The eighteenth century deserves that the penman who touches its records
shall have some virility; for these records contain, not only the
narrative of the rapid growth of the new philosophy in France, England,
and Germany, where its roots had been firmly struck in the previous
century, but they also give the history of a glorious endeavour on the
part of a down-trodden and long-suffering people, weakened and degraded
by generations of starvation and oppression, to break the yoke of
tyranny and superstition. Eighteenth century historians can write how
the men of France, after having been cursed by a long race of kings, who
never dreamed of identifying their interests with those of the people;
after enduring centuries of tyranny from priests, whose only Gods were
power, pleasure, and Mammon, and at the hands of nobles, who denied
civil rights to their serfs; at last, could endure no longer, but
electrified into life by eighteenth century heresy, "spurned under foot
the idols of tyranny and superstition," and sought "by the influence of
reason to erect on the ruins of arbitrary power the glorious edifice
of civil and religious liberty." Why Frenchmen then failed in giving
permanent success to their heroic endeavour, and why France, despite the
wonderful recent progress in thought, is even yet cursed with corrupt
imperialism and state superstition, is not difficult to explain, when we
consider that every tyranny in Europe united against that young republic
to which the monarchy had bequeathed a legacy of a wretched pauper
people, a people whose minds had been hitherto wholly in the hands of
the priests, whose passions had revolted against wrong, but whose brains
were yet too weak for the permanent enjoyment of the freedom temporarily
resulting from physical effort. Eighteenth century heresy is especially
noticeable for its immediate connection with political change. For the
first time in European history, the great mass commenced to yearn
for the assertion in government of democratic principles. The French
Republican Revolution which overthrew Louis XVI. and the Bastile,
was only possible because the heretical teachers who preceded it,
had weakened the divine right of kingcraft; and it was ultimately
unsuccessful, only because an overwhelming majority of the people were
as yet not sufficiently released from the thraldom of the church, and
therefore fell before the allied despotisms of Europe, who were aided
by the Catholic priests, who naturally plotted against the spirit which
seemed likely to make men too independent to be pious.
In Germany the liberation of the masses from the dominion of the Church
of Rome was effected with the, at first, active believing concurrence
of the nation; in England this was not so, Protestantism here was the
result rather of the influence and interests of the King and Court, and
of the indifference of the great body of the people. The Reformed Church
of England, sustained by the crown and aristocracy, has generally
left the people to find their own way to heaven or hell, and has only
required abstinence from avowed denial of, or active opposition to, its
tenets. Its ministers have usually preached with the same force to a few
worshippers scattered over their grand cathedrals and numerous churches
as to a thronging crowd, but in each these there has been a lack of
vitality in the sermon. It is only when the material interests of the
church have been apparently threatened that vigour has been shown on the
part of its teachers.
It is a curious fact, and one for comment hereafter, that while in the
modern struggle for the progress of heresy, its sixteenth century
pages present many most prominent Italian names, when we come to the
eighteenth century, there are but few such names worthy special notice;
it is no longer from the extreme South, but from France, Germany, and
England that you have the great array of Freethinking warriors. Those
whom Italy boasts too are now nearly all in the Idealistic ranks.
We commenced the list by a brief reference to Bernard Mandeville, a
Dutch physician, born at Dordrecht in 1670 and who died in 1733; a
writer with great power as a satirist, whose fable of the "Bees, or
Private Vices made Public Benefits," not only served as source for
much of Helvetius, but had the double honour of an indictment at the
Middlesex session, and an answer from the pen of Bishop Berkeley.
One of the early, and perhaps one of the most important promoters of
heresy in the United Kingdom, was George Berkeley, an Irishman by birth.
He was born on the 12th of March, 1684, at Kilcrin, and died at Oxford
in 1753. It was this writer to whom Pope assigned "every virtue under
heaven," and of whom Byron wrote:--
"When Bishop Berkeley said 'there was no matter,'
And proved it--'twas no matter what he said:
They say his system 'tis in vain to batter,
Too subtle for the airiest human head;
And yet who can believe it?"
A writer in the _Encyclopedia Metropolitana_ describes him as "the
one, perhaps, whose heart was most free from scepticism, and whose
understanding was most prone to it." Berkeley is here dealt with as one
specially contributing to the growth of sceptical thought, and not as
an Idealist only. Arthur Collier published, about the same time as
Berkeley, several works in which absolute Idealim is advocated. Collier
and Berkeley were mouthpieces for the expression of an effort at
resistance against the growing Spinozistic school. They wrote against
substance assumed as the "noumenon lying underneath all phenomena--the
substratum supporting all qualities--the something in which all
accidents inhere." Collier and his writings are almost unknown;
Berkeley's name has become famous, and his arguments have served to
excite far wider scepticism than have those of any other Englishman of
his age. Most religious men who read him misunderstand him, and nearly
all misrepresent his theory. Hume, speaking of Berkeley, says, "Most of
the writings of that very ingenious philosopher form the best lessons
of scepticism which are to be found, either among the ancient or modern
philosophers, Bayle not excepted. He professes, however, in his title
page (and undoubtedly with great truth) to have composed his book
against the sceptics, as well as against the Atheists and Freethinkers.
But that all his arguments, though otherwise intended, are in reality
merely sceptical, appears from this, that they admit of no answer,
and produce no conviction," Berkeley wrote for those who "want a
demonstration of the existence and immateriality of God, or the natural
immortality of the soul," and his philosophy was intended to check
materialism. The key-note ot his works may be found in his declaration,
"The only thing whose existence I deny, is that which philosophers call
Matter or corporeal substance." The definition given by Berkeley of
matter is one which no materialist will be ready to accept, i.e.f "an
inert, senseless substance in which extension, figure, and motion do
actually exist." The "Principles of Human Knowledge" is the work in
which Berkeley's Idealism is chiefly set forth, and many have been
the volumes and pamphlets written in reply. Whatever might have been
Berkeley's intention as to refuting scepticism, the result of his
labours was to increase it in no ordinary degree; Dr. Pye Smith thug
summarises Berkeley's views:--"He denied the existence of matter as a
cause of our perceptions, but firmly maintained the existence of created
and dependent spirits, of which every man is one; that to suppose the
existence of sensible qualities and of a material world, is an erroneous
deduction from the fact of our perceptions; that those perceptions
are-nothing but ideas and thoughts in our minds; that these are produced
in perfect uniformity, order, and consistency in all minds, so that
their occurrence is according to fixed rules which may be called the
laws of nature; that that Deity is either the immediate or the mediate
cause of these perceptions, by his universal operation on created minds;
and that the created mind has a power of managing these perceptions,
so that volitions arise, and all the phenomena of moral action and
responsibility. The great reply to this is, that it is a hypothesis
which cannot be proved, which is highly improbable, and which seems to
put upon the Deity the inflicting on man a perpetual delusion."
The weakness of Berkeley's system as a mere question of logic is, that
while he requires the most rigorous demonstration of the existence of
what he defines as matter, he assumes an eternal spirit with various
attributes, and also creates spirits of various sorts. He creates the
states of mind resulting from the sensation of surrounding phenomena
into ideas, existing independent of the _ego_, when in truth, man's
ideas are not in addition to man's mind; but the aggregate of sensative
ability, and the result of its exercise is the mind, just as the
aggregate of functional ability and activity is life. The foundation of
Berkeley's faith in the invisible "eternal spirit" in angels as "created
spirits," is difficult to discover, when you accept his argument for
the rejection of visible phenomena. He in truth should have rejected
everything save his own mind, for the mental processes are clearly
not always reliable. In dreams, in delirium, in insanity, in temporary
disease of particular nerves of sensation, in some phases of magnetic
influence, the ideas which Berkeley sustains so forcibly are admittedly
delusions. As in George Berkeley, so we have in Bishop Butler, an
illustration of the endeavour to check the rapidly enlarging scepticism
of this century. Joseph Butler was born in 1692, died 1752, and will be
long known by his famous work on the "Analogy of Religion" to the course
of nature. In this place it is not our duty to do more than point out
a few features of the argument, observing that this elaborate piece of
special pleading for natural and revealed religion, is evidence that
danger was apprehended by the clergy, from the spread of Freethought
views amongst the masses. A popular reply was written to provide against
the growing popular objection; Bishop Butler argues that "we know
that we are endued with certain capacities of action, of happiness and
misery; for we are conscious of acting, of enjoying pleasure, and of
suffering pain. Now that we have these powers and capacities before
death, is a presumption that we shall retain them through, and after
death; indeed a probability of it abundantly sufficient to act upon,
unless there be some positive reason to think that death is the
destruction of those living powers." It may be fairly submitted in
reply, that here the argument from analogy is as utterly faulty, as if
in the spring season a traveller should say of a wayside pool, it is
here before the summer sun shines upon it, and will be here during and
after the summer drought, when ordinary experience would teach him
that as the pool is only gathered during the rainy season in the hollow
ground, so in the dry hot summer days, it will be gradually evaporated
under the blazing rays of the July sun. As to the human capacities,
experience teaches us that they have changed with the condition of the
body; emotional feelings and animal passions, the gratification of which
ensured temporary pleasure or pain, have varied, have been newly felt,
and have died out in different periods and conditions of our lives,
and the presumption is against the complete endurance of all these
"capacities for action," &c., even during the whole life, and much
more strongly, therefore, against their endurance after death. Besides
which--continuing the argument from analogy--my "capacities" having
only been manifested since my body has existed, and in proportion to my
physical ability, the presumption is rather that the manifestation which
commenced with the body, will finish as the body finishes. Further,
it is fair to presume that "death is the destruction of those living
powers," for death is the cessation of organic functional activity; a
cessation consequent on some change or destruction of organisation.
Of course, the word "destruction" is not here used in any sense of
annihilation of substance, but as meaning such a change of condition
that vital phenomena are no longer manifested. But, says Butler, "we
know not at all what death is in itself, but only some of its effects,
such as the dissolution of flesh, skin, and bones, and these effects
do in nowise appear to imply the destruction of a living agent." Here,
perhaps, there is an unjustifiable assumption in the words "living
agent," for if by living agent is only meant the animal which dies,
then the destruction of flesh, skin, and bones does fairly imply the
destruction of the living agent, but if by living agent is intended
more than this, then the argument is speciously and unfairly worded. But
beyond this, if Bishop Butler's argument has any value, it proves too
much. He says--"Nor can we find anything throughout the whole analogy
of nature, to afford us even the slightest presumption that animals ever
lose their living powers.... by death." That is, Bishop Butler applies
his argument for a future state of existence, not only to man, but to
the whole animal kingdom; and it may be fairly conceded that there is
as much ground to presume that man will live again, as there is that the
worm will live again, which, being impaled upon a hook, is eaten by the
gudgeon, or that the gudgeon will live again which, threaded as a bait,
is torn and mangled to death by a ravenous pike, or that the pike will
live again after it has been kept out of water till rigid, then gutted,
scaled, stuffed with savoury condiments, broiled, and ultimately eaten
by Piscator and his family. Bishop Butler's argument, that because
pleasure or pain is uniformly found to follow the acting or not acting
in some particular manner, there is presumptive analogy in favour of
future rewards and punishments by Deity, appears weak in the extreme.
According to Butler, God is the author of nature. Nature's laws are
such, that punishment, immediate or remote, follows non-observance, and
reward, more or less immediate, is the result of observance; and because
God is by Butler's argument, assumed as the author of nature, and has
therefore already punished or rewarded once; we are following Butler,
to presume that he will after death punish or reward again for an action
upon which he has already adjudicated. In his chapter on the Moral
Government of God, Butler says, "As the manifold appearances of design
and of final causes in the constitution of the world, prove it to be the
work of an intelligent mind, so the particular final causes of pleasure
and pain distributed amongst his creatures, prove that they are under
his government--what may be called his natural government of creatures
endowed with sense and reason." But taking Bishop Butler's own position,
what sort of government is demonstrated by this argument from analogy?
God, according to Bishop Butler's reasoning, designed the whale to
swallow the Clio Borealis, which latter he designed to be so swallowed,
but which he nevertheless invested with some 300,000 suckers, to enable
it in its turn to seize the minute animalcule on which it lives. God
designed Brutus to kill Caesar, Orsini to be beheaded by Louis Napoleon.
These, according to Butler, would be all under the special control of
God's government. Deity would guide the Clio Borealis into the mouth of
the whale, guide the dagger of Brutus, and arrange for the enjoyment of
the cancan by princes of the blood royal. Bishop Butler's theory that
our present life is a state of trial and probation, is met by the
difficulty, that while he assumes the justice and benevolence of God as
moral governor, he has the fact, that many exist with organisations and
capacities so originally different, that it is manifestly most unfair to
put one and the same reward, or one and this same publishment for all.
The Esquimaux or Negro is not on a level at the outset of life with the
Caucasian races. How from analogy can any one argue in favour of the
doctrine that an impartial judge who had started them in the race of
life unfairly matched, would put the same prize before all, none of the
starters being handicapped? Bishop Butler's argument on the doctrine
of necessity, is that which one might expect to find from a hired _nisi
prius_ advocate, but which is read with regret coming from the pen of a
gentleman, who ought to be striving to convince his erring brethren by
the words of truth alone. He says, suppose a child to be educated from
his earliest youth in the principles of "fatalism," what then? The reply
is, that a necessitarian knowing that a certain education of the human
mind was most conducive to human happiness, would strive to impart to
his children education of that character. That a worse "fatalism"
is inculcated in the doctrine of a fore-ordaining and ever-directing
providence, planning and controlling every one of the child's actions,
than ever was taught in necessitarian essays. That the child would be
taught the laws of existence, and would be shown how certain conduct
resulted in pleasure, and certain other conduct was during life attended
with pain, and that the result of such teaching would be far more
efficacious in its moral results, than the inculcation of a present
responsibility, and an ultimate heaven and hell, in which latter
doctrine, nearly all Christians profess to believe, but nearly all act
as if it were not of the slightest consequence whether any such paradise
or infernal region exists.
Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, born October 1,1672, died November
15,1751, may be taken as one of the school of polished deistical
writers, who, though comparatively few, fairly enough represent the
religious opinions of the large majority of the journalists of the
present day. In the course of Bolingbroke's "Letters on the Study of
History," a strong sceptical spirit is manifested, and he speaks in
one of "the share which the divines of all religions have taken in the
corruption of history." In another he thus deals with the question
of the Bible:--"It has been said by Abbadie, and others, 'that the
accidents which have happened to alter the texts of the Bible, and to
disfigure, if I may say so, the scriptures in many respects, could not
have been prevented without a perpetual standing miracle, and that a
perpetual standing miracle is not in the order of providence.' Now I
can by no means subscribe to this opinion. It seems evident to my reason
that the very contrary must be true; if we suppose that God acts towards
men according to the moral fitness of things; and if we suppose that he
acts arbitrarily, we can form no opinion at all. I think these accidents
would not have happened, or that the scriptures would have been
preserved entirely in their genuine purity notwithstanding these
accidents, if they had been entirely dictated by the Holy Ghost: and the
proof of this probable proposition, according to our clearest and most
distinct ideas of wisdom and moral fitness, is obvious and easy. But
these scriptures are not so come down to us: they are come down broken
and confused, full of additions, interpolations; and transpositions,
made we neither know when, nor by whom; and such, in short, as never
appeared on the face of any other book, on whose authority men have
agreed to rely. This being so, my lord, what hypothesis shall we follow?
Shall we adhere to some such distinction as I have mentioned? Shall we
say, for instance, that the scriptures were originally written by the
authors to whom they are vulgarly ascribed, but that these authors
writ nothing by inspiration, except the legal, the doctrinal, and the
prophetical parts, and that in every other respect their authority
is purely human, and therefore fallible? Or shall we say that these
histories are nothing more than compilations of old traditions, and
abridgements of old records, made in later times, as they appear to
every one who reads them without prepossession and with attention?"
It has been alleged that Pope's verse is but another rendering of
Bolingbroke's views without his "aristocratic nonchalance," and that
some passages of Pope regarded as hostile to revealed religion, were
specially due to the influence of Bolingbroke; and more than one critic
has professed to trace identities of thought and expression in order to
show that Pope was largely indebted to the published works of St. John.
David Hume was born at Edinburgh, 26th April, 1711, and died 1776. He
created a new school of Freethinkers, and is to-day one of the most
esteemed amongst sceptical authors. He was a profound thinker, and
an easy, elegant writer, who did much to give a force and solidity to
extreme heretical reasonings, which they had hitherto been regarded as
lacking. His heretical essays have had a far wider circulation since his
death, than they enjoyed during his life. Many volumes have been issued
in the fruitless endeavour to refute him, and all these have contributed
to widen the circle of his readers. He adopted and advocated the
utilitarian and necessitarian theory of morals, and wrote of ordinary
theism and religion, as arising from personification of unknown causes,
for general or special phenomena. He held and advanced the idea, which
Buckle so fully states, and endeavours to prove in his "History of
Civilisation"--viz., that general laws operate amongst peoples, and
influence and determine their so-called moral conduct, much as other
laws do the orbits of planets, the occurrences of eclipses, &c. His
arguments against miracles, as evidences for revealed religion, remain
unrefuted, although they have been made the subject of many attacks. He
contends, in effect, that in each account of a miraculous occurrence,
there is always more _prima facie_ probability of error, or bad faith
on the part of the narrator, than of interference with those invariable
sequences known as natural laws, and there was really no reply in the
conclusion of Dr. Campbell, to the effect that we have equally to
trust human testimony for an account of the laws of nature and for the
narratives of miracles, for in truth you never have the same character
of human testimony for the latter as for the former. And, further, while
in the case of human testimony as to natural events, it is evidence
which you may test and compare with your own experience. This is not so
as to miracles, declared at once to be out of the range of all ordinary
experience. "Men," he says, "are carried by a natural instinct or
prepossession to repose faith in their senses. When they follow this
blind and powerful instinct of nature, they always suppose the very
images presented to the senses to be the external objects, and never
entertain any suspicion that the one are nothing but representatives
of the other. But this universal and primary opinion of all men is soon
destroyed by the slightest philosophy, which teaches us that nothing can
ever be present to the mind but an image or perception. So far, then,
we are necessitated by reasoning to contradict the primary instincts of
nature, and to embrace a new system with regard to the evidence of our
senses. But here philosophy finds herself extremely embarrassed, when
she would obviate the cavils and objections of the sceptics. She can
no longer plead the infallible and irresistible instinct of nature, for
that led us to quite a different system, which is acknowledged fallible,
and even erroneous, and to justify this pretended philosophical system
by a chain of clear and convincing argument, or even any appearance of
argument, exceeds the power of all human capacity. Do you follow the
instinct and propensities of nature in assenting to the veracity of
the senses? But these lead you to believe that the very perception or
sensible image is the external object--(Idealism.) Do you disclaim
this principle in order to embrace a more rational opinion, that the
perceptions are only representations of something external? You here
depart from your natural propensities, and more obvious sentiments;
and yet are not able to satisfy your reason, which can never find any
convincing argument from experience to prove that the perceptions are
connected with external objects--(Scepticism.)"
Charles de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu, born in 1689 near Bordeaux,
died at Paris 1755, who earned considerable fame by his "Lettres
Persanes," is more famous for his oft-referred to work "L'Esprit des
Lois." Victor Cousin describes him as "the man of our country who
has best comprehended history, and who first gave an example of true
historic method." In the publication of certain of his ideas on history,
Montesquieu was the layer of the foundation-stone for an edifice which
Buckle would probably have gloriously crowned had his life been longer.
Voltaire, who sharply criticises Montesquieu, declares that he has
earned the eternal gratitude of Europe by his grand views and his bold
attacks on tyranny, superstition, and grinding taxation. Montesquieu
urged that virtue is the true essence of republicanism, but misled
by the mistaken notions of honour held by his predecessors and
contemporaries, he declared honour to be the principle of monarchical
institutions. Voltaire reminds him that "it is in courts that men,
devoid of honour, often attain to the highest dignities; and it is in
republics that a known dishonourable citizen is seldom trusted by
the people with public concerns." Montesquieu wrote in favour of a
constitutional monarchy such as then existed in England, and his work
shadowed forth a future for the middle class in France.
Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire, born 20th February, 1694, at Chatenay,
died 30th May, 1778, may be fairly written of as the man to whose
fertile brain and active pen, to whose great genius, fierce irony,
and thorough humanity, we owe much more of the rapid change of popular
thought in Europe during the last century than to any other man. His
wit, like the electric flash, spared nothing; his love for his kind
would have made him the protector of everything weak, his desire to
protect himself from the consequences of his truest utterances, often
dims the hero-halo with which his name is surrounded. Born and trained
amongst a corrupt and selfish class, it is not wonderful that we find
some of their pernicious habits clinging to parts of his career. On the
contrary, it is more wonderful to find that he has shaken off so much of
the consequences of his education. Neither in politics nor in theology
was he so very extreme in his utterances as many deemed him, for while
he occasionally severely handled individual monarchs, we do not find
him the preacher of republicanism. On the contrary, he is often severe
against some of the advanced political views of Jean Jacques Rousseau.
He nevertheless suggests that it might have been "the art of working
metals which originally made kings, and the art of casting cannons which
now maintains them," and as a commentary on kingly conduct in the matter
of taxation, declares that "a shepherd ought to shear his sheep, and
not to flay them." In theological controversy he wrote as a Theist, and
declares "Atheism and Fanaticism" to be "two monsters which may tear
society in pieces, but the Atheist preserves his reason, which checks
his propensity to mischief, while the fanatic is under the influence of
a madness constantly urging him on." For the ancient Jews, and for
the Hebrew records, Voltaire entertained so thorough a feeling of
contemptuous detestation, that in his "Defense de mon Oncle," and his
articles and letters on the Jews, we find utter disbelief in them as
a chosen people, and the strongest abhorrence of their brutal habits,
heightened in expression by the scathing satire of his phrases. To the
more modern descendants of Abraham he said: "We have repeatedly driven
you away through avarice; we have recalled you through avarice and
stupidity; we still, in more towns than one, make you pay for liberty to
breathe the air; we have, in more kingdoms than one, sacrificed you
to God; we have burned you as holocausts--for I will not follow your
example, and dissemble that we have offered up sacrifices of human
blood; all the difference is, that our priests, content with applying
your money to their own use, have had you burned by laymen; while your
priests always immolated their human victims with their own sacred
hands. You were monsters of cruelty and fanaticism in Palestine; we have
been so in Europe."
Writing on miracles, Voltaire asks: "For what purpose would God perform
a miracle? To accomplish some particular design upon living beings?
He would then, in reality, be supposed to say--I have not been able to
effect by my construction of the universe, by my divine decrees, by my
eternal laws, a particular object; I am now going to change my eternal
ideas and immutable laws, to endeavour to accomplish what I have
not been able to do by means of them. This would be an avowal of
his weakness, not of his power; it would appear in such a being an
inconceivable contradiction. Accordingly, therefore, to dare to ascribe
miracles to God is, if man can in reality insult God, actually offering
him that insult. It is saying to him--You are a weak and inconsistent
being. It is therefore absurd to believe in miracles; it is, in fact,
dishonouring the divinity."
Those who are inclined to attack the character of Voltaire, should read
the account of his endeavours for the Calas family. How, when old Calas
had been broken alive on the wheel at Toulouse, and his family were
ruined, Voltaire took up their case, aided them with means, spared no
effort of his pen or brain, and ultimately achieved the great victory
of reversing the unjust sentence, and obtaining compensation for the
family. It, then, these Voltaire-haters have not learned to love this
great heretic, let them study the narrative of his even more successful
endeavours on behalf of the Sirvens; more successful, because in this
case he took up the fight before an unjust judgment could be delivered,
and thus prevented the repetition of such an iniquitous execution as had
taken place in the Galas case. The cowardly slanders as to his conduct
when dying are not worth notice; those spit on the grave of the dead who
would not have dared to look in the face of the living.
Claud Adrian Helvetius was born at Paris 1715, and died December 1771.
His best known works are "De l'Esprit," published 1758; "Essai sur
l'Origine des Connaissances Humaines," 1746; "Traite des Systemes,"
1749; "Traite des Sensations," 1758. Rousseau wrote in reply to
Helvetius, but when the Parliament of Paris condemned the work "De
l'Esprit," and it was in consequence burned by the common hangman,
Rousseau withdrew his refutatory volume. Helvetius argues that any
religion, of which the chiefs are intolerant, and the conduct of
which is expensive to the state, "cannot long be the religion of an
enlightened and well governed nation. The people that submit to it will
labour only to maintain the ease and luxury of the priesthood; each
of its inhabitants will be nothing more than a slave to the sacerdotal
power. A religion to be good should be tolerant and little expensive.
Its clergy should have no authority over the people. A dread of the
priest debases the mind and the soul, makes the one brutish and the
other slavish. Must the ministers of the altar always be armed with the
sword of the state? Can the barbarities committed by their intolerance
ever be forgotten? The earth is yet drenched with the blood they have
spilled. Civil tolerance alone is not sufficient to secure the peace
of nations. Every dogma is a seed of discord and injustice sown amongst
mankind."
"Why do you make the Supreme Being resemble an eastern tyrant? Why make
him punish slight faults with eternal torment? Why thus put the name of
the Divinity at the bottom of the portrait of the devil? Why oppress
the soul with a load of fear, break its springs, and of a worshipper of
Jesus make a vile, pusillanimous slave? It is the malignant who paint a
malignant G-od. What is their devotion? A veil for their crimes."
"Let not the rewards of heaven be made the price of trifling religious
operations, which convey a diminutive idea of the Eternal and a false
conception of virtue; its rewards should never be assigned to fasting,
haircloth, a blind submission, and self-castigation. The man who
places these operations among the virtues, might as well place those of
leaping, dancing, and tumbling on the rope." "Humility may be held in
veneration by the dwellers in a monastery or a convent, it favours the
meanness and idleness of a monastic life. But ought the humility to
be regarded as the virtue of the people? No." Speaking of the Pagan
systems, Helvetius says, "All the fables of mythology were mere emblems
of certain principles of nature."
Baron d'Holbach, a native of the Palatinate, born January 1723, died
21st January, 1789, deserves special notice, as being the man whose
house was the gathering place of the knot of writers and thinkers, who
struck light and life into the dark and deadened brain of France. He is
generally reputed to have been the author of that well-known work,
the "System of Nature," which was issued as if by Mirabaud. This work,
although it was fiercely assailed at the time, by the pen of Voltaire,
and by the _plaidorie_ of the prosecuting Avocat-General, and has
since been attacked by hundreds who have never read it, yet remains
a wonderfully popular exposition of the power-gathering heresy of the
century, and, as far as we are aware, has never received efficient
reply. Probably next to Paine's works, it had in England during
the second quarter of this century, the widest circulation of any
anti-theological book, and this circulation extending through the
manufacturing ranks. In the eighteenth century Mirabaud could, in
England, only be found in the hands of the few, but fifty years had
wondrously multiplied the number of readers.
Joseph Priestley was born near Leeds, 13th March, 1733, and being
towards the latter part of his life driven out of England, by the
persecuting spirit evinced towards him, and which had been specially
excited by his republican tendencies, he died at Northumberland,
Pennsylvania, on the 6th Feb., 1804. Originally a Church of England
clergyman, his first notable inclination to heterodoxy manifested
itself in hesitation as to the doctrine of the atonement. He ultimately
rejected the immortality and immateriality of the soul, argued for
necessitarianism, and earned considerable unpopularity by the boldness
of some of his sentiments on political as well as theological matters.
Priestley was one of the rapidly multiplying instances of heresy alike
in religion and politics, but he provoked the most bitter antagonism.
His works were burned by the common hangman, his house, library, and
scientific instruments were destroyed by an infuriate and pious mob.
Despite all this, his heresy, according to his own view of it, was not
of a very outrageous character, for he believed in Deity, in revealed
religion, and in Christianity, rather putting the blame on misconduct
of alleged Christians. He said: "The wretched forms under which
Christianity has long been generally exhibited, and its degrading
alliance with, or rather its subjection to a power wholly heterogeneous
to it, and which has employed it for the most unworthy purposes, has
made it contemptible and odious in the eyes of all sensible men, who are
now everywhere casting off the very profession and every badge of it.
Enlightened Christians must themselves, in some measure, join with
unbelievers in exposing whatever will not bear examination in or about
religion." His writings on scientific topics were most voluminous; his
most heretical volumes are those on "Matter and Spirit."
Edward Gibbon was born at Putney, the 27th April, 1737, and died 16th
January, 1794. He was a polished and painstaking writer, aristocratic
in his tendencies and associations, who had educated himself into a
disbelief in the principal dogmas of Christianity, but who loved the
peace and quietude of an easy life too much to enter the lists as an
active antagonist of the Church. His works, especially the fifteenth and
sixteenth chapters of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," have
been regarded as infidel in their tendency, rather from what has been
left unsaid than from the direct statements against Christianity.
The sneer at the evidence of prophecy, or the doubt of the reality of
miraculous evidences, is guardedly expressed. It is only when Gibbon can
couch his lance against some reckless and impudent forger of Christian
Evidences, such as Eusebius, that you have anything like a bold
condemnation. A prophecy or a miracle is treated tenderly, and if
killed, it is rather with over-affectionate courtesy than by rough
handling. In some parts of his vindications of the attacked passages,
Gibbon's scepticism finds vent in the collection and quotation of
unpleasantly heretical views of others, but he carefully avoids
committing himself to very distinct personal declarations of disbelief;
he claims to be the unbiassed historian recording fact, and leaving
others to form their own conclusions. It would perhaps be most
appropriate to express his convictions as to the religions of the world,
in nearly the same words as he used to characterise the various modes of
worship at Rome, "all considered by the people as equally true, by the
philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful."
Pierre John George Cabanis, born at Conac, near Breves, 6th June, 1757,
died 6th May, 1808, following Condillac in many respects, was one of
those whose physiological investigations have opened out wide fields of
knowledge in psychology, and who did much to promote the establishment
in France, America, and England, of a new school of Freethinkers.
"Subject to the action of external bodies," he says, "man finds in the
impressions these bodies make on his organs, at once his knowledge and
the causes of his continued existence, for to live is to feel; and in
that admirable chain of phenomena which constitute his existence, every
want depends on the development of some faculty; every faculty by
its very development satisfies some want, and the faculties grow by
exercise, as the wants extend with the facility of satisfying them. By
the continual action of external bodies on the senses of man, results
the most remarkable part of his existence. But is it true that the
nervous centres only receive and combine the impressions which reach
them from the bodies? Is it true that no image or idea is formed in the
brain, and that no determination of the sensitive organ takes place,
other than by virtue of these same impressions on the senses strictly
so-called? The faculty of feeling and of spontaneous movement forms
the character of animal nature. The faculty of feeling consists in
the property possessed by the nervous system of being warned by
the impressions produced on its different parts, and notably on its
extremities. These impressions are internal or external. External
impressions, when perception is distinct, are called sensations.
Internal impressions are very often vague and confused, and the animal
is then only warned by their effects, and does not clearly distinguish
their connection with the causes. The former result from the application
of external objects to the organs of sense, and on them ideas depend.
The latter result from the development of the regular functions, or from
the maladies to which each organ is subject; and from these issue those
determinations which bear the name of instincts. Feeling and movement
are linked together. Every movement is determined by an impression,
and the nerves, as the organs of feeling, animate and direct the motor
organs. In feeling, the nervous organ reacts on itself. In movement it
reacts on other parts, to which it communicates the contractile faculty,
the simple and fecund principle of all animal movement. Finally, the
vital functions can exercise themselves by the influence of some nervous
ramifications, isolated from the system--the distinctive faculties can
develope themselves, even when the brain is almost wholly destroyed, and
when it seems wholly inactive. But for the formation of thoughts, it is
necessary that the brain should exist, and be in a healthy condition; it
is the special organ of thought." Thomas Paine, the most famous Deist of
modern times, was born at Thetford on the 29th January, 1737, and
died 8th June, 1809. It will hardly be untrue to say that the famous
"rebellious needleman" has been the most popular writer in Great Britain
and America against revealed religion, and that his works, from their
plain, clear language, have in those countries had, and still have, a
far wider circulation than those of any other modern sceptical author.
His anti-theology was allied to his republicanism; he warred alike
against church and throne, and his impeachment of each was couched in
the plainest Anglo-Saxon. His name became at the same time a word
of terror to the aristocracy and to the clergy. In England numerous
prosecutions were commenced against the vendors of his political and
theological works, and against persons suspected of giving currency to
his views. The peace-officers searched poor men's houses to discover his
dreaded works. Lancashire and Yorkshire artisans read him by stealth,
and assembled in corners of fields that they might discuss the "Age
of Reason," and yet be safe from surprise by the authorities. Heavy
sentences were passed upon men convicted of promulgating his opinions;
but all without effect, the forbidden fruit found eager gatherers. Paine
appears to have been tinged with scepticism from his early boyhood, but
it was as a democratic writer that he first achieved literary fame.
His "Age of Reason" was the culminating blow which the dying eighteenth
century aimed at the Hebrew and Christian records. Theretofore scholarly
philosophers, metaphysicians, and critics had written for their fellows,
and whether or not any of the mass read and understood, the authors
cared but little. Now the people were addressed by one of themselves in
language startling in its plainness. Paine was not a deep examiner of
metaphysical problems, but he was terribly in earnest in his rejection
of an impossible creed.
Charles Prangois Dupuis was born near Chaumont, in France, the 16th
Oct., 1742, died 29th Sept., 1809. He played a prominent part in
the great revolutionary movement, and was Secretary to the National
Convention. His famous work, "L'Origine de tous les Cultes," is one of
the grand heresy marks of the eighteenth century. Himself a Pantheist,
he searched through the mythic traditions of the Greeks, the Egyptians,
the Hindoos, and the Hebrews, and as a result, sought to demonstrate a
common origin for all religions. Dr. John Pye Smith classes Dupuis as an
Atheist, but this is most certainly an incorrect classification. He did
not believe in creation, nor could he go outside the universe to
search for its cause, but he regarded God as "la force universelle
et eternellement active" and which permeated and animated everything.
Dupuis was an example of a new and rapidly increasing class of
Freethinking writers--i.e., those who, not content with doubting the
divine origin of the religions they attacked, sought to explain the
source and progress of the various systems. He urges that all religions
find their base in the attempts at personification of some one or
other, or of the whole of the forces of the universe, and shows what an
important part the sun and moon have been made to play in the Egyptian,
Greek, and Hindoo Mythologies. He argues that the fabulous biographies
of Hercules, Bacchus, Osiris, Mithra, and Jesus, find their common
origin in the sun-worship, thus cloaked and hidden from the vulgar
in each country. He does not attack the Hebrew Records as simply
inaccurate, but endeavours to show clear Sabaistic foundation for many
of the most important narratives. The works of Dupuis and Dulaure
should be read together; they contain the most complete amongst the many
attempts to trace out the common origins of the various mythologies of
the world. In the ninth chapter of Dupuis' great work, he deals with the
"fable made upon the sun adored under the name of Christ," "_un dieu qui
ait mange autrefois sur la terre, et qu'on y mange aujourd'hui,_"
and unquestionably urges strange points of coincidence. It is only
astrologically that the 25th of December can be fixed, he argues, as the
birthday of Mithra and of Jesus, then born of the celestial Virgin. Our
Easter festivities for the resurrection of Jesus, are but another form
of the more ancient rejoicings at that season for Adonis, the sun-God,
restored to the world after his descent into the lower regions. He
recalls that the ancient Druidic worship recognised the Virgin suckling
the child, and gathers together many illustrations favourable to his
theory. Here we do no more than point out that while reason was rapidly
releasing itself from priestly thraldom, heretics were not content to
deny the divine origin of Christianity, but sought to trace its mundane
or celestial source, and strip it of its fabulous plumage.
Constantine Francis Chassebeuuf Count Volney, born at Craon in Anjou,
February 3rd, 1757, died 1820. He was a Deist. In his two great works,
"The Ruins of Empires," and "New Researches on Ancient History," he
advances many of the views brought forward by Dupuis, from whom he
quotes, but his volumes are much more readable than those of the author
of the "Origin of all Religions." Volney appears to have been one of the
first to popularise many of Spinoza's Biblical criticisms. He denied the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He wrote most vigorously against
kingcraft as well as priestcraft, regarding all systems of monarchy and
religion as founded on the ignorance and servility, the superstition
and weakness of the people. He puts the following into the mouth of
Ma-hommedan priests replying to Christian preachers: "We maintain that
your gospel morality is by no means characterised by the perfection you
ascribe to it. It is not true that it has introduced into the world new
and unknown virtues; for example, the equality of mankind in the eyes
of God, and the fraternity and benevolence which are the consequence of
this equality, were tenets formerly professed by the sect of Hermetics
and Samaneans, from whom you have your descent. As to forgiveness
of injuries, it had been taught by the Pagans themselves; but in the
latitude you give to it, it ceases to be a virtue, and becomes an
immorality and a crime. Your boasted precept, to him that strikes thee
on thy right cheek turn the other also, is not only contrary to the
feelings of man, but a flagrant violation of every principle of justice;
it emboldens the wicked by impunity, degrades the virtuous by the
servility to which it subjects them; delivers up the world to disorder
and tyranny, and dissolves the bands of society--such is the true spirit
of your doctrine. The precepts and parables of your Gospel also never
represent God other than as a despot, acting by no rule of equity; than
as a partial father treating a debauched and prodigal son with greater
favour than his obedient and virtuous children; than as a capricious
master giving the same wages to him who has wrought but one hour, as to
those who have borne the burthen and heat of the day, and preferring
the last comers to the first. In short, your morality throughout is
unfriendly to human intercourse; a code of misanthropy calculated to
give men a disgust for life and society, and attach them to solitude and
celibacy. With respect to the manner in which you have practised your
boasted doctrine, we in our turn appeal to the testimony of fact, and
ask, was it your evangelical meekness and forbearance which excited
those endless wars among your sectaries, those atrocious persecutions
of what you call heretics, those crusades against the Arians, the
Manichseans, and the Protestants, not to mention those which you have
committed against us, nor the sacrilegious associations still subsisting
among you, formed of men who have sworn to perpetuate them?* Was it
the charity of your Gospel that led you to exterminate whole nations in
America, and to destroy the empires of Mexico and Peru; that makes you
still desolate Africa, the inhabitants of which you sell like cattle,
notwithstanding the abolition of slavery that you pretend your religion
has effected; that makes you ravage India whose domain you usurp; in
short, is it charity that has prompted you for three centuries past to
disturb the peaceful inhabitants of three continents, the most prudent
of whom, those of Japan and China, have been constrained to banish you
from their country, that they might escape your chains and recover their
domestic tranquillity?"
* The oath taken by the Knights of the Order of Malta is to
kill, or make the Mahometans prisoners, for the glory of
God.
During the early part of the eighteenth century, magazines and other
periodicals began to grow apace, and pamphlets multiplied exceedingly in
this country. Addison, Steele, Defoe, and Dean Swift all helped in the
work of popular education, and often in a manner probably unanticipated
by themselves. Dean Swifts satire against scepticism was fiercely
powerful; but his onslaughts against Roman Catholics and Presbyterians
made far more sceptics than his other writings had made churchmen.
During the latter portion of the eighteenth century, a new phase of
popular progress was exhibited in the comparatively lively interest
taken in political questions by the great body of the people inhabiting
large towns. In America, France, and England, this was strongly marked;
it is however in this country that we find special evidences of the
connection between heresy and progress, as contradistinguished from
orthodoxy and obstructiveness manifested in the struggle for the liberty
of the press and platform; a struggle in which some of the boldest
efforts were made by poor and heretical self-taught men. The dying
eighteenth century witnessed, in England, repeated instances of State
prosecutions, in which the charge of entertaining or advocating the
views of the Republican heretic, Paine, formed a prominent feature,
and there is little doubt that the efforts of the London Corresponding
Society (which the Government of the day made strenuous endeavours to
repress) to give circulation to some of Paine's political opinions in
Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the North, had for result the familiarising
many men with views they would have otherwise feared to investigate.
The step from the "Rights of Man" to the "Age of Reason" was but a short
stride for an advancing inquirer. In France the end of the eighteenth
century was marked by a frightful convulsion. A people starved and
degraded for generations, rose in the very desperation of despair, and
with a mighty force broke the yoke of traditional feudalism and habitual
monarchic reverence; but in the case of France, the revolution was too
sudden to be immediately beneficial or enduring, the people were as a
mass too poor, and therefore too ignorant to wield the power so rapidly
wrested from the class who had so long monopolised it. It is far better
to grow out of a creed by the sure and gradual consciousness of the
truths of existence, than to dash off a religious garb simply from
abhorrence of the shameful practices of its professors, or sudden
conviction of the falsity of many of the testimonies in its favour. So
it is a more permanent and more complete revolution which is effectuated
by educating men to a sense of the majesty and worth of true manhood,
than is any mere sudden overturning a rotten or cruel usurpation.
Monarchies are most thoroughly and entirely destroyed--not by pulling
down the throne, or by decapitating the king, but by educating and
building up with a knowledge of political duty, each individual citizen
amongst the people.
It is here that heresy has its great advantage. Christianity says,
"the powers that be are ordained of God, he that resisteth the power
resisteth the ordinance of God." Heresy challenges the divine right
of the governor, and declares that government should be the best
contrivance of national wisdom to promote the national weal, to provide
against national want, and alleviate-national suffering--that government
which is only a costly machinery for conserving class privileges, and
preventing popular freedom, is a tyrannical usurpation of power,which it
is the duty of true men to destroy.
I have briefly and imperfectly alluded to a few of the men who stand
out as the sign-posts of heretical progress during the sixteenth,
seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries; in some future publication of
wider scope fairer tribute may be paid to the memories of some of these
mighty warriors in the Freethought army. My object is to show that the
civilisation of the masses is in proportion to the spread of heresy
amongst them, that its effect is seen in an exhibition of manly
dignity and self-reliant effort which is utterly unattainable amongst a
superstitious people. Look at the lazzaroni of the Neapolitan States,
or the peasant of the Campagna, and you have at once the fearful
illustration of demoralisation by faith in the beggar, brigand, and
believer.
It is sometimes pretended that such advantages of education and position
as the people may boast in England, their civil rights and social
advancement, are owing to their Christianity, but in point of fact the
reverse is the case. For centuries Christianity had done little but
fetter tightly the masses to Church and Crown, to Priest and Baron; the
enfranchisement is comparatively modern. Even in this very day, in the
districts where the people are entirely in the hands of the clergy of
the Established Church, there they are as a mass the most depraved. Take
the agricultural counties and the agricultural labourers: there are no
heretical books or papers to be seen in their cottages, no heretical
speakers come amongst them to disturb their contentment; the
deputy-lieutenant, the squire, and the rector wield supreme
authority--the parish church has no rival. But what are the people as a
mass? They are not men, they are not women, they lack men's and women's
thoughts and aspirations: they are diggers and weeders, hedgers and
ditchers, ploughmen and carters; they are taught to be content with the
state of life, in which it has pleased God to place them.
My plea is, that modern heresy, from Spinoza to Mill, has given
brain-strength and dignity to every one it has permeated--that the
popular propagandists of this heresy, from Bruno to Carlile, have been
the true redeemers and saviours, the true educators of the people. The
redemption is yet only at its commencement, the education only lately
begun, but the change is traceable already; as witness the power to
speak and write, and the ability to listen and read, which have grown
amongst the masses during the last 100 years. And if to-day we write
with higher hope, it is because the right to speak and the right
to print has been partly freed from the fetters forged through long
generations of intellect-prostration, and almost entirely freed from the
statutory limitations which, under pretence of checking blasphemy and
sedition, have really gagged honest speech against Pope and Emperor,
against Church and Throne.