox Co., Ont., July, 1880
"It can do truth no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary Acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion, of the n.o.blest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith."--J. S. Mill.
"The history of Christ is contained in records which exhibit contradictions that cannot be reconciled, imperfections that would greatly detract from even admitted human compositions, and erroneous principles of morality that would hardly have found a place in the most incomplete system of the philosophers of Greece and Rome."--Rev. Dr.
Giles.
"That any human creature, be he peer or peasant, man or woman, pauper or millionaire, should be visited with pains and penalties because of his or her speculative opinion on a subject whereon but few even of professing Christians are agreed, is a bitter satire on our vaunted liberty. My Lords, it is the spirit which lighted the martyr-fires of Smithfield, and led to the stake gallant and n.o.ble souls such as Bruno.
It is a n.o.ble; company you are placing me in, my Lords, and I shall thank you for it."--_Ibid_.
"Who shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now, whose lives have been embittered, and their good name blasted, by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolators? Who shall count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to harmonize impossibilities--whose life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new wine of Science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same strong party." _Prof.
Huxley_.
"Thou shalt not kill, even the smallest creature.
"Thou shalt not appropriate to thyself what belongs to another.
"Thou shah not infringe the laws of chast.i.ty.
"Thou shalt not lie.
"Thou Shalt not calumniate.
"Thou shalt not speak of injuries.
"Thou shalt not excite quarrels, by repeating the words of others.
"Thou shalt not hate."
--_Moral Precepts from Buddhistic Sacred Books._