IF others who read this book get as much information as I did from the
advance sheets, they will feel repaid a hundred times. It is perfectly
delightful to take advantage of the conscientious labors of those who go
through and through volume after volume, divide with infinite patience
the gold from the dross, and present us with the pure and shining coin.
Such men may be likened to bees who save us numberless journeys by
giving us the fruit of their own.
While this book will greatly add to the information of all who read it,
it may not increase the happiness of some to find that Swedenborg was
really insane. But when they remember that he was raised by a bishop,
and disappointed in love, they will cease to wonder at his mental
condition. Certainly an admixture of theology and "dis-prized love"
is often sufficient to compel reason to abdicate the throne of the
mightiest soul.
The trouble with Swedenborg was that he changed realities into dreams,
and then out of the dreams made facts upon which he built, and with
which he constructed his system.
He regarded all realities as shadows cast by ideas. To him the material
was the unreal, and things were definitions of the ideas of God. He
seemed to think that he had made a discovery when he found that ideas
were back of words, and that language had a subjective as well as an
objective origin; that is that the interior meaning had been clothed
upon. Of course, a man capable of drawing the conclusion that natural
reason cannot harmonize with spiritual truth because in a dream, he had
seen a beetle that could not use its feet, is capable of any absurdity
of which the imagination can conceive. The fact is, that Swedenborg
believed the Bible. That was his misfortune. His mind had been
overpowered by the bishop, but the woman had not utterly destroyed his
heart. He was shocked by the liberal interpretation of the Scriptures,
and sought to avoid the difficulty by giving new meanings consistent
with the decency and goodness of God. He pointed out a way to preserve
the old Bible with a new interpretation. In this way Infidelity could
be avoided; and, in his day, that was almost a necessity. Had Swedenborg
taken the ground that the Bible was not inspired, the ears of the
world would have been stopped. His readers believed in the dogma of
inspiration, and asked, not how to destroy the Scriptures, but for some
way in which they might be preserved. He and his followers unconsciously
rendered immense service to the cause of intellectual enfranchisement
by their efforts to show the necessity of giving new meanings to the
barbarous laws, and cruel orders of Jehovah. For this purpose they
attacked with great fury the literal text, taking the ground that if the
old interpretation was right, the Bible was the work of savage men. They
heightened in every way the absurdities, cruelties and contradictions of
the Scriptures for the purpose of showing that a new interpretation must
be found, and that the way pointed out by Swedenborg was the only one by
which the Bible could be saved.
Great men are, after all the instrumentalities of their time. The heart
of the civilized world was beginning to revolt at the cruelties ascribed
to God, and was seeking for some interpretation of the Bible that kind
and loving people could accept. The method of interpretation found by
Swedenborg was suitable for all. Each was permitted to construct his own
"science of correspondence" and gather such fruits as he might prefer.
In this way the ravings of revenge can instantly be changed to mercy's
melting tones, and murder's dagger to a smile of love. In this way and
in no other, can we explain the numberless mistakes and crimes ascribed
to God. Thousands of most excellent people, afraid to throw away the
idea of inspiration, hailed with joy a discovery that allowed them to
write a Bible for themselves.
But, whether Swedenborg was right or not, every man who reads a book,
necessarily gets from that book all that he is capable of receiving.
Every man who walks in the forest, or gathers a flower, or looks at a
picture, or stands by the sea, gets all the intellectual wealth he is
capable of receiving. What the forest, the flower, the picture or the
sea is to him, depends upon his mind, and upon the stage of development
he has reached. So that after all, the Bible must be a different book to
each person who reads it, as the revelations of nature depend upon the
individual to whom they are revealed, or by whom they are discovered.
And the extent of the revelation or discovery depends absolutely upon
the intellectual and moral development of the person to whom, or by
whom, the revelation or discovery is made. So that the Bible cannot be
the same to any two people, but each one must necessarily interpret it
for himself. Now, the moment the doctrine is established that we can
give to this book such meanings as are consistent with our highest
ideals; that we can treat the old words as purses or old stockings
in which to put our gold, then, each one will, in effect, make a new
inspired Bible for himself, and throw the old away. If his mind is
narrow, if he has been raised by ignorance and nursed by fear, he
will believe in the literal truth of what he reads. If he has a little
courage he will doubt, and the doubt will with new interpretations
modify the literal text; but if his soul is free he will with scorn
reject it all.
Swedenborg did one thing for which I feel almost grateful. He gave an
account of having met John Calvin in hell. Nothing connected with the
supernatural could be more perfectly natural than this. The only thing
detracting from the value of this report is, that if there is a hell, we
know without visiting the place that John Calvin must be there.
All honest founders of religions have been the dreamers of dreams, the
sport of insanity, the prey of visions, the deceivers of others and of
themselves. All will admit that Swedenborg was a man of great intellect,
of vast acquirements and of honest intentions; and I think it equally
clear that upon one subject, at least, his mind was touched, shattered
and shaken.
Misled by analogies, imposed upon by the bishop, deceived by the woman,
borne to other worlds upon the wings of dreams, living in the twilight
of reason and the dawn of insanity, he regarded every fact as a patched
and ragged garment with a lining of the costliest silk, and insisted
that the wrong side, even of the silk, was far more beautiful than the
right.
Herbert Spencer is almost the opposite of Swedenborg. He relies upon
evidence, upon demonstration, upon experience, and occupies himself with
one world at a time. He perceives that there is a mental horizon that
we cannot pierce, and that beyond that is the unknown--possibly the
unknowable. He endeavors to examine only that which is capable of being
examined, and considers the theological method as not only useless,
but hurtful. After all, God is but a guess, throned and established by
arrogance and assertion. Turning his attention to those things that
have in some way affected the condition of mankind, Spencer leaves the
unknowable to priests and to the believers in the "moral government" of
the world. He sees only natural causes and natural results, and seeks to
induce man to give up gazing into void and empty space, that he may give
his entire attention to the world in which he lives. He sees that right
and wrong do not depend upon the arbitrary will of even an infinite
being, but upon the nature of things; that they are relations, not
entities, and that they cannot exist, so far as we know, apart from
human experience.
It may be that men will finally see that selfishness and self-sacrifice
are both mistakes; that the first devours itself; that the second is
not demanded by the good, and that the bad are unworthy of it. It may be
that our race has never been, and never will be, deserving of a martyr.
Sometime we may see that justice is the highest possible form of mercy
and love, and that all should not only be allowed, but compelled to reap
exactly what they sow; that industry should not support idleness, and
that they who waste the spring and summer and autumn of their lives
should bear the winter when it comes. The fortunate should assist
the victims of accident; the strong should defend the weak, and the
intellectual should lead, with loving hands, the mental poor; but
Justice should remove the bandage from her eyes long enough to
distinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate.
Mr. Spencer is wise enough to declare that "acts are called good or bad
according as they are well or ill adjusted to ends;" and he might have
added, that ends are good or bad according as they affect the happiness
of mankind.
It would be hard to over-estimate the influence of this great man. From
an immense intellectual elevation he has surveyed the world of thought.
He has rendered absurd the idea of special providence, born of the
egotism of savagery. He has shown that the "will of God" is not a rule
for human conduct; that morality is not a cold and heartless tyrant;
that by the destruction of the individual will, a higher life cannot
be reached, and that after all, an intelligent love of self extends the
hand of help and kindness to all the human race.
But had it not been for such men as Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer could
not have existed for a century to come. Some one had to lead the way,
to raise the standard of revolt, and draw the sword of war. Thomas Paine
was a natural revolutionist. He was opposed to every government existing
in his day. Next to establishing a wise and just republic based upon
the equal rights of man, the best thing that can be done is to destroy a
monarchy.
Paine had a sense of justice, and had imagination enough to put himself
in the place of the oppressed. He had, also, what in these pages is so
felicitously expressed, "a haughty intellectual pride, and a willingness
to pit his individual thought against the clamor of a world."
I cannot believe that he wrote the letters of "Junius," although the two
critiques combined in this volume, entitled "Paine" and "Junius," make
by far the best argument upon that subject I have ever read. First,
Paine could have had no personal hatred against the men so bitterly
assailed by Junius. Second, He knew, at that time, but little of English
politicians, and certainly had never associated with men occupying the
highest positions, and could not have been personally acquainted with
the leading statesmen of England. Third., He was not an unjust man. He
was neither a coward, a calumniator, nor a sneak. All these delightful
qualities must have lovingly united in the character of Junius. Fourth,
Paine could have had no reason for keeping the secret after coming to
America.
I have always believed that Junius, after having written his letters,
accepted office from the very men he had maligned, and at last became
a pensioner of the victims of his slander. "Had he as many mouths as
Hydra, such a course must have closed them all." Certainly the author
must have kept the secret to prevent the loss of his reputation.
It cannot be denied that the style of Junius is much like that of Paine.
Should it be established that Paine wrote the letters of Junius, it
would not, in my judgment, add to his reputation as a writer. Regarded
as literary efforts they cannot be compared with "Common Sense," "The
Crisis," or "The Rights of Man."
The claim that Paine was the real author of the Declaration of
Independence is much better founded. I am inclined to think that he
actually wrote it; but whether this is true or not, every idea contained
in it had been written by him long before. It is now claimed that the
original document is in Paine's handwriting. It certainly is not in
Jefferson's. Certain it is, that Jefferson could not have written
anything so manly, so striking, so comprehensive, so clear, so
convincing, and so faultless in rhetoric and rhythm as the Declaration
of Independence.
Paine was the first man to write these words, "The United States of
America." He was the first great champion of absolute separation
from England. He was the first to urge the adoption of a Federal
Constitution; and, more clearly than any other man of his time, he
perceived the future greatness of this country.
He has been blamed for his attack on Washington. The truth is, he was
in prison in France. He had committed the crime of voting, against the
execution of the king It was the grandest act of his life, but at that
time to be merciful was criminal. Paine; being an American citizen,
asked Washington, then President, to say a word to Robespierre in
his behalf. Washington remained silent. In the calmness of power, the
serenity, of fortune, Washington the President, read the request of
Paine, the prisoner, and with the complacency of assured fame, consigned
to the wastebasket of forgetfulness the patriot's cry for help.
"Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back,
Wherein he puts alms for oblivion,
A great-sized monster of ingratitudes.
Those scraps are good deeds past, which are devour'd
As fast as they are made, forgot as soon
As done."
In this controversy, my sympathies are with the prisoner.
Paine did more to free the mind, to destroy the power of ministers and
priests in the New World, than any other man. In order to answer his
arguments, the churches found it necessary to attack his character.
There was a general resort to falsehood. In trying to destroy the
reputation of Paine, the churches have demoralized themselves. Nearly
every minister has been a willing witness against the truth. Upon the
grave of Thomas Paine, the churches of America have sacrificed their
honor. The influence of the Hero author increases every day, and there
are more copies of the "Age of Reason" sold in the United States, than
of any work written in defence of the Christian religion. Hypocrisy,
with its forked tongue, its envious and malignant heart, lies coiled
upon the memory of Paine, ready to fasten its poisonous fangs in the
reputation of any man who dares defend the great and generous dead.
Leaving the dust and glory of revolutions, let us spend a moment of
quiet with Adam Smith. I was glad to find that a man's ideas upon the
subject of protection and free trade depend almost entirely upon the
country in which he lives, or the business in which he happens to
be engaged, and that, after all, each man regards the universe as a
circumference of which he is the center. It gratified me to learn that
even Adam Smith was no exception to this rule, and that he regarded
all "protection as a hurtful and ignorant interference," except when
exercised for the good of Great Britain. Owing to the fact that his
nationality quarreled with his philosophy, he succeeded in writing
a book that is quoted with equal satisfaction by both parties. The
protectionists rely upon the exceptions he made for England, and the
free traders upon the doctrines laid down for other countries.
He seems to have reasoned upon the question of money precisely as we
have, of late years, in the United States; and he has argued both sides
equally well. Poverty asks for inflation. Wealth is conservative, and
always says there is money enough.
Upon the question of money, this volume contains the best thing I have
ever read: "The only mode of procuring the service of others, on any
large scale, in the absence of money, is by force, which is slavery.
Money, by constituting a medium in which the smallest services can be
paid for, substitutes wages for the lash, and renders the liberty of
the individual consistent with the maintenance and support of society."
There is more philosophy in that one paragraph than Adam Smith expresses
in his whole work. It may truthfully be said, that without money,
liberty is impossible. No one, whatever his views may be, can read the
article on Adam Smith without profit and delight.
The discussion of the money question is in every respect admirable, and
is as candid as able. The world will sooner or later learn that there is
nothing miraculous in finance; that money is a real and tangible thing,
a product of labor, serving not merely as a medium of exchange but as
a basis of credit as well; that it cannot be created by an act of the
Legislature; that dreams cannot be coined, and that only labor, in some
form, can put, upon the hand of want, Alladin's magic ring.
Adam Smith wrote upon the wealth of nations, while Charles Fourier
labored for the happiness of mankind. In this country, few seem
to understand communism. While here, it may be regarded as vicious
idleness, armed with the assassin's knife and the incendiary's torch, in
Europe, it is a different thing. There, it is a reaction from Feudalism.
Nobility is communism in its worst possible form. Nothing can be worse
than for idleness to eat the bread of industry. Communism in Europe
is not the "stand and deliver" of the robber, but the protest of the
robbed. Centuries ago, kings and priests, that is to say, thieves and
hypocrites, divided Europe among themselves. Under this arrangement, the
few were masters and the many slaves. Nearly every government in the
Old World rests upon simple brute force. It is hard for the many to
understand why the few should own the soil. Neither can they clearly
see why they should give their brain and blood to those who steal their
birthright and their bread. It has occurred to them that they who do the
most should not receive the least, and that, after all, an industrious
peasant is of far more value to the world than a vain and idle king.
The Communists of France, blinded as they were, made the Republic
possible. Had they joined with their countrymen, the invaders would have
been repelled, and some Napoleon would still have occupied the throne.
Socialism perceives that Germany has been enslaved by victory, while
France found liberty in defeat. In Russia the Nihilists prefer chaos to
the government of the bayonet, Siberia and the knout, and these intrepid
men have kept upon the coast of despotism one beacon fire of hope.
As a matter of fact, every society is a species of communism--a kind
of co-operation in which selfishness, in spite of itself, benefits the
community. Every industrious man adds to the wealth, not only of his
nation, but to that of the world. Every inventor increases human power,
and every sculptor, painter and poet adds to the value of human life.
Fourier, touched by the sufferings of the poor as well as by the barren
joys of hoarded wealth, and discovering the vast advantages of combined
effort, and the immense economy of co-operation, sought to find some way
for men to help themselves by helping each other. He endeavored to do
away with monopoly and competition, and to ascertain some method by
which the sensuous, the moral, and the intellectual passions of man
could be gratified.
For my part I can place no confidence in any system that does away, or
tends to do away, with the institution of marriage. I can conceive of no
civilization of which the family must not be the unit.
Societies cannot be made; they must grow. Philosophers may predict, but
they cannot create. They may point out as many ways as they please; but
after all, humanity will travel in paths of its own.
Fourier sustained about the same relation to this world that Swedenborg
did to the other. There must be something wrong about the brain of one
who solemnly asserts that, "the elephant, the ox and the diamond, were
created by the sun; the horse, the lily and the ruby, by Saturn; the
cow, the jonquil and the topaz by Jupiter; and the dog, the violet and
the opal stones by the earth itself."
And yet, forgetting these aberrations of the mind, this lunacy of a
great and loving soul, for one, I hold in tender-est regard the memory
of Charles Fourier, one of the best and noblest of our race.
While Fourier was in his cradle, Jeremy Bentham, who read history when
three years old, played on the violin at five, "and at fifteen detected
the fallacies of Blackstone," was demonstrating that the good was the
useful; that a thing was right because it paid in the highest and best
sense; that utility was the basis of morals; that without allowing
interest to be paid upon money commerce could not exist; and that
the object of all human governments should be to secure the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. He read Hume and Helvetius, threw away
the Thirty-nine Articles, and endeavored to impress upon the English
Law the fact that its ancestor was a feudal savage. He held the past in
contempt, hated Westminster and despised Oxford. He combated the
idea that governments were originally founded on contract. Locke and
Blackstone talked as though men originally lived apart, and formed
societies by agreement. These writers probably imagined that at one time
the trees were separated like telegraph poles, and finally came together
and made groves by agreement. I believe that it was Pufendorf who said
that slavery was originally founded on contract. To which Voltaire
replied:--"If my lord Pufendorf will produce the original contract
_signed by the party who was to be the slave_, I will admit the truth of
his statement."
A contract back of society is a myth manufactured by those in power to
serve as a title to place, and to impress the multitude with the
idea that they are, in some mysterious way, bound, fettered, and even
benefited by its terms.
The glory of Bentham is, that he gave the true basis of morals, and
furnished statesmen with the star and compass of this sentence:--"The
greatest happiness of the greatest number."
Most scientists have deferred to the theologians. They have admitted
that some questions could not, at present, be solved. These admissions
have been thankfully received by the clergy, who have always begged for
some curtain to be left, behind which their God could still exist. Men
calling themselves "scientific" have tried to harmonize the "apparent"
discrepancies between the Bible and the _other_ works of Jehovah. In
this way they have made reputations. They were at once quoted by
the ministers as wonderful examples of piety and learning. These men
discounted the future that they might enjoy the ignorant praise of the
present. Agassiz preferred the applause of Boston, while he lived, to
the reverence of a world after he was dead. Small men appear great only
when they agree with the multitude.
The last Scientific Congress in America was opened with prayer. Think
of a science that depends upon the efficacy of words addressed to the
Unknown and Unknowable!
In our country, most of the so-called scientists are professors in
sectarian colleges, in which Moses is considered a geologist, and
Joshua an astronomer. For the most part their salaries depend upon
the ingenuity with which they can explain away facts and dodge
demonstration.
The situation is about the same in England. When Mr. Huxley saw fit to
attack the Mosaic account of the creation, he did not deem it advisable
to say plainly what he meant. He attacked the account of creation as
given by Milton, although he knew that the Mosaic and Miltonic were
substantially the same. Science has acted like a guest without a wedding
garment, and has continually apologized for existing. In the presence
of arrogant absurdity, overawed by the patronizing airs of a successful
charlatan, it has played the role of a "poor relation," and accepted,
while sitting below the salt, insults as honors.
There can be no more pitiable sight than a scientist in the employ of
superstition dishonoring himself without assisting his master. But there
are a multitude of brave and tender men who give their honest thoughts,
who are true to nature, who give the facts and let consequences shirk
for themselves, who know the value and meaning of a truth, and who have
bravely tried the creeds by scientific tests.
Among the bravest, side by side with the greatest of the world, in
Germany, the land of science, stands Ernst Haeckel, who may be said
to have not only demonstrated the theories of Darwin, but the Monistic
conception of the world. Rejecting all the puerile ideas of a personal
Creator, he has had the courage to adopt the noble words of Bruno:--"A
spirit exists in all things, and no body is so small but it contains a
part of the divine substance within itself, by which it is animated." He
has endeavored--and I think with complete success--to show that there is
not, and never was, and never can be the _Creator_ of anything. There
is no more a personal Creator than there is a personal destroyer. Matter
and force must have existed from eternity, all generation must have been
spontaneous, and the simplest organisms must have been the ancestors of
the most perfect and complex.
Haeckel is one of the bitterest enemies of the church, and is,
therefore, one of the bravest friends of man.
Catholicism was, at one time, the friend of education--of an education
sufficient to make a Catholic out of a barbarian. Protestantism was also
in favor of education--of an education sufficient to make a Protestant
out of a Catholic. But now, it having been demonstrated that real
education will make Freethinkers, Catholics and Protestants both are the
enemies of true learning.
In all countries where human beings are held in bondage, it is a crime
to teach a slave to read and write. Masters know that education is an
abolitionist, and theologians know that science is the deadly foe of
every creed in Christendom.
In the age of Faith, a personal god stood at the head of every
department of ignorance, and was supposed to be the King of kings, the
rewarder and punisher of individuals, and the governor of nations.
The worshipers of this god have always regarded the men in love with
simple facts, as Atheists in disguise. And it must be admitted that
nothing is more Atheistic than a fact. Pure science is necessarily
godless, It is incapable of worship. It investigates, and cannot afford
to shut its eyes even long enough to pray. There was a time when those
who disputed the divine right of kings were denounced as blasphemous;
but the time came when liberty demanded that a personal god should be
retired from politics. In our country this was substantially done in
1776, when our fathers declared that all power to govern came from
the consent of the governed. The cloud-theory was abandoned, and one
government has been established for the benefit of mankind. Our fathers
did not keep God out of the Constitution from principle, but from
jealousy. Each church, in colonial times, preferred to live in single
blessedness rather than see some rival wedded to the state. Mutual
hatred planted our tree of religious liberty. A constitution without a
god has at last given us a nation without a slave.
A personal god sustains the same relation to religion as to politics.
The Deity is a master, and man a serf; and this relation is inconsistent
with true progress. The Universe ought to be a pure democracy--an
infinite republic without a tyrant and without a chain.
Auguste Comte endeavored to put humanity in the place of Jehovah, and no
conceivable change can be more desirable than this. This great man did
not, like some of his followers, put a mysterious something called law
in the place of God, which is simply giving the old master a new name.
Law is this side of phenomena, not the other. It is not the cause,
neither is it the result of phenomena. The fact of succession and
resemblance, that is to say, the same thing happening under the same
conditions, is all we mean by law. No one can conceive of a law
existing apart from matter, or controlling matter, any more than he can
understand the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, or motion apart
from substance. We are beginning to see that law does not, and cannot
exist as an entity, but that it is only a conception of the mind to
express the fact that the same entities, under the same conditions,
produce the same results. Law does not produce the entities, the
conditions, or the results, or even the sameness of the results.
Neither does it affect the relations of entities, nor the result of such
relations, but it stands simply for the fact that the same causes, under
the same conditions, eternally have produced and eternally will produce
the same results.
The metaphysicians are always giving us explanations of phenomena which
are as difficult to understand as the phenomena they seek to explain;
and the believers in God establish their dogmas by miracles, and then
substantiate the miracles by assertion.
The Designer of the teleologist, the First Cause of the religious
philosopher, the Vital Force of the biologist, and the law of the
half-orthodox scientist, are all the shadowy children of ignorance and
fear.
The Universe is all there is. It is both subject and object;
contemplator and contemplated; creator and created; destroyer and
destroyed; preserver and preserved; and within itself are all causes,
modes, motions and effects.
Unable in some things to rise above the superstitions of his day,
Comte adopted not only the machinery, but some of the prejudices, of
Catholicism. He made the mistake of Luther. He tried to reform the
Church of Rome. Destruction is the only reformation of which that church
is capable. Every religion is based upon a misconception, not only of
the cause of phenomena, but of the real object of life; that is to say,
upon falsehood; and the moment the truth is known and understood, these
religions must fall. In the field of thought, they are briers, thorns,
and noxious weeds; on the shores of intellectual discovery, they are
sirens, and in the forests that the brave thinkers are now penetrating,
they are the wild beasts, fanged and monstrous.
You cannot reform these weeds. Sirens cannot be changed into good
citizens; and such wild beasts, even when tamed, are of no possible use.
Destruction is the only remedy. Reformation is a hospital where the new
philosophy exhausts its strength nursing the old religion.
There was, in the brain of the great Frenchman, the dawn of that happy
day in which humanity will be the only religion, good the only god,
happiness the only object, restitution the only atonement, mistake the
only sin, and affection, guided by intelligence, the only savior of
mankind. This dawn enriched his poverty, illuminated the darkness of
his life, peopled his loneliness with the happy millions yet to be, and
filled his eyes with proud and tender tears.
A few years ago I asked the superintendent of Pere La Chaise if he knew
where I could find the tomb of Auguste Comte. He had never heard even
the name of the author of the "Positive Philosophy." I asked him if
he had ever heard of Napoleon Bonaparte. In a half-insulted tone,
he replied, "Of course I have, why do you ask me such a question?"
"Simply," was my answer, "that I might have the opportunity of saying,
that when everything connected with Napoleon, except his crimes, shall
have been forgotten, Auguste Comte will be lovingly remembered as a
benefactor of the human race."
The Jewish God must be dethroned! A personal Deity must go back to
the darkness of barbarism from whence he came. The theologians must
abdicate, and popes, priests, and clergymen, labeled as "extinct
species," must occupy the mental museums of the future.
In my judgment, this book, filled with original thought, will hasten the
coming of that blessed time.
Washington, D. C., Nov. 29,1879.