,transcribed from the #ahgc ,austin and 
,co4 edition by ,david ,price4          
,,christianity                          
,,in ,,relation ,,to                    
,,freethought1 ,,scepticism1 ,,and      
,,faith3                                
,,three ,,discourses                    
,,by ,,the ,,bishop ,,of ,,peterborough4
                                        
,,with                                  
,,special ,,replies                     
,,by ,,mr4 ,,charles ,,bradlaugh4       
99 99 99 99 99                          
99 99 99 99 99                          
99 99 99 99 99                          
,,london3            ,,austin  ,,co41   
#ag1 ,,johnson',s ,,court1 ,,fleet      
,,street1 ,e4,c4                        
99 99 99 99 99                          
,,price ,,one ,,shilling4               
,,advertisement4      ,,it will be seen 
by the following ,circular and          
,correspondence how the  ,discourses of 
the ,bishop of ,peterborough and ,mr4   
,bradlaugh's ,replies  thereto were     

brought about4  ,the ,dean's ,circular  
speaks of four  ,discourses to be       
delivered by the ,bishop1 but in fact   
only the three here  reported were      
given4  ,this volume1 therefore1        
contains the whole of both  sides of the
 question1 so far as the discussion has 
hitherto proceeded in  ,norwich4  ,the  
speeches were all taken down by a       
competent shorthand  reporter1 specially
 engaged for the ,national ,reformer4   
,the reader will clearly see by the     
,correspondence that the ,christians    
refused the proposal of the ,secularists
 that the two parties should  co-operate
 in publishing together and circulating 
as widely as possible  the ,discourses  
and ,replies4  ,mr4 ,bradlaugh has      
therefore taken upon  himself the       
responsibility of their joint           
publication4  ,the extraordinary        
reasons given by the ,dean 7in the last 
paragraph of his letter of ,feb4  #aeth7
 for refusing the perfectly fair offer  
of ,mr4 ,cooper1 will not pass  unnoted4

  ,his claim to certainty may differ    
from the claim to  infallibility made on
 behalf of the ,pope and the ,romish    
,church1 and the  principle on which he 
condemns the dissemination of ,sceptical
 works as  treason to human welfare1 may
 differ from that which in ,rome has led
 to  the establishment of the ,index    
,expurgatorius2 but we confess that in  
neither case can we see the difference1 
and we challenge the ,dean to show  that
 there really is any4    ,we are        
confident that ,freethinkers generally  
will appreciate the  disinterested zeal 
of ,mr4 ,r4 ,a4 ,cooper in making all   
arrangements  necessary to ensure that  
the ,bishop's ,discourses should be     
fitly answered  on the spot and without 
delay4                                  
,,the ,,publishers4    ,april1 #ahga4   
,,circular ,,of ,,the ,,dean ,,of       
,,norwich4      ,,sir1--,i am about to  
ask your kind help in an enterprise     
undertaken for the  religious welfare of
 our fellow-citizens1 to the success of 

which your  co-operation may very       
materially contribute4  ,it has been    
thought that in  large cities1 where    
sceptical views are often so much       
disseminated1 and  spread so widely     
among all classes1 good might be done1  
under ,god's  blessing1 by an annual    
series of discourses from some competent
 preacher1  directed against modern     
forms of infidelity1 and afterwards     
published and  circulated at so low a   
price as should put them within the     
reach of all4  ,it is chiefly with the  
view of holding such discourses there1  
that the  ,dean and ,chapter have       
recently caused the ,nave of the        
,cathedral ,church to  be lighted and   
furnished with chairs1 all of which     
7except1 a very few  reserved for       
persons engaged in the service1 or      
connected with the  ,cathedral7 will be 
perfectly free4  ,with the view of      
giving the  preachers a larger          
discretion as to time1 and of making the
 whole service  shorter1 it is proposed 

to use before the sermon the ,litany    
only with one  or two hymns4  ,i may add
 that the whole scheme has the thorough 
sanction  and concurrence of the ,lord  
,bishop of the ,diocese1 who has been   
consulted  on every part of it4    ,the 
,lord ,bishop of ,peterborough has      
kindly undertaken to give the first     
series of discourses on ,tuesday1 the   
#bast1 ,tuesday1 the #bhth1  ,wednesday1
 the #bith1 and ,thursday1 the #cjth of 
,march1 the  service each evening       
commencing at #h p4m4    ,if you approve
 of our scheme 7and pray observe that   
the discourses1  having for their object
 the vindication and establishment of   
the  ,christian faith1 will in all      
probability hardly notice the points on 
which ,christians of various ,communions
 differ71 will you kindly help us1      
first1 by making known among your       
workpeople or parishioners the days and 
hours of the services1 with the name of 
the preacher1 and encouraging  them to  
attend2 secondly1 by circulating among  

them the discourses1 when  published1 of
 which ,i shall be greatly pleased to   
send you as large a  number as you think
 you can dispose of8  ,on this last     
point ,i shall be  obliged by a         
communication from you4    ,the subject 
of the first series of discourses will  
be 8,free ,thought40               ,i   
have the honour to be1 ,sir1 your       
obedient servant1                       
,e4 ,,meyrick ,,goulburn1 ,d4,d4        
,dean of ,norwich4    ,the ,deanery1    
,norwich1 ,february #gth1 #ahga4        
,,correspondence4                       
,norwich1 ,feb4 #acth1 #ahga4    ,,rev4 
,,sir1--,i received with extreme        
pleasure your circular letter of #gth   
inst41 relating to1 and defining the    
objects of the ,discourses intended  to 
be delivered next month in the          
,cathedral1 by the ,bishop of           
,peterborough1 and ,i am induced to     
reply to it by the conviction that      
great good may result from 8the scheme10
 if you can be induced to modify  it in 

some particulars4    ,the circular      
states that the ,discourses are to be   
8directed against  modern forms of      
infidelity10 and have for their object  
the 8vindication  and establishment of  
the ,christian faith10 but ,i assume    
your ultimate  object is the vindication
 and establishment of truth--no matter  
what the  truth may be4  ,if my         
assumption be correct1 ,i heartily      
sympathise with  your object1 and as a  
,sceptic or ,infidel1 will co-operate   
with my  ,christian brethren if         
permitted4    ,may ,i call your         
attention to a practical difficulty in  
the way of the  scheme1 which ,i fear   
you have not sufficiently considered8   
,in the  present state of opinion1 or   
rather in the absence of real opinion1  
on  these subjects1 ,sceptics or        
,infidels cannot always insure the      
attention  of ,christian hearers1 or of 
persons indifferent to the subject of   
their  discourses1 but these and not the
 confirmed ,infidels1 are the persons   

the  zealous ,sceptic most desires to   
reach4  ,i imagine your difficulty is   
the  same4  ,you want to get at the     
mighty mass who know and care nothing   
about  these questions1 and also at the 
,infidel whose opinions you deem so     
mischievous4  ,the fact is1 the great   
mass and the ,infidel are not likely  to
 attend unless their attention be in    
some manner especially drawn to  the    
,discourses1 but you will probably have 
a large congregation of  believing      
,christians1 whose faith may be         
confirmed1 but yet who do not  hold     
opinions you wish to change4    ,i beg  
to suggest a mode by which ,i think the 
difficulty may be removed1  and an      
interest created that will be useful to 
the cause of truth--to  ,christian      
truth1 if ,christianity be true--but to 
truth1 whether  ,christianity be true or
 false4    ,i intend to invite to       
,norwich some person who shall be well  
known as a  representative exponent 8of 
modern forms of ,infidelity10 and       

request him  to deliver a course of     
lectures at about the same time1 and on 
the same  subject as that chosen by the 
,bishop of ,peterborough1 and if you    
think it  would be useful to give the   
public the opportunity of reading as    
well as  hearing the discourses1 both   
expositions of the subject might be     
published together1 and more extensively
 circulated and read1 in  consequence of
 the greater interest that would be thus
 created4    ,i have always scrupulously
 abstained from doing anything to       
influence the  politics or religion of  
persons in my employment1 but in        
accordance with  your wish1 ,i will take
 care to inform them all of the         
,discourses1 and  also acquaint them    
with the high reputation which the      
,bishop of  ,peterborough enjoys as a   
preacher4    ,i should be willing to    
subscribe for #bjj copies of the joint  
publication1  which will enable me to   
present one to every man and boy in my  
employment1 who is willing to accept it1

 and the remainder ,i shall be  happy to
 distribute according to the suggestion 
of the circular4                      ,i
 am1 ,rev4 ,sir1 your obedient servant1 
,,robert ,a4 ,,cooper4    ,the ,very    
,rev4 ,e4 ,m4 ,goulburn1                
,dean of ,norwich4                      
99 99 99 99 99                          
,the ,deanery1 ,norwich1 ,feb4 #aeth1   
#ahga4    ,,sir1--,i beg to acknowledge 
your letter of the #acth inst41 and to  
thank you  for the readiness you express
 to circulate among persons in your     
employment1 the announcement of the     
,bishop of ,peterborough's ,sermons4    
,i regret that ,i cannot meet this      
kindness on your part by assisting in   
any way in the circulation of tracts by 
a representative exponent 8of  modern   
forms of infidelity10 and ,i will       
explain in few words the reason  why ,i 
must decline the joint publication      
suggested by your letter4    ,professing
 yourself 7as you do7 a 8,sceptic10 by  
which ,i conceive is meant  7according  

to the derivation of the word7 one who  
has doubts as to  religious truth1 and1 
therefore1 is engaged in an inquiry1    
having for its  object the resolution of
 those doubts and the arrival at a      
conclusion2 it  is 7under your view of  
the subject7 perfectly consistent and   
reasonable  that you should do all in   
your power to get both sides of the     
religious  question ably and fairly     
expounded1 in order to give yourself and
 others  an opportunity of forming a    
right conclusion4    ,but my conclusion 
on the momentous question has long since
 been made up4  ,i am as firmly         
convinced that ,christianity is ,god's  
own message to the  world1 the truth and
 the only truth1 the way1 and the only  
way1 of  happiness and peace1 as that   
the sun is now shining in the heavens4  
,i  cannot1 therefore1 help regarding   
any attempt to throw doubt or discredit 
on ,christianity as a treason against   
the highest well-being of my            
fellow-creatures4  ,and you will see1   

therefore1 that 7under my view7 ,i      
could not properly join in disseminating
 publications1 which1 at the very       
least1 will insinuate a doubt as to that
 revealed religion which ,i hold  to be 
the only means of raising and saving our
 fallen race4                      ,i   
remain1 ,sir1 your obedient servant1    
,e4 ,,meyrick ,,goulburn4    ,mr4       
,robert ,a4 ,cooper4                    
99 99 99 99 99                          
,norwich1 ,feb4 #beth1 #ahga4    ,,rev4 
,,sir1--,i have to acknowledge the      
receipt of yours of the #aeth inst4     
7which came to hand on the #bbnd71 and  
to regret that you can engage in  the   
circulation of only one side of the     
important question you propose to       
expound4  ,and ,i regret it for these   
reasons1 because by so restricting  your
 action1 you1 while attacking1 prevent  
the fair expression of that  form of    
thought which you seek to destroy1 and  
allow those who hold such  opinions to  
shelter themselves1 if need be1 under   

the assumption that  your exposition of 
the case is not theirs4  ,and1 also1    
because your  expression of the         
unqualified certainty of your own       
conviction of the  truth of             
,christianity 7obtained1 doubtless1 from
 a consideration of all  sides of the   
subject71 is open to the objection that 
you fear to trust  the impartial        
examination of the evidence of that     
truth to the minds of  others1 and      
implies a latent1 though unconscious1   
doubt of the certainty  of the proof of 
that truth of which you speak so        
positively4    ,i cannot accept your    
description of my position as a         
8,sceptic or  ,infidel10 but let that   
pass4    ,i am still disposed to        
subscribe for #bjj copies of the        
,bishop's sermons1  and if you desire me
 to distribute more1 ,i have no doubt ,i
 can dispose of  a considerable number4 
,i am1 ,rev4 ,sir1 your obedient        
servant1                                
,,robert ,a4 ,,cooper4    ,the ,very    

,rev4 ,e4 ,m4 ,goulburn1                
,dean of ,norwich4                      
99 99 99 99 99                          
,the ,deanery1 ,norwich1 ,feb4 #beth1   
#ahga4    ,,sir1--,in reply to your     
letter of to-day1 in which you say1 8,i 
cannot  accept your description of my   
position as a #8,sceptic or ,infidel1'0 
,i  hasten to assure you that ,i should 
never have presumed to describe your    
position as such1 had ,i not imagined ,i
 had your own authority for doing  so4  
,the words of your letter of the #acth  
inst41 from which ,i drew this          
inference1 are3--        8,if my        
assumption be correct1 ,i heartily      
sympathise with your object1      and as
 a ,sceptic or ,infidel1 will co-operate
 with my ,christian      brethren if    
permitted40    ,i am thankful and       
rejoiced to find that my inference was  
an incorrect  one2 but ,i trust you will
 acknowledge that there was some ground 
in the  wording of the sentence for my  
making it4    ,i shall be happy to      

request your acceptance of #bjj copies  
of the  ,bishop's ,discourses1 and am   
much obliged to you for your offer of   
circulating them4                       
,yours very faithfully1                 
,e4 ,m4 ,,goulburn4    ,mr4 ,robert ,a4 
,cooper4                                
99 99 99 99 99                          
,norwich1 ,march #ast1 #ahga4    ,,rev4 
,,sir1--,i am sorry that in the sentence
 you refer to1 ,i did not express  my   
meaning with sufficient clearness to be 
understood2 though ,i am unable  to see 
that it will bear the construction you  
put upon it4    ,in the circular letter1
 you speak of the prevalence1 in large  
cities1 of  8sceptical views10 and also 
of 8modern forms of infidelity10        
evidently  using the words 8sceptical0  
and 8infidelity0 in their popular and   
ordinary1 and not in their strict1      
grammatical sense4    ,i say evidently1 
because the phrases 8sceptical views10  
and 8modern  infidelity0 appear to be   
intended as equivalent1 and ,i therefore

 assume  that you use them in their     
popular sense1 because if ,i am to      
suppose you  use the word 8sceptical0 in
 its strict etymological meaning1 ,i    
must also  that you do the word         
8infidelity10 and ,i am reluctant to    
think that you  would1 in speaking of   
the opinions of people who you must know
 are as  sincere and honest as yourself1
 deliberately and intentionally do that4
    ,by 8sceptical views0 and 8modern   
forms of infidelity10 ,i understood you 
to mean both doubt and disbelief of the 
truth of religion in general1 and       
,christianity in particular1 and ,i     
therefore accepted in substance your    
own phraseology in the popular sense in 
which you appeared to use it1 and  ,i   
speak of myself as a 8,sceptic or       
,infidel10 meaning thereby that ,i am   
not merely a doubter1 but a             
disbeliever--a disbeliever not of       
8religious  truth10 but the truth of any
 religion4  ,it is so common for        
religious  people to speak of           

disbelievers in general as 8sceptics0 or
 8infidels10  without regard to the     
derivation or strict meaning of the     
words1 that ,i  think it would have been
 pedantic to appear to have understood  
them in  any other than their common1   
and ,i deem not very correct1 meaning4  
,you were1 therefore1 perfectly entitled
 to say you had my authority for        
describing me as a 8,sceptic30 what ,i  
demurred to was your description of  my 
position as a 8,sceptic0 as ,i had      
adopted the term in the sense in  which 
you seem to use it in your circular1 but
 not in the sense of your  letter4  ,i  
think the misconception would have been 
avoided had you used  the whole instead 
of the half of my expression--viz41     
8,sceptic or  ,infidel10 instead of     
8,sceptic0 only2 as your description1 if
 correct1 of  the position of a         
8,sceptic0 will clearly not apply to a  
8,sceptic or  ,infidel40    ,and here ,i
 will endeavour to state 8my conclusion 
on the momentous  question40  ,i am     

quite convinced that the history of     
,jesus ,christ1 as  recorded in the ,new
 ,testament1 is a fable entirely        
unworthy of credence1  and that the     
,christian and all other systems of     
religion are but  mischievous delusions1
 but the nature of the evidence by which
 ,i arrive  at these conclusions1 is so 
different from that which convinces me  
that  the sun is shining in the heavens 
7space87 that ,i could not use that form
  of words as correctly expressing the  
strength of my convictions4    ,i regret
 it is necessary to occupy your time    
with so long an explanation4  ,although 
,i could not agree with what you said1  
,i did not wish to trouble  you further 
on that point1 and thought it would be  
sufficient to indicate  a dissent       
without going into detail4  ,brevity was
 a failure1 and ,i  apologise4    ,i am1
 ,rev4 ,sir1 very respectfully1 your    
obedient servant1                       
,,robert ,a4 ,,cooper4    ,the ,very    
,rev4 ,e4 ,m4 ,goulburn1                

,dean of ,norwich4                      
,,christianity  ,,in ,,relation ,,to    
,,freethought1 ,,scepticism1 ,,and      
,,faith4  ,,christianity ,,and          
,,freethought4       ,first ,discourse  
of the ,bishop of ,peterborough1        
delivered in ,norwich                   
,cathedral1 ,march #bhth1 #ahga4    ,,on
 ,tuesday evening1 ,march #bhth1 the    
,right ,rev4 ,dr4 ,magee1 ,lord ,bishop 
of  ,peterborough1 preached the first of
 a series of ,sermons on ,christianity  
and ,freethought1 before a large        
congregation in the nave of the         
,cathedral4  ,according to the ,dean's  
previous arrangements1 the nave was     
occupied by men1 and the south aisle by 
ladies4  ,the nave was brilliantly      
lighted1 and the ,lord ,bishop of       
,norwich and the full chapter took part 
in  the service4    ,after prayers were 
intoned and a hymn sung1 the ,right     
,rev4 ,prelate  selected his text from  
the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,john1    
viii4 #cc3 8,how  sayest thou1 ,ye shall

 be made free80  ,his ,lordship said3   
,the scene that is described in this    
chapter makes1 ,i think1 a fitting      
introduction to the series of sermons of
 which ,i am here to-night to           
preach the first4  ,these sermons are   
meant to be pleadings for      ,christ4 
,their object is to win back to him     
those who may have left      him1 to    
cause those who have not left him to    
cling to him more      strongly2 to win 
back disciples to ,christ1 and to       
confirm disciples      in their         
discipleship4  ,that is what ,i and     
those who are to follow me      here    
have in view4  ,for this reason ,i ask  
you to-night to study this      story in
 the life of ,christ1 because it is one 
in which we see how      ,christ        
himself1 long ago1 first won and then   
lost disciples4        ,the scene       
commences with a large accession of     
disciples to ,christ4      ,we read1    
that as he spoke these words many       
believed on him1 and the      scene ends

 with many of those very believers      
taking up stones to cast      at him4   
,first they believed on him1 shortly    
after they seek to take      his life2  
and after this is over1 we read how his 
own disciples came      to him again1   
and said to him1 8,master1 tell us40    
,now1 brethren1 we      ,christians     
believe that in this scene was a        
prophecy of the whole      history of   
,christ's life upon earth in his        
,church2 the story of those      who    
come and those who go1 of those who     
believe in him at first1 and      of    
those who cease to believe in him1 and  
also the inner history of      those    
that never forsake him4  ,we believe    
that when the noisy strife      of      
things has passed away1 and the         
execrations of those that hated      him
 have ceased to ring upon the ear1 there
 still will be heard the      voice of  
the ,church1 saying 8,master1 tell us10 
that which others will      not1 or     
cannot listen to2 8,master1 to whom     

shall we go8 thou hast the      words of
 eternal life40  ,but it is not on those
 who thus stay with      ,christ that ,i
 ask you to fix your attention4  ,i ask 
you to-night to      contemplate with   
me1 not those who remain with him1 but  
those who      leave him4  ,i ask you to
 understand a little of that mental     
history      that is here shown us1     
telling us how they passed from belief  
to      doubt1 and from doubt to        
rejection of ,christ4        ,it will be
 profitable to us1 ,i think1 both to    
those who believe and      to those who 
unhappily disbelieve in ,christ1 that we
 should study a      little this early  
instance of ,freethought and disbelief4 
,it will be      good for those who do  
not believe in ,christ to look at this  
scene1      because it will show this   
fact1 that there were those who         
disbelieved      in ,christ4  ,it will  
show this fact1 that this is not a      
religion whose      origin is lost in   
the dim distance of time2 it is not a   

legendary      faith of which no one can
 say when it began or who first taught  
it1      as it arose in historical      
times2 a faith continuing from the very 
first1 not without question or dispute1 
but in spite of the question      and   
notwithstanding the dispute4  ,it will  
show that ,freethought is as      old as
 ,christianity itself1 and when we read 
how long it is since men      had the   
same doubts and difficulties1 it will   
occur to us that after      all there   
must be a wonderful power in this faith 
that struggles into      acceptance in  
spite of those doubts and difficulties1 
and that there      must be some        
marvellous vitality in the faith that   
has survived #ahjj      years1 something
 that is worth inquiring into4  ,this   
bush that is      burning and never     
burned1 is worth turning aside to look  
at4  ,it will      be good for us to    
look at those early unbelievers1 because
 it      strengthens our faith to be    
reminded that unbelief is no new thing1 

and that ,christianity has survived more
 than #ahjj years4        ,it is good   
for another reason2 it teaches us to try
 to understand the      feelings of     
those who don't believe2 it teaches us  
to try to put      ourselves in their   
place1 to try to understand how it is   
they don't      agree with us2 to make  
all allowances for the honesty of their 
disbelief1 to try to enter fairly into  
their motives and feelings4      ,if we 
don't do this1 we are in danger of being
 hard1 and bitter1 and      unjust in   
contending for him1 but not in his      
spirit2 forgetting that      there is   
not one of those who disbelieve in him1 
for whom he has not      died1          
forgetting that an unbeliever is not an 
enemy to be driven back      from the   
fortress1 but an exile to be won back by
 earnest reasoning      to his ,father  
in ,heaven4  ,let us learn1 above all1  
that in all our      arguments for      
,christianity we should be filled with  
the spirit of him      for whom we      

plead1 and that we should manifest the  
truth in love4        ,we ask you then  
to contemplate this scene1 in which we  
find ,christ      winning and losing    
disciples1 and learn something4  ,and   
the first      thing we have to remark  
is this1 how very little those that come
 and      go seem to have been          
influenced by what we call the evidences
 of      ,christianity4  ,they were     
doubtless drawn to ,christ by the fame  
of his      miracles1 it does not seem  
to have been his miracles that converted
      them4  ,it was as 8he said those  
words many believed on him40  ,then he  
said something else1 and they left him4 
,it was not that they doubted      of   
his ability to work miracles1 but       
because something he said      offended 
them4  ,they came to him not altogether 
in consequence of his      miracles1 and
 they left him in spite of his miracles4
  ,it teaches us      that the religion 
of ,christ was not received             
unquestioningly1 even in      the case  

of his miracles1 for in spite of his    
miracles they ventured      to question 
his doctrine2 so that those who say     
,christianity was      received in an   
ignorant age are contradicted by the    
story of      ,christianity itself1 for 
many of those who saw his miracles      
rejected      him4        ,there is     
another reason for noting this1 in order
 to observe the      power of prejudice 
and passion in influencing men's belief 
or      disbelief4  ,there are few men  
who believe strictly in accordance with 
their reflecting faculties4  ,the       
desires1 prejudices1 and passions of    
men largely share in the making of their
 beliefs2 and if this be true      of   
beliefs1 it is equally true of men's    
unbelief4  ,if there be those      here 
who do not believe in ,christ1 ,i ask   
them3 ,are you quite sure      that your
 unbelief is the result of calm1 and    
thoughtful1 and careful      study of   
what ,christianity has to say for       
itself8  ,are you sure you      have not

 hastily taken up some objections       
against ,christianity      without      
waiting for the answer8  ,are you quite 
sure that you have not                  
misunderstood some words of             
,christ--some words that1 having        
offended      you1 you have passed away 
without waiting for the reason8  ,are   
you      sure that there is no unreason 
in your unbelief1 you that say there    
is so little reason in our belief8  ,it 
is because ,i am deeply      convinced  
of this that ,i am here4  ,it is because
 ,i believe that      misconception1    
prejudice1 and hasty adoption of other  
men's opinions      upon slender        
grounds1 make a large part of ignorant  
belief1 often a      large part of      
ignorant unbelief4  ,it is because these
      misunderstandings may be removed1 
that ,i am here to speak of the         
subjects ,i have announced4  ,it is     
because ,i believe it is useless to     
argue against prejudices1 that ,i shall 
endeavour to remove those               

prejudices1 and mistaken feelings and   
opinions1 that make men      unwilling  
to listen to arguments for              
,christianity4  ,those who follow       
me will bring many arguments for        
,christianity1 and ,i am here to-night  
to prepare the way for them4        ,i  
ask you1 then1 to turn again to this    
story1 and to see why it was      that  
those new disciples left ,christ4  ,it  
was for this reason1 that      they were
 offended because he appeared to deny   
them the possession of      liberty4    
,when they became his disciples he said1
 8,ye shall know the      truth1 and the
 truth shall make you free40  ,then they
 answered him1      8,we be ,abraham's  
seed1 and were never in bondage to any  
man2 how      sayest thou1 ,ye shall be 
made free80  ,he had offered them       
liberty1      and this implied that they
 were not free1 and this they regarded  
as      the gravest of affronts4  ,we1  
the children of ,abraham1 the           
aristocracy of humanity1 those whom the 

,lord delivered out of ,egypt1          
whose slaves are we that you venture to 
offer us freedom8  ,the offer      is an
 absurdity and an affront1 and you are  
denying us freedom in the      very     
words2 and so left him1 for they deemed 
it an insult to their      birthright of
 freedom4  ,we1 who understand the      
story1 can see how      much these men  
were mistaken4  ,our ,lord was offering 
them moral      freedom1 and they       
supposed that he was offering them      
political      freedom4        ,there   
was a misunderstanding as to the nature 
of liberty2 he offered      them a      
liberty for which they were not         
desirous4  ,it was a dispute      about 
liberty between ,christ and those first 
,freethinkers4  ,now1 may      there not
 be some misunderstanding still8  ,that 
is the subject of my      sermon        
to-night4  ,it is ,christianity and     
,freethought4  ,what do you             
understand by ,freethought8  ,something 
opposed to ,christianity2 and by      a 

,freethinker1 one who rejects all or a  
part of ,christianity4  ,why do         
such men give themselves that name8     
,because it expresses their             
conviction that ,christianity is opposed
 to freedom of thought1 that      it    
puts a restraint on the human intellect4
  ,they say that      ,christianity     
shackles the human mind4  8,i boast of  
my freedom10 says      the ,freethinker2
 8you require me to submit the freedom  
of my      intellect to the authority of
 a book4  ,my mind resents such an      
attempt to fetter it1 ,i submit to no   
authority4  ,you priests and      bigots
 that come to me with your authority1   
and threaten me with      penalties for 
daring to think thus and thus1 you are  
convicting      yourselves of falsehood 
before you utter another word1 for you  
are      opposed to freedom4  ,i cannot 
listen to your evidences of             
,christianity4  ,no proof of miracle    
will make me give up my freedom of      
thought40  ,how often do we hear of the 

bigotry of the priest1 and the          
enlightened ,freethought of the age4    
,mark then1 we have the issue           
raised between ,christianity and        
,freethought4  ,let us understand it    
clearly1 before we go further4  ,it is  
true that ,christianity comes      with 
a claim of authority4  ,it is true that 
,christianity says1      ,believe this  
and that1 because ,christ has said it4  
,he is seeking men      now1 as he did1 
with authority2 and it is true that     
,christianity does      warn men of     
certain penalties1 heavy and grievous   
penalties1 if they      don't believe   
what ,christ says4  ,christianity is    
authoritative      teaching1 accompanied
 with threats of penalties4  ,now we are
 told1      that is just the point at   
which ,christianity comes into collision
      with ,freethought4  ,freedom of   
thought will not endure to hear of      
authority1 and resents the very idea of 
penalty4        ,now we have put before 
us the issue between ,christianity and  

,freethought4  ,it is necessary that we 
should define for ourselves      what is
 ,freethought4  ,the word is on men's   
lips1 and ,i am not sure      that they 
understand what they mean by it4  ,let  
us try to understand      what is       
,freethought4  ,it may mean one of three
 things4  ,it may mean      freedom as  
opposed to necessity1 it may mean       
freedom as opposed to      authority1 or
 it may mean freedom as opposed to      
responsibility4  ,as      regards the   
first of these1 by freedom as opposed to
 necessity1 we      mean that a man is  
free to think in one way or another1    
that it is      not absolutely necessary
 for him always to think in one way or  
another2 that is to say1 his thought is 
not the necessary product of            
physical constitution1 that his thoughts
 do not grow out of him1 as      the    
blade grows out of the seed or the      
flower out of the plant2 that      it is
 not mechanical or necessary1 but that a
 man has the power to      choose how he

 will think4  ,then as to freedom as    
opposed to      authority1 we mean that 
a man is not bound to think like other  
men--that is1 his thought is not subject
 to any other man's1 and he      has a  
right to say1 8,that is your opinion and
 not mine40  ,freedom of      thought as
 opposed to responsibility means that a 
man is not      answerable for his      
belief1 and that whatever he thinks on  
any      subject1 he is never to suffer 
for his belief in any way whatever4     
,these three are the only possible      
meanings4        ,now let us take them  
in their order4        ,first1 freedom  
of thought as opposed to necessity4     
,does ,christianity      deny this      
freedom8  ,on the contrary1 it asserts  
and vindicates it4      ,christianity   
teaches that man is free1 and terribly  
free1 to will his      own belief4  ,it 
teaches this by the fact that it tells  
us a man is      answerable for his     
belief1 for a man cannot be answerable  
for that in      which he has no choice1

 any more than he has of the colour of  
his      hair4  ,if he be answerable1 it
 can only be because he has the power   
of choosing4  ,it is remarkable that    
many people who call themselves         
,freethinkers1 insist on it that man is 
not answerable for his belief      any  
more than for the colour of his hair4   
,they thus deny the freedom      of     
thought4  ,freedom and responsibility   
always go together2 so you      see in  
this view of ,freethought1              
,christianity1 so far from denying      
it1 asserts it against many             
,freethinkers2 and in this respect the  
,christian is the ,freethinker1 and     
maintains the doctrine of               
,freethought4        ,second1 freedom of
 thought as opposed to the idea of all  
authority4      ,we are told that       
thought cannot be free if it submits to 
any      authority1 and it is quite true
 in the abstract4  ,attend to this4  ,it
      is true that the abstract idea of 
freedom is opposed to the abstract      

idea of authority1 in thought or        
religion4  ,but it is equally true1     
that these are opposed in everything    
else4  ,it is just as true in           
politics1 in which the idea of freedom  
is opposed to the idea of               
authority4  ,where there is absolute    
freedom1 there cannot be      authority4
  ,where there is absolute authority1 we
 cannot understand      logically how   
there can be any freedom4  ,starting    
from the maxim1      8,man is free10 we 
arrive logically at the conclusion that 
there can      be no authority for that 
man4  ,starting from the axiom1         
8,authority is      supreme10 is to     
arrive at the logical conclusion that   
there is no      room for liberty4  ,the
 two ideas are logically opposed1 the   
one to      the other4  ,but are they so
 in practice8  ,is it a fact that       
freedom      is found inconsistent with 
authority8  ,is it not true that men    
reconcile them every day8  ,is it not   
true that thought is free1 and      yet 

thought submits itself to authority8    
,many cherished opinions are            
received on authority1 not because we   
have proved them ourselves4  ,we        
take the opinion of a lawyer on law1 and
 of a doctor on medicine1 as            
authority4  ,morality itself is largely 
received upon authority4  ,we      are  
always submitting ourselves to          
authority4  ,logically1 freedom and     
authority are separate1 but there never 
was a society in which the      two did 
not come together4  ,they are like the  
chemical elements1      which have a    
strong affinity for each other1 and are 
never apart1      except when separated 
in the laboratory of the chemist1 but   
the      moment they are liberated they 
are together again4  ,it is just the    
same with ,freethought and authority4   
,men are always submitting              
themselves to authority1 and if they did
 not they would never learn      or know
 anything4  ,when we speak of the       
authority of a revelation      from     

,god1 we mean that we bring to          
,freethought1 to judge of1 the          
reasons for believing that the teacher  
knows more about the things he          
teaches than others4  ,that is a very   
large part of what is called      8the  
evidence from miracles40  ,men speak as 
if the miracles were the      evidences 
of the morals of the ,gospel4  ,that is 
not what we say4      ,what we say is   
this1 ,our ,lord coming down from heaven
 7as we believe7      to tell us of     
another and supernatural world of which 
he knew and we      did not1 gave       
evidence of that knowledge by bringing  
down the      supernatural4        ,let 
us suppose we were walking through one  
of the church-yards of      this city   
with another person1 and the discourse  
fell upon the      resurrection4  ,if   
you said it was impossible for any      
authority to      prove it1 and the     
person said1 ,i know there can be a     
resurrection of      the dead1 and ,i   
will give you a proof of it2 and suppose

 he bade the      dead rise1 and they   
sprang alive out of the earth2 do you   
mean to say      that would be no       
authority from him on the question of   
the      resurrection of the dead8      
,would it be a tyranny over ,freethought
 to      be told that the dead can rise8
  ,so you see ,freethought is not       
inconsistent with the authority of a    
revelation1 for this reason1      that  
the revelation submits its proof to your
 ,freethought4        ,i am not saying  
that ,i have proved the miracles1 ,i am 
only saying      that by miracles we are
 not violating ,freethought2 but on the 
contrary we are maintaining it4  ,i     
speak as unto wise men1 judge ye        
what ,i say4        ,i now come to the  
third idea of freedom1 that is1 freedom 
as opposed      to responsibility2 and  
this is1 ,i really believe1 what men    
mean when      they speak of            
,freethought as opposed to              
,christianity4  ,they say1 8,you        
threaten us with penalties for unbelief1

 and our whole soul revolts      against
 that4  ,it would be tyrannical to      
punish a man for his      opinions4  ,we
 cannot endure men to do this4  ,do you 
mean to say that      ,god will be less 
just than man and persecute us for our  
opinions80      ,let us see whether we  
clearly understand this question4  ,this
      objection goes to the principle   
that no man should be punished for      
his opinions4  ,i will ask you to       
consider this question4  ,is it true    
that no man under any circumstances     
should be punished for his              
opinions8  ,and again is it true that   
men do not suffer for their             
opinions8  ,it is true that so long as  
he keeps his thoughts to      himself1  
he will not be punished for them1 for   
the simple reason that      they are not
 known2 but when he utters them1 he may 
be punished4  ,is      it not true1 that
 a man who utters a seditious1 a        
libellous1 or      indecent thought is  
punished and should be punished8  ,and  

why8      because the law of liberty of 
the individual comes into collision     
with the higher law of the general      
welfare1 and must give way to it4       
,there are other penalties2 society     
punishes a man more sharply than        
the law4  ,there are offences of thought
 and speech which the law does      not 
and should not punish1 and yet which    
society visits very heavily4      ,let a
 man entertain evil and unkind thoughts 
of his neighbour1 and      show it by   
his looks1 and we know how society      
visits him for his      ,freethought4   
,every man knows that if all the        
thoughts of his heart      were laid    
bare1 before his fellow men1 he might   
pass a miserable and      outcast       
existence1 because society defends      
itself against this      injurious      
exercise of ,freethought4        ,then  
pass a step further1 and think of the   
constitution of nature and      of the  
laws of the world4  ,does this world of 
nature allow of      ,freethought8  ,do 

these natural laws allow a man to make  
mistakes with      impunity8  ,let any  
man think wrong of the powers of nature1
 that fire      will not burn nor water 
drown1 and he will soon find himself    
visited      with a sharp and merciless 
punishment1 for there are no laws so    
merciless as those of nature4  ,he that 
transgresses them ignorantly      or    
wittingly1 is beaten alike with many    
stripes4  ,the great revolving          
machinery of the world will not arrest  
its revolutions because of the      cry 
of a human creature that by a very      
innocent error1 even by his             
mistaken action of ,freethought1 is     
ground to pieces beneath them4  ,if     
the man of science warns us of the      
consequences of transgressing the       
laws that he has discovered1 we should  
be at liberty to think      differently 
from him1 but it will be at our own     
proper peril1 if we      exercise our   
,freethought4  ,as sure as you do1 so   
you will suffer from      it4  ,it is   

not the prophet or his warning that     
brings down the      penalty1 it is not 
the book upon sanitary law that brings  
diptheria      or scarlet fever1 it is  
not the sinking of the mercury in the   
glass      that brings the storm2 the   
written proof in the one case1 the mute 
proof in the other1 foretell the evil1  
but do not create it4  ,nature      and 
science1 then1 have their warnings1 and 
threatenings1 and      penalties2 and   
nature and science avenge themselves on 
,freethought4        ,and mark this1 the
 more and more you lose sight of        
personal will1 the      fainter and     
fainter seems to grow the chance of     
forgiveness1 less and      less room    
there seems to be for ,freethought2     
there is something in      the words1   
8,i believe in ,god the ,father         
,almighty1 maker of heaven and          
earth10 there is something in the loving
 will that has power to save      the   
,freethought of his erring creatures    
from the soulless and      merciless    

machinery of law4        ,now we see how
 little room there is for ,freethought  
in this world of      law4  ,let us     
introduce into the world a fact2 let us 
introduce the      idea of a ,god2 let  
us suppose for the sake of argument that
 there is      a ,god4  ,can it be a    
matter of indifference how he feels     
toward us1      and how we should feel  
and act toward him8  ,how can there be a
      possibility of thought without    
consequences as regards ,god1 if there  
be no possibility of thought without    
consequences as regards the very        
least of ,god's works8  ,does it make no
 difference to us whether he is      an 
,almighty tyrant or a father to us1     
whether or not he can suspend      the  
terrible laws of nature which we dread8 
,can we hear about this      ,god1 and  
not wish to learn all about him8  ,can  
there be anything more      absurd than 
the saying1 ,let us have religion and no
 theology8  ,is      that more sensible 
than to say1 ,let us have sun1 moon1 and

 stars1 and      no astronomy2 let us   
have plants and no botany2 let us have  
the earth      and no geology8  ,if ,god
 be a fact1 there must certainly come   
theology      out of that fact4  ,as    
geology grows out of the fact with which
 it      deals1 so does theology grow   
out of a fact4  ,of all the errors of   
the      time there cannot be a greater 
absurdity than a religion without       
theology1 for every religion teaches our
 obligations to a higher      being4    
,if there be a ,god1 there must be a    
theology4  ,i will ask you      what is 
this creed of ,christendom8  ,it is     
nearly all the assertion of      facts3 
8,i believe in ,god the ,father         
,almighty1 maker of heaven and earth1   
and      in ,jesus ,christ his only son 
our ,lord1 who was conceived by the     
,holy      ,ghost1 born of the ,virgin  
,mary1 suffered under ,pontius ,pilate1 
was      crucified1 dead and buried2 he 
descended into hell1 the third day he   
rose again from the dead2 he ascended   

into heaven1 and sits at the      right 
hand of ,god the ,father ,almighty3 from
 thence he shall come to      judge the 
quick and the dead40        ,all these  
assertions of facts you may say are not 
facts2 but if they      be facts1 you   
are bound to think rightly about them4  
,you are bound      to think right about
 them under penalties1 but no more so   
than as to      other facts4  ,you are  
as much bound to think right as to the  
fact of      a ,god as to any other     
fact4  ,but men say1 ,these facts are   
not so      certain as the facts of     
physical science4  ,we answer1 ,they are
 more      certain to us2 they are to us
 facts as certain as the great lights of
      heaven4  ,we cannot conceive the  
possibility of ourselves doubting       
them4  ,we may say1 ,perhaps there is a 
,god1 and we have a right to      say1  
,the perhaps may become a certainty4    
,if we think right1 and you      think  
wrong1 you must suffer the consequences4
  ,if a man of science      puts into   

your hand a book1 and warns you of the  
danger of infection1      and you say   
you don't believe it1 because you are   
sceptical about the      teaching1 he   
cannot compel you to believe it1 but    
meantime you will      suffer2 the proof
 may come in sickness and in death1 and 
you will not      escape4  ,and we say1 
not in anger and bitterness1 not in hard
      denunciation of the wrath of      
,god--,god forbid that we should do it2 
but      we speak in the same tone of   
warning1 and not threatening1 and we    
say1 ,if you doubt1 remember time is    
passing1 and if you think wrong1        
there is danger of the judgment4  ,we   
say1 ,take heed how you grope in        
the dark and stumble4  ,we cannot alter 
the facts if they are facts1      and   
they will affect your happiness4  ,we   
say1 ,there is in this      nothing     
uncharitable1 no violation of           
,freethought any more in      religion  
than in science4  ,we say that the      
consequences of thinking                

erroneously in religion may be as       
perilous as the consequences of         
thinking erroneously as to physical     
facts4  ,it remains to be shown         
what are the facts of our religion4     
,all that we say now is1 that an        
error about the facts may be fraught    
with serious consequences1 and      we  
no more violate ,freethought than when a
 physician warns you4        ,now1 then1
 ,i trust we have disposed of those     
prejudices that lay upon      the       
threshold of our inquiry1 these         
prejudices against ,christianity      as
 being opposed to ,freethought2 for if  
,freethought means freedom as           
opposed to necessity1 religion does not 
deny it2 if ,freethought means          
freedom as opposed to authority1        
religion does not create the            
distinction1 it is just as easy to      
reconcile it with religion as with      
the state of society4  ,if you mean by  
,freethought1 freedom without           
responsibility as to consequences1 there

 is no such thing either in      society
 or in nature1 and you have no right to 
expect it in religion4      ,all that we
 say is1 that we are not to expect      
freedom of thought      without its     
responsibility4  ,christianity gives us 
glimpses of the      means of escape    
from the operation of material laws in  
the mercies of      the loving ,father  
of the human family4        ,,first     
,,reply  ,,of  ,,mr4 ,c4 ,,bradlaugh4   
,,christianity ,,and ,,freethought4     
,delivered in the ,free ,library1       
,norwich1 ,april #c1 #ahga4    ,,when on
 the #gth of ,february the ,very        
,reverend the ,dean of ,norwich issued  
his circular announcing that a series of
 discourses would be delivered by  8some
 competent preacher10 8having for their 
object the vindication and              
establishment of the ,christian faith10 
and 8directed against modern forms  of  
infidelity10 ,i felt deep interest1 not 
,i presume confined to the ranks  of the
 party which has permitted me to be its 

advocate upon this  occasion4  ,the     
circular was in point of fact an        
announcement that the  ,church of       
,england felt it necessary to challenge 
and give battle to  modern infidelity2  
and that having determined that the     
struggle should be  a real one1 it      
intended to select its best man1 and by 
his mouth to  vindicate and establish   
the faith1 which modern infidelity is   
doing so  much to undermine1 not only in
 the busy ,north1 but even in the quiet 
and  church-shadowed capital of ,east   
,anglia4    ,when on my arrival in      
,norwich ,i learned that the influence  
of the ,dean  and ,chapter of this      
cathedral city had in no sense been     
exerted to give  me the sort of         
opportunity to be heard in reply to     
their advocate1 which  ,i had a         
reasonable right to expect1 and when ,i 
knew that after our  friends making a   
circuit of the city1 in the vain        
endeavour to hire a  building meet for  
such an occasion1 it was difficult to   

ensure the use of  the ,free ,library   
,hall1 ,i felt that even in ,norwich the
 approved mode of  encountering modern  
infidelity seemed to be that of free    
speech for the  church advocate and     
gagged mouth for the pleader on behalf  
of heresy4  ,when ,i sat in the fine    
nave of the old cathedral1 and weighed  
the  accessories of choir and organ1    
intoned litany1 and prayer responses    
instrumentally accompanied2 when ,i     
looked at the large number of clergy    
present1 headed by two bishops1 and     
supported by the wealth and fashion  of 
the district1 ,i could not but feel that
 so far as mere scenic effects  went1   
our side was sadly lacking in such      
accessories to win adhesion4  ,when1    
too1 ,i saw the selected 8competent     
preacher10 the ,right ,rev4 ,dr4        
,magee1 ,lord ,bishop of ,peterborough1 
whose fame as an eloquent orator1 an    
erudite and polished disputant1 has long
 since been widely spread1 ,i knew  that
 our cause laboured under every possible

 disadvantage save one4  ,it  had but   
its truth and justice4  ,prestige1      
talent1 skill1 fashion1 were  allied to 
serve the ,church4  ,when1 moreover1 ,i 
found that in the local  press religious
 men1 headed by ,church of ,england     
clergy1 sought to excite  prejudices    
against me before even a word had been  
spoken on my side1 ,i  could not help   
thinking that even if defeated in a     
struggle so unequal it  would leave the 
,church but little to boast of in its   
victory4  ,but ,i  plead neither for    
mercy nor favour2 fair encounter has    
been asked and  denied1 and ,i take the 
risk of battle4  ,although we are to-day
 the  challenged1 the ,church refuses   
tourney ground to our party1 and we must
  contend as best we can4    ,in        
treating the subject of 8,christianity  
and ,freethought10 in reply to  the     
address of the ,bishop of ,peterborough1
 ,i am entitled to narrow1 and  shall   
narrow1 the question covered by this    
reply1 to one merely between  the       

,freethinker and the ,church of ,england
 ,christian only4  ,the litany1  hymns1 
and prayers which formed the preface to 
the ,bishop's advocacy are  here fair   
weapons to use against him4  ,i do not  
stand here to-night to  plead against   
,roman ,catholic ,christianity1 or      
against ,wesleyan1  ,independent1 or    
,baptist nonconforming ,christianity1   
nor do ,i plead  against ,unitarian     
,christianity4  ,i am here to reply to  
the ,church and  ,state ,christianity1  
the thirty-nine articles ,christianity2 
to the system  with which the ,lord     
,bishop of ,peterborough has identified 
his brilliant  talents and great powers 
of speech1 and with all the faults and  
corruptions of which he must rest       
burdened so far as this controversy is  
concerned4  ,here he must not throw     
aside any one of the three ,creeds1     
here every line of the ,prayer ,book    
affects his teaching4  ,the             
,christianity he must defend is that    
which the #i and #aj ,william ,,iv41    

cap4  #cb1 maintains2 the ,christianity 
by law established4    ,i pass without  
comment the fact that the text selected 
by the ,lord ,bishop  was not only from 
the ,gospel whose authenticity is       
doubted by many  ,christians1 but from a
 chapter specially regarded as an       
interpolated one4  ,on this head1 ,i    
leave ,dr4 ,magee to debate with ,dr4   
,davidson4  ,but ,i am  bound to draw   
attention to the very extraordinary     
exposition given of the  contents of    
this chapter1 which we are invited to   
study4  ,dr4 ,magee says  that the      
people who were with ,jesus1 8were      
doubtless drawn to ,christ by  the fame 
of his miracles10 and that when they    
left him 8it was not that  they doubted 
of his ability to perform miracles40    
,now1 so far as this  chapter is        
concerned1 there is not the smallest    
particle of reference to  miracles at   
all1 and1 therefore1 ,dr4 ,magee's words
 on this head1 and even  admitting his  
alleged authority1 were only so much    

foundationless  verbiage4  ,and when    
,dr4 ,magee says that this chapter      
teaches that 8the  religion of ,christ  
was not received unquestioningly1 even  
in the case of  his miracles1 for in    
spite of his miracles they ventured to  
question his  doctrine10 ,i can only    
express my deep regret that the many    
occupations of  the ,lord ,bishop of    
,peterborough should have left him      
without the time to  master the actual  
contents of the chapter on which his    
sermon was based4    ,bishop ,magee     
further urges that 8those who say that  
,christianity was  received in an       
ignorant age1 are contradicted by the   
story of  ,christianity itself1 for many
 of those who saw his miracles rejected 
them40  ,i fail to see the              
contradiction2 clearly the ,jews were an
  ignorant people1 they had no          
scientific literature1 no philosophy1 no
  recorded oratory1 not even a          
language--for the ,hebrew is but that   
which  the captives borrowed from their 

captors--not a trace of their ancient   
tongue having been preserved4    ,the   
learned ,bishop argues that 8the        
desires1 prejudices1 and passions of    
men largely share in the making of their
 beliefs40  ,but surely he might  have  
carried this farther still1 and have    
shown--and this even apart from  the    
case made out by ,darwin1 ,spencer1 and 
,wallace--that race1 climate1  soil1    
food1 and mode of life1 modify and      
change beliefs1 and that such  beliefs  
are transmissible and transmitted from  
parent to child in  similar--though     
perhaps not in the same--fashion as are 
features and  frames4  ,and as in the   
case of the physique the inherited      
nature is  modified1 improving or       
deteriorating with the mode of life of  
the  individual1 so also1 but in a more 
varied degree1 with his                 
thought-abilities and his thoughts4     
,but if it be true1 as was so           
powerfully urged by the ,right ,reverend
 ,christian ,advocate1 that men's       

desires1 passions1 and prejudices       
contribute largely to the making up of  
their beliefs1 what becomes of his      
,lordship's subsequent startling        
declaration that a man is free to choose
 what he will believe1 8to will  his own
 belief80  ,if there are hereditary     
predispositions to particular  lines of 
thought1 hereditary predispositions to  
regard particular topics  from limited  
stand-points1 hereditary predispositions
 to ignore or accept  unquestioningly   
particular propositions1 ,i ask1 ,does  
not the acquiescence  in such a doctrine
 fatally impeach the ,bishop's          
arguments8    ,on the reference made to 
the 8bigotry of the priest10 ,i desire  
in this  lecture to say but little1 for 
,i would willingly follow the example of
 my  ,right ,reverend antagonist1 and   
entirely avoid those arguments which    
savour of mere personal denunciation2   
but it is hard to forget that  during   
the #ahjj years which1 it was boasted1  
,christianity has endured it  was the   

policy and practice of priestly bigotry1
 first in the ,church of  ,rome1 and    
afterwards1 and not less1 in the ,church
 of ,england1 to oppose1  and without   
mercy to seek to crush out all efforts  
at ,freethought4  ,if  to-day the ,lord 
,bishop of ,peterborough lifts his      
powerful and eloquent  voice in the     
,cathedral nave1 if to-day we are       
charmed with his suasive  pleading and  
well-turned periods1 we can scarcely    
forget that it is only  since the       
,church has been unable to strike with  
the arm of the law that  she has        
condescended to plead with the tongue4  
,i must assume to-night that those of   
you who are present were also  present  
at the ,bishop's discourse2 but ,i speak
 with more freedom as it is  my         
intention to print this reply together  
with a verbatim report of the  ,lord    
,bishop's sermon1 so that they may stand
 side by side4  ,i regret that  the     
learned and eloquent advocate of ,church
 ,christianity did not think it  right  

when talking of freedom1 necessity1 laws
 of nature1 absolute  freedom1 and so   
forth1 to favour us with some           
explanation or definition  to guide us  
to the sense he intended to convey by   
their use2 as ,i could  not help        
fancying that he more than once used the
 same words with quite  different       
meanings4  ,jonathan ,edwards1 whom ,i  
shall quote to you with  slight         
modification1 thus in effect states the 
doctrine of  necessity3--8,the whole    
universe exhibits a fixed1 certain1 and 
constant  succession of events1 which   
bear to each other the relation of      
causes and  effects4  ,this series of   
causes and effects1 as they belong to   
unconscious and involuntary subjects1 is
 the physical order of the  material    
universe3 of which order the phenomena  
are found by observation  to take place 
according to certain principles1 which  
are usually called  the laws of nature4 
,this series1 as it applies to          
intelligent and  voluntary agents1      

consists of the fixed and invariable    
conjunction of  volitions and voluntary 
actions with antecedent motives4  ,in   
every  instance that we know by         
experience1 or that we can conceive1    
there is an  invariable and necessary   
conjunction of motives and volitions4   
,we cannot  conceive a change in the    
volition without an antecedent change in
 the  motive2 and the motives remaining 
the same1 the volitions and the         
voluntary acts will be correspondent4   
,we are conscious that we never do1  and
 never can1 perform any voluntary action
 without a motive40  ,while not         
adopting entirely the words of ,jonathan
 ,edwards1 ,i have given his view of    
the doctrine of necessity1 a view not   
contained in the sermon by ,bishop      
,magee2 but each used the phrase laws of
 nature4  ,now1 clearly1 in the  mouth  
of the ,bishop1 law meant the expression
 of personal will4  ,the ,duke  of      
,argyll in his 8,reign of ,law10        
says3--8,in its primary signification a 

#8law' is the authoritative expression  
of human will enforced by power20  but  
he gives five different senses in which 
the word 8law0 is used4  ,first1 8,we   
have law as applied simply to an        
observed order of facts2  secondly1 to  
that order as involving the action of   
some force or forces  of which nothing  
more may be known2 thirdly1 as applied  
to individual  forces1 the measure of   
whose operation has been more or less   
defined or  ascertained2 fourthly1 as   
applied to those combinations of force  
which  have reference to the fulfilment 
of purpose1 or the discharge of         
function2 fifthly1 as applied to        
abstract conceptions of the mind1 not   
corresponding with any actual phenomena1
 but deduced therefrom as axioms  of    
thought necessary to our understanding  
of them4  ,law1 in this sense1  is a    
reduction of the phenomena1 not merely  
to an order of facts1 but to  an order  
of thought40  ,i use law only as        
denoting observed concurrence or        

sequence of events4  ,when it is said to
 be a law that water poured from  the   
glass shall fall to the ground1 it is   
not1 or should not1 be meant  that the  
water falls by command emanating from   
personal will1 but only  that this is   
the recorded experience of all competent
 observers without  exception4          
,jonathan ,edwards1 relying on ,isaiah  
xlvi4 #i and #aj1 xiv4 #bg1  ,acts xv4  
#ah1 ,psalms xxxiii4 #aj and #aa1 and   
other texts1 declared that the  absolute
 and perfect foreknowledge of ,god1     
asserted in the ,bible1 was             
inconsistent with freedom of volition1  
as it implied the certainty of the      
happening of the events foreknown4  ,the
 ,duke of ,argyll says1 8,there is      
nothing to object to or deny in the     
doctrine that if we knew everything     
that determines the conduct of a man1 we
 should be able to know what the        
conduct will be4  ,that is to say1 if we
 knew all the motives which are  brought
 by external agencies to bear upon his  

mind1 and if we knew all  the other     
motives which that mind evolves out of  
its own powers1 and out  of previously  
acquired materials1 to bear upon itself2
 and if we knew the  character and      
disposition of that mind so perfectly as
 to estimate  exactly the weight it will
 allow to all the different motives     
operating  upon it1 then we should be   
able to predict with certainty the      
resulting  course of conduct40  ,sir    
,william ,hamilton1 for ,i prefer to    
quote from  antagonists1 says1 8,how the
 will can possibly be free1 must remain 
to us1  under the present limitation of 
our faculties1 wholly incomprehensible4 
,we are unable to conceive an absolute  
commencement1 we cannot1 therefore1     
conceive a free volition4  ,a           
determination by motives cannot1 to our 
understanding1 escape from              
necessitation4  ,nay1 were we even to   
admit as  true what we cannot think as  
possible1 still the doctrine of a       
motiveless  volition would be only      

casualism2 and the free acts of an      
indifferent1  are1 morally and          
rationally1 as worthless as the         
pre-ordered passions of  a determined   
will4  ,how1 therefore1 ,i repeat1 moral
 liberty is possible  in man or ,god1 we
 are utterly unable1 speculatively1 to  
understand40    ,in dealing with        
8,freedom as opposed to ,necessity10    
,dr4 ,magee declared  8that a man is    
free to think in one way or another1    
that it is not  absolutely necessary for
 him always to think in one way or      
another40  ,this declaration is so      
obscure1 that ,i should have had to     
abandon all  attempt to solve the       
,bishop's meaning but for the added     
explanation--viz41  8that is to say1 his
 thought is not the necessary product of
 physical  constitution1 that his       
thoughts do not grow out of him1 as the 
blade  grows out of the seed or the     
flower out of the plant1 that it is not 
mechanical or necessary1 but that a man 
has the power to choose how he  will    

think40  ,i do not imagine that ,dr4    
,magee used the word 8thought0 as       
limited by ,sir ,william ,hamilton2 or  
that he intended in the loose words  he 
uttered on this head to examine the     
doctrine as to evolution of  thought put
 forward by ,german thinkers4  ,i assume
 that the ,lord ,bishop  regarded       
brilliancy of speech as preferable to   
profundity of argument1  and fancied    
that he would best clear the way for the
 other ,christian  advocates who are to 
follow him1 by piling well-sounding but 
often  perfectly unmeaning phrases in   
their pathway4  ,when the ,bishop of    
,peterborough urges that thought is not 
the necessary product of physical       
constitution1 we answer by opening      
before him an ethnical map2 and         
pointing to the ,australian as probably 
the lowest human type1 the ,bushman  of 
the ,cape1 the ,esquimaux1 the ,negro1  
the ,teuton1 we ask whether  physical   
constitution has not something to do    
with thought-ability8  ,nay1  taking a  

mal-formed cranium or a diseased brain  
from a lunatic asylum1 we  demand       
further whether the unhealthy and       
inaccurate thought is not there  alleged
 in precise terms to be the 8necessary  
product of physical  constitution80     
,the assertion 8that a man has the power
 to choose how he  will think10 may be  
met by the query--,when8  ,has the old  
man1 partly deaf1  partly blind1 with   
failing memory1 the power to choose how 
he will think8  ,has the drunken man1   
while intoxicated1 the power to choose  
how he will  think8  ,has the untaught  
,norfolk farm labourer with ,sir ,w4    
,hamilton's  8,philosophy of the        
,unconditioned0 before him1 the power to
 choose how he  will think in opposition
 to or in support of ,cousin or ,kant8  
,has the man  to whom ,church of        
,england ,christianity was taught as a  
child1 whose  intellect was bent and    
bound while yet pliable and scarce      
resisting1  whose scope of inquiry has  
always been restrained by that line     

where  reason applied becomes blasphemy1
 has he the power to choose what he will
  think8  ,let the wretched subterfuges 
with which even thinkers above the      
average--as your ,essayists and         
,reviewers1 your ,dunbar ,heaths1 your  
,drs4  ,giles and ,irons1 your ,colensos
 and your ,voyseys--try to reconcile    
orthodoxy and ,freethought1 be examined1
 and you will have fuller answer  than  
any ,i can give4  ,has man the power to 
choose how he will think8  ,it  may be  
fairly presumed1 that under the words   
8to think10 ,dr4 ,magee  included all   
phases of mental activity1 perception1  
recollection of  perception1 comparison 
of perception1 judgment1 reason1        
volition4  ,any  word by which any      
condition of mental activity could be   
fairly described  is1 ,i take leave to  
submit1 included by ,dr4 ,magee under   
the head of  8thought40  ,but is it true
 that a man can choose his perceptions8 
,are  they not first limited by his     
perceptive ability1 and1 next1 by the   

range  within which that ability can be 
exercised1 and its development in       
exercise8  ,and if perception be        
compulsory1 if a man cannot refuse to   
perceive that which is within the range 
of his ability1 if he cannot  elect to  
perceive that which is not within its   
range1 then how can the                 
thought-processes--all related to1 and  
more or less based upon1 the  primary   
perceptions1 modified or enlarged as    
these may afterwards be--how  can these 
be free8  ,and will ,dr4 ,magee contend 
that a man has the power  to choose what
 he will remember1 or what he will      
forget8    8,christianity10 says ,dr4   
,magee1 8teaches that man is free1 and  
terribly  free1 to will his own belief20
 but the tenth article of ,dr4 ,magee's 
own  ,church1 an article which binds him
 in this argument1 declares that 8,the  
condition of man after the fall of ,adam
 is such1 that he cannot turn and       
prepare himself1 by his own natural     
strength and good works1 to faith and   

calling upon ,god20 nay1 the very       
,litany in which the ,lord ,bishop took 
part proceeds on the assumption that all
 are miserable sinners1 who may  desire 
to escape1 but cannot escape1 from sin  
without ,god's help4  ,and  the ninth   
article of the ,church of ,england      
positively declares that every  man 8is 
of his own nature inclined to evil1 so  
that the flesh always  lusteth contrary 
to the spirit40  8,where there is       
absolute freedom10 says  my ,lord       
,bishop of ,peterborough1 8there cannot 
be authority40  ,but man is  absolutely1
 8terribly free0 to choose his belief1  
therefore this is a  subject upon which 
,god can have no authority4  ,this is a 
point upon which  the power of the      
,omnipotent is limited4  ,this being    
monstrously absurd1  it was natural that
 the acute advocate for a falling       
,church should make  some effort to     
retreat with the honours of war1 and he1
 admitting the  difficulty in religion1 
says that you find precisely the same   

difficulty  in politics in fact1 and in 
law1 medicine1 and morality1 as to      
opinion4  ,arguments from analogy are   
dangerous at best1 but here there is no 
analogy4  ,dr4 ,magee should at least   
read the 8,contrat ,social0 of ,jean    
,jacques ,rousseau1 and the exhaustive  
essay on ,liberty by ,john ,stuart      
,mill4  ,no one but a madman would      
contend in politics either for the      
absolute liberty of the individual1 or  
for the absolute supremacy of           
authority4  ,even ,guizot's views of    
government might have saved ,bishop     
,magee from an illustration so faulty4  
,and as to the opinions on law and      
medicine which we receive submissively  
from lawyer and doctor1 their  authority
 is usually the measure of our          
ignorance4  ,we swallow the drugs  of   
,dr4 ,pangloss1 and bow to the dictum of
 ,justice ,shallow1 it is true2  but the
 more we know of physiology1 the more we
 learn of jurisprudence1  the less is   
our acquiescence a mere submission to   

authority4    ,as to so much of the     
,bishop's sermon as deals with the      
authority of  revelation and miracles1  
and which in effect declares that1 on   
the  authority of a revelation not made 
to me1 ,i may be required to believe in 
,jesus ,christ as the 8only son0 of     
,god1 while that very revelation tells  
me that ,god had more than one          
son--7,job i4 #f1 ii4 #a7--;and which on
 the  authority of miracles disbelieved 
by the mass of the people who are       
supposed to have seen them1 requires me 
to believe that ,jesus1 8very ,god  of  
very ,god10 having descended into hell1 
afterwards ascended into heaven  with   
8his body1 flesh1 and bones1 and all    
things appertaining to man's  nature10  
and there sits at the right hand of     
,god--7,article four and ,nicene        
,creed7--my answer is a very simple one4
  ,the ,bishop's declaration that  here 
no tyranny is attempted over            
,freethought is not a fair and honest   
declaration4  ,the revelation does not  

submit its proof to ,freethought1  but1 
on the contrary1 my ,lord ,bishop of    
,peterborough1 as the spokesman of  his 
,church1 is bound to tell us in the     
words of his own horrible creed1  that  
the man who will not submit to          
acknowledge the dogmas of his ,church1  
without doubt shall perish              
everlastingly4    ,when the ,bishop says
 that men are continually submitting to 
authority1  and that if they did not    
they would never learn anything1 he is  
woefully  inaccurate in his analogy4    
,it is perfectly true that ,humboldt1   
,lyell1  ,huxley1 ,darwin1 ,lewes1      
,spencer1 ,mill1 and such men's names   
are names of  authority1 and that our   
experience is supplemented and aided by 
the  recorded experiences of such men4  
,but our confidence is not an unlimited 
one1 their authority is not supreme4    
,it is limited by the measure of our    
own experience in the first place1 and  
by our acquaintance with the  experience
 of other men than these in the next2   

both of these1 too1  modified and       
affected by our general intellectual    
ability4  ,but all that  our scientific 
teachers say is1 ,we have learned such  
and such things1 we  learned them in    
such a fashion1 you may if you have     
leisure and means  verify our           
experiments1 we show you the road we    
have travelled1 we have  mapped and     
scaled it for you4  ,but in religion    
there is no such teaching1  the         
authority of the ,church dominates1     
denies1 and annihilates experience  with
 a graveyard resurrection for lack of   
living verification4  ,nothing  could   
more fittingly be denounced as a trick  
of pulpit advocacy had it  come from the
 mouth of any other man1 than the       
supposition of an  impossible event in a
 graveyard as evidence on some equally  
impossible  doctrine4  ,it would be far 
more natural in thought to suppose      
deception  in the alleged graveyard     
conjuring1 than to suppose anything     
else4  ,for  decomposing bodies1        

fleshless skeletons1 forms in which the 
vital  organisation had been destroyed1 
and disappearing for days1 weeks1       
months1 or years1 to suddenly break     
through coffins1 which living they      
would have been unable to burst1 to get 
through a superincumbent mass of  earth1
 and to stand out in flesh1 alive1 the  
blood circulating through  newly        
manufactured veins--a man who saw this  
instead of crying 8,a  miracle10 had far
 better believe himself subject to      
delirium1 and make  his straightway to  
the nearest physician for medicine to   
cool his  disordered brain4  ,but the   
,bishop's case is weaker still2 his     
graveyard  opened #ahjj years ago1 the  
men who saw it have ever rejected it1   
and we  who have not even seen it are   
required to believe it1 and are told1   
that  in this there is no tyranny over  
our thought4  ,when the ,bishop talks of
  the 8soulless and merciless machinery 
of law10 and declares that 8there  are  
no laws so merciless as those of        

nature10 we must not forget that by  the
 very terms of his sermon1 and by the   
creed of his ,church1 he asserts  all   
law as the expression of the 8personal  
will0 of ,deity2 and the  soulless and  
merciless law is1 according to the ,lord
 ,bishop of  ,peterborough1 the         
manifested will of the merciful ,god who
 is infinite  soul and love4  ,reading  
to us a portion of the ,apostles'       
,creed1 ,dr4 ,magee  said1 ,all these   
are assertions of facts1 and 8you are   
bound to think  right about them under  
penalties10 but not more so than about  
other  alleged matters of fact4  ,this  
is untrue4  ,what other alleged matters 
of  fact are men required to believe    
under ,act of ,parliament8  ,what other 
alleged facts are there which if a man  
deny he may be sent to gaol1 lose  civil
 rights1 be denied the guardianship of  
his children1 and be made an  outlaw in 
the ,state8  ,where of an alleged fact  
in astronomy or geology is  your        
investigation prefaced with the         

declaration that if you deny it you     
shall be sent to a bottomless pit filled
 with brimstone and fire1 and  prepared 
for the ,devil and his angels8          
,,second ,,discourse  ,,of ,,the        
,,bishop ,,of ,,peterborough4           
,,christianity ,,and ,,scepticism4      
,,on ,wednesday evening1 ,march #bith1  
the ,bishop of ,peterborough preached   
his  second sermon1 on 8,christianity   
and ,scepticism10 before a large        
congregation in the nave of the         
,cathedral1 ,norwich4  ,his text was    
from  the ,gospel according to ,st4     
,john1 xx4 #be3--        8,the other    
disciples therefore said unto him1 ,we  
have seen the ,lord4      ,but he said  
unto them1 ,except ,i shall see in his  
hands the print of      the nails1 and  
put my finger into the print of the     
nails1 and thrust      my hand into his 
side1 ,i will not believe40    ,his     
,lordship said3        ,my subject      
to-night is 8,christianity1 and         
,scepticism10 and ,i have      chosen   

for my text these words of a sceptic1   
for as such ,st4 ,thomas      has been  
regarded4  ,his name has become         
proverbial in ,church history      for  
unbelief4  ,among the different         
characters that surround our ,lord      
in the ,gospel story1 he has been       
regarded as the type of the doubter1    
and he is known as the doubting or the  
unbelieving ,thomas4  ,and yet      at  
first sight we hardly see that he should
 be so called4  ,it is      quite true  
that he did doubt1 and yet his doubt    
does not at first      sight seem to be 
unreasonable1 or so very obstinate that 
he should be      called by way of      
distinction1 the doubter1 the           
unbeliever4  ,it was      not           
unreasonable4  ,on the contrary1 it was 
reasonable and natural      that he     
should feel some doubt about the        
resurrection of ,jesus      ,christ4    
,others had doubts as well as he1 and   
they were called fools      and slow of 
heart to believe1 and yet they did not  

inherit the name      of the doubters4  
,again1 his disbelief was not of a very 
obstinate      kind4  ,it seemed to have
 yielded almost instantaneously2 and    
almost      immediately after he was    
satisfied1 he said more than others of  
the      disciples1 for he said 8,my    
,lord and my ,god40  ,he not only       
acknowledged the resurrection of ,jesus1
 but his divinity1 and yet he      is   
called ,thomas the doubter1 the sceptic1
 and he is rightly so      called4      
,the ,christian consciousness did not   
err when it gave the name1      because 
when he uttered the words which ,i have 
just read to you1      8,except ,i see  
,i will not believe10 he uttered that   
which is the very      essence of       
scepticism4  ,he suspended his belief   
upon an absolutely      impossible      
condition4  ,he declared that he would  
not give his assent      except on this 
condition1 that it should be made       
absolutely      impossible for him to   
doubt4  ,what he said to his brother    

disciples      amounts to this3--8,you  
tell me that you have seen the ,lord1   
but ,i      cannot believe you4  ,it    
does not matter to me how strong your   
testimony may be1 or how truthful ,i    
believe you to be1 ,i will not be       
satisfied till ,i see it for myself4  ,i
 will not accept of any      testimony  
but that of my own senses40  ,he said   
his assent was only to      be had by   
absolute demonstration1 and its being   
made impossible for      him to have any
 doubt4  ,i say the condition makes all 
belief      absolutely impossible4      
,belief1 in the proper sense of the     
word1 is      assent on an amount of    
trust4  ,if we have absolute            
demonstration of      anything1 the     
result is not belief at all1 it is      
demonstration4  ,what      we see with  
the eyes of our body or mind1 we don't  
properly believe      in4  ,we know it4 
,we have the certainty1 not of faith1   
but of      science1 and where doubt is 
impossible1 belief or faith is          

impossible4  ,you may have certainty1   
but it will be the certainty of         
knowledge1 it will not be the certainty 
of faith4  ,it is quite clear      that 
if any man makes it a condition of his  
assent to truth of any      kind1 that  
it must first be demonstrated to him as 
clear as that two      and two make     
four2 it is clear that is if there be   
any class of      truths which cannot be
 so proved as that two and two make     
four1 the      man who makes that proof 
or demonstration a condition of his     
assent1      must always be in doubt    
about those truths1 or that class of    
truths2      he must always in respect  
of them be a sceptic or doubter4        
,again1 one step further1 it is clear   
that religion or ,christianity is      a
 truth1 or class of truths that cannot  
be demonstrated      scientifically4    
,we cannot prove that there is a ,god1  
in the same way      that we can prove  
that two and two make four4  ,we cannot 
do this1      because the idea of ,god  

is that he is invisible to us4  ,the    
first      utterance of religion is     
this3 ,i believe in what ,i cannot see1 
,i      believe in an invisible ,god4   
,clearly he that says1 ,i don't believe 
anything ,i do not see1 must be a       
sceptic or doubter about the truth      
of religion2 and therefore it comes to  
pass1 that though religion is      by no
 means the only subject1 or the only    
collection of truths that      cannot be
 demonstrated1 it is the principal one1 
and it has come to      pass that though
 there are sceptics on other subjects1  
yet for this      reason a sceptic is   
understood to be a man who doubts about 
religious      subjects2 a man who will 
not believe all the truths of           
,christianity1      because they cannot 
be demonstrated to him in the way he    
thinks they      should be demonstrated4
  ,you see now what a sceptic is1 and   
what      scepticism1 is4  ,by the word 
sceptic we mean a disbeliever in the    
truths of religion4  ,a man may         

disbelieve some of the truths of        
religion and not be a sceptic4  ,a ,jew 
does not believe in      ,christianity1 
but he is not a sceptic4  ,it is because
 he believes in      ,moses that he does
 not believe in ,christ4  ,we don't call
 the      ,pantheists or the ,deists    
sceptics1 because they have a fixed     
belief4      ,some of their beliefs ,i  
think monstrous2 they make a greater    
demand      on faith than those do who  
believe in religion4  ,i think the man  
who      says there is no ,god must     
believe more contradictions than the man
      who says there is a ,god4  ,he has
 a perfectly monstrous creed1 but it    
is a creed4  ,he is not so much a       
disbeliever as a misbeliever1 for he    
believes in something else than ,god4   
,again1 we don't call a doubter      a  
sceptic2 a sceptic is a doubter1 but the
 doubter is not necessarily      a      
sceptic4  ,a man may doubt of the truths
 of religion1 only because      he has  
not had evidence of the proper kind4  ,a

 sceptic asks for      evidence of an   
unreasonable kind4  ,a man may doubt the
 truth of any      assertion in history2
 he may think that all the historians or
      witnesses of the facts are        
untruthful or ill informed1 ,i should   
not      call that man a sceptic2 but if
 a man said1 ,i don't believe the facts 
you allege in history1 because ,i deny  
all human testimony2 you cannot         
deny that these men lived some time     
since1 and that they may have      been 
liars2 you cannot give me proof to the  
contrary3 that man ,i      should call a
 sceptic1 because in matters historical 
he was demanding      an unreasonable   
amount of evidence4  ,it is not doubt   
nor unbelief      that makes the        
difference as to the sceptic4  ,the     
sceptic is not such      because he     
doubts1 but on account of the reason of 
his doubt4  ,he      seeks for evidence 
that it is not proper or reasonable that
 he should      have4        ,now ,i    
have shown you that there may be doubt  

without scepticism2 and      on the     
other hand1 there may be belief1 or at  
least assent1 upon      sceptical       
principles4  ,it is quite possible that 
a man may be firmly      persuaded of   
some of the truths of religion1 and yet 
be in heart a      sceptic4  ,if a man  
were to say ,i cannot believe in the    
existence of a      ,god till ,i have it
 demonstrated to me as clear as that the
 three      angles of a triangle are    
equal to two right angles1 then he is in
      principle a sceptic1 because it is
 clear that if he could not have        
that sort of proof1 he would begin to   
doubt of the existence of ,god4         
,all the time his assent to the         
existence of ,god would not have rested 
upon any faith or trust1 but upon       
demonstration4  ,but when the idea      
of ,god ceased to be a scientific       
certainty1 it is clear that he would    
be in heart a sceptic4  ,and there is no
 doubt that the first belief      of the
 apostle ,thomas was rendered upon      

sceptical principles4  ,he      said1 ,i
 will not believe till ,i put my finger 
in the print of the      nails1 c41 as  
if he had said1 ,i will believe nothing 
but the      evidence of my own senses4 
,he believed only because he got this   
evidence of his senses2 and mark this1  
when our ,lord gave him what he         
asked1 he pronounced no praise on his   
belief2 he did not say to him      as he
 said to another1 8,blessed art thou1   
,simon ,barjonas1 for flesh      and    
blood has not revealed this to thee20   
but flesh and blood had      revealed   
the fact to ,thomas1 and our ,lord said1
 8,blessed are they      that have not  
seen1 and yet have believed40  ,thus it 
is possible to      doubt without being 
sceptical1 and it is possible to assent1
 and to      be still sceptical4  ,i    
want you to dwell on this point of      
belief1      doubt1 and sceptical       
belief1 because there are certain things
 that ,i      am going to point out in  
this way4  ,i ask you to test for       

yourselves      what ,i am now going to 
say1 and try the effect upon your own   
feelings4  ,we cannot demonstrate       
,christianity4  ,it is utterly          
impossible that ,i can give you a       
demonstration of ,christianity1 such    
as will leave no possible room for doubt
 or question4  ,when those who      have
 to follow me have said all they have to
 say2 when they have put      before you
 all the evidences of ,christianity in  
all their fulness and      variety2 when
 they have shown how much more          
reasonable it is to      believe than to
 disbelieve1 how many more difficulties 
there are in      the way of disbelief  
than of belief2 when all this is done1  
there may      still be a doubt on your 
minds2 there will be questions that     
cannot      be answered1 there will be  
difficulties that cannot be explained1  
and      which no living man can        
explain4  ,we can give the highest      
degree of      evidence1 short of       
demonstration1 for belief in ,christ1   

but we cannot      demonstrate          
,christianity4  ,now what effect has    
that announcement on      your hearts8  
,possibly you have heard it with some   
disappointment4      ,you may have come 
to hear these sermons1 expecting to have
 all your      doubts removed4  ,you may
 say1 8,i thought you were going to     
answer all      the questions with      
mathematical certainty40  ,our answer   
is1 ,if we      could prove with as much
 certainty that there is a ,god as that 
two      and two make four1 or as that  
this is a book holding it up1 then      
our religion would do you as much good  
as the knowledge that two and      two  
make four4  ,we would not in that case  
cultivate the quality of      faith in  
your souls1 in spite of difficulties and
 doubts4  ,we cannot      demonstrate   
,christianity1 but we can give          
sufficient reason for our      belief in
 it1 in spite of doubt4        ,what we 
have to say is this1 that the evidences 
of ,christianity are      weapons to put

 in the hands of every one of you1 with 
which every man      and woman may fight
 out in his or her innermost soul the   
desolating      and besieging doubt that
 from time to time will assault it4     
,this is      the real object of        
evidences of faith1 but they are not    
meant to be      the outlying works of  
the citadel of the soul outside of which
 the      enemy is compelled to keep4   
,the shield of faith in ,god you have to
      carry on your own arm1 and with it
 quench all the fiery darts of the      
wicked one4  ,though your own arm       
tremble1 you must carry it to repel     
the darts that are aimed at your own    
heart4        ,there is another word of 
comfort we have to give you the really  
distressed doubter4  ,christianity does 
not repel the doubter who      says1 ,i 
believe1 ,lord help my unbelief4  ,what 
,christianity is      intolerant of is  
not doubt1 but the spirit of doubt1 not 
unbelief1      but the demand for       
unreasonable1 impossible conditions of  

belief4  ,we      don't tell you to     
stamp out every doubt before you can    
become a      ,christian4  ,we say if   
you believe but one point1 you may come 
to      believe all the rest1 and our   
message to you is1 weary as you may be  
of the load of doubt1 the same as that  
of the ,saviour who said 8,come         
unto me all you that are weary and heavy
 laden10 and you will find      rest to 
your souls4        ,and now ,i have     
clearly explained the difference between
 ,christianity      and ,scepticism4    
,let us briefly sum up again and show   
the points of      collision between    
,scepticism and ,christianity4  ,we saw 
last night      that the question       
between ,christianity and ,freethought  
was a dispute      as to the nature of  
liberty1 so the question between        
,christianity and      ,scepticism is a 
dispute as to the nature of certainty4  
,christianity      offers and gives     
certainty in the end2 ,scepticism       
demands certainty4      ,but the        

certainty of ,christianity is partly the
 certainty of reason      and partly of 
faith and of experience4  ,the certainty
 demanded by      ,scepticism is the    
certainty of science only4  ,the most   
extreme of      unbelievers will admit  
that there is something to be said for  
,christianity2 and that it is not       
unworthy of a hearing as regards its    
evidences4  ,the men who have believed  
in ,christianity for the last      #ahjj
 years1 have not been the greatest fools
 in the world4  ,liebnitz      and      
,butler were not drivellers1 and not    
those only1 but hundreds and            
thousands of the greatest intellects    
that humanity has produced4      ,they  
were not such utter fools that any man  
is entitled to dismiss                  
,christianity with a wave of his hand4  
,on the other hand1 every               
reasonable ,christian will admit that   
there is something fair and             
reasonable in some of the objections to 
,christianity4  ,but the      ,christian

 says to the sceptic1 ,it is            
unreasonable in you to ask that         
every difficulty should be got rid of   
and every question answered      before 
you believe in ,christianity4  ,the     
sceptic replies1 ,it is                 
unreasonable in you to ask me to believe
 in ,christianity till you      have    
removed every doubt4  ,i will ask you   
which is the reasonable      demand--the
 demand of the ,christian for faith upon
 probable evidence1      or the demand  
of the sceptic for assent only upon     
scientific      demonstration8          
,now in order to argue it fairly and    
without passion or prejudice1 let       
us pass from the subject of religious   
doubt and let us consider the      case 
of doubt in other matters than religion2
 we all know that men      have doubted 
in other subjects4  ,try then to recall 
to your minds the      first doubt2 it  
was only a little later than the first  
belief4  ,the      first instinct of the
 child is to believe everything1 that   

everything      he sees and hears is    
true4  ,all appearances to the child are
      realities4  ,the sun is to him a  
ball of fire that climbs up the sky1    
the stars are little specks of light    
that shine at night4  ,the earth      is
 a flat plain4  ,very soon the child    
learns the first great lesson      of   
doubt1 learns that things are not what  
they appear to be1 learns      to       
distrust appearances1 learns that under 
the appearances there is a      reality4
  ,he gets his first teaching from      
doubt1 and all-important is      the    
instinct of doubt4  ,very soon is the   
awakening of the sceptical      part of 
the mental nature of man1 of his        
understanding4  ,the nature      of the 
understanding is ever to ask1 ,what and 
why8  ,the spirit of      doubt leads   
the man from question to question1 from 
step to step1      till he gets answers 
to his questions2 he goes on from doubt 
to      belief1 and from belief to      
doubt1 and so on to greater knowledge4  

,thus doubt is the means of knowledge1  
the instrument of discovery4            
,without the instinct of doubt humanity 
would be stagnant2 with it      alone   
humanity progresses4  ,i do not         
disparage doubt1 ,i highly value        
it2 but doubt is useful on one          
condition1 and one only1 that it        
starts from a first belief4  ,what is   
the cause of all this doubt and         
pursuit of knowledge8  ,the supreme     
instinctive belief1 that under all      
appearances there is a reality1 that    
something underlies and causes      all 
being2 and it is the search for this    
essence of existence that      leads the
 doubter on1 the search of this ,i am4  
,if he had no faith      in some        
underlying reality beneath these        
phenomena1 there would be no            
progress1 and so doubt is ever seeking  
for that which is below what            
appears1 and yet never reaches it4      
,never yet has science reached to the   
great reason of all reasons1 to      the

 great cause of all causes1 that        
underlies all knowledge2 and yet        
ever as we seek for it we are advancing 
in knowledge4  ,we do not      reach it1
 but are ever reaching and passing on1  
through that which      lies between us 
and it4  ,doubt is like the mainspring  
of a watch1 it      is ever seeking to  
uncoil itself and yet never entirely    
doing so4      ,the result is that the  
hands of the watch move uniformly       
because      there is an attachment of  
the mainspring4  ,cut the attachment1   
and      the hands will give one wild   
whirl and all will be still1 and the    
watch useless4  ,it is just the same    
with doubt and faith4  ,doubt is        
attached to the primary belief that     
there is a cause of all things1      but
 it is ever seeking to detach itself    
from that belief and never              
succeeds4  ,the consequence is1 that    
there is a constant and measured        
progress of the human mind4  ,but we    
have to consider how much further       

the intellect which has thus been the   
rule and test of our belief      might  
go4  ,a child not only believes in      
appearances or facts1 but he      has an
 instinctive belief in the truthfulness 
of humanity4  ,the child      has not   
learned that it is not wise to believe  
everything that is      said to him4    
,was that a happy discovery8  ,should we
 tell a child not      to believe the   
word of any human being until he had    
demonstration      about it8  ,is it    
wisdom always to distrust human nature8 
,we are      always trusting4  ,give a  
logical proof that we are right in any  
of      our trusts4  ,a wife may be     
false1 a child may hate its parents1 and
 a      man may be robbed by a friend or
 a confidential servant2 yet are we     
to distrust everybody8  ,if a man were  
not to trust any one till it      was   
proved by demonstration that he ought to
 do so1 he would be put      in a       
lunatic asylum2 and rightly so1 as a man
 one part of whose      nature had got  

diseased and had mastered all the other 
parts of his      nature4  ,i defy any  
one to say logically that the man may   
not be      right1 or to give a logical 
demonstration that it is absolutely     
impossible that his wife1 children1 and 
friend were not in a      conspiracy to 
wrong him4  ,there is thus an absolute  
necessity for      trust in the ordinary
 affairs of life1 ,i hope you will see  
that life      must be conducted on the 
principle of faith or trust4        ,let
 us ask if morality can exist without   
faith or trust1 whether we      can get 
a demonstrative or scientific basis for 
morality itself8  ,i      ask this1     
because those who ask for the           
destruction of our religion      talk of
 the gain to morality4  ,they say1      
,sweep away the influences of           
religion and morality will be stronger4 
,let us see how morality will      bear 
the assaults of scepticism4  ,morality  
is that code or rule of      action     
which we follow in questions of right or

 wrong1 or it is that      code of right
 and wrong which every man adopts for   
himself4  ,to take      the first       
definition4  ,have we got the universal 
sense of humanity      upon any moral   
question of right or wrong8  ,if the    
majority of      mankind agree with us1 
can we prove logically that they must   
always      be right and the minority   
wrong8  ,again1 which morality will we  
have--that of to-day or that of a past  
generation8  ,if we cannot      settle  
the question by majority or minority1   
how are we to settle it8      ,by asking
 the opinion of the wise and good4      
,before we know the wise      and good  
we must know what wisdom and goodness   
are2 and if we know      what they are1 
what need have we to look to the wise   
and good to tell      us8  ,who are the 
wise and good8  ,those who gave good    
opinions4  ,is      that logical8  ,will
 it stand sceptical inquiry8  ,if it is 
not to be      settled by the appeal to 
the universal voice of humanity--which  

is      simply illogical and            
preposterous1 for this reason1 that we  
are part      of universal humanity1 and
 if we differ from that verdict it is   
not      the verdict of universal       
humanity1 and if we agree with it1 we   
might      as well have taken our own in
 the first instance--then man must      
decide      for himself what is right   
and wrong4  ,what is it decides in a man
      what is right or wrong8           
,conscience4  ,why must a man submit to 
the      decision of his own conscience8
  ,we are told that it is part of our   
moral nature4  ,what demonstration is   
there that one part of our      nature  
is to yield to another8  ,have we any   
logical demonstration as      to what we
 are8  ,i have a scientific             
demonstration that ,i am made of        
carbon1 lime1 phosphate1 and certain    
other chemicals1 but no man of          
science has ever demonstrated spirit or 
conscience4  ,why is it that a      man 
is to obey the bidding of one           

convolution of his brain more than      
another8  ,it cannot be made as clear as
 that two and two make four1      that a
 man is to do to another man as he would
 be done unto4  ,duty      and right are
 words of the spirit1 of the soul1 but  
science and logic      never yet        
revealed the soul4        ,therefore the
 man who will believe nothing but what  
can be      demonstrated to him1 will   
deny at last the obligation of duty in  
obedience to his sceptical intellect1   
just as he began with denying      the  
existence of ,god4  ,how does he get out
 of this great difficulty8      ,by     
calling up the instinct of faith4  ,he  
wills to believe that he is             
something more than a bundle of material
 elements1 that the      conscience in  
his soul is something supreme and       
divine1 that the man      in him is     
something above the animal2 and by an   
exercise of faith in      his own higher
 and better self1 he silences the       
eternal why of the      sceptical       

intellect1 the serpent more subtile than
 any other beast of      the field1     
which if it had its way would make man a
 beast4        ,there is only one more  
question to which ,i have to call your  
attention4  ,having shown you that the  
sceptical intellect is not the      only
 judge1 having shown you that there are 
domains of human      knowledge and     
human life into which1 if it comes at   
all1 it must come      as the servant   
and not as the master2 having shown you 
that      scepticism is really nothing  
else than the intrusion of the mere     
understanding into the province of the  
soul and the spirit1 it      remains to 
ask1 ,is religion1 is ,christianity1 one
 of those subjects      on which the    
understanding is not to be the only     
judge1 but on which      the spirit and 
soul and heart of man have something to 
say about his      belief8  ,surely then
 if ,christianity be what it professes  
to be1 a      life1 like all human and  
temporal life1 it must be conducted upon

 a      principle of faith or trust4    
,if we cannot live our ordinary human   
life without trust1 where we cannot have
 certainty1 neither can we      live the
 spiritual life without trust1 where we 
can neither prove nor      demonstrate2 
then if we think of this life in close  
relationship with      the divine and   
the infinite life1 can it possibly be   
otherwise than      that out of the     
meeting place of those two mysteries    
there shall grow      mystery and       
difficulty8  ,all that ,christianity    
requires is1 not that      man shall not
 ask for reasonable proof1 but that we  
should not deal      with it in a       
different way from that in which we deal
 with human life      and morality4  ,we
 don't ask you in religion to believe   
without      evidence1 but to require   
large evidence4  ,now my friends1 still 
remember when we ask you to believe     
before you see all1 it is that      you 
may experience all4  ,christianity has a
 certainty1 but it comes      not as the

 proof1 but as the reward of faith4     
,there is a      demonstration of the   
spirit1 an evidence of divine life1 in  
the soul      of the ,christian1 that he
 cannot demonstrate to others1 because  
it is      as invisible as his own soul 
and spirit1 and yet it fills the inner  
core of the spirit--it is the           
strengthener of the spirit4             
,christianity is a great experiment1 a  
probable experiment1 a      reasonable  
experiment1 but still it is an          
experiment1 and you may try      it4    
,if you have a simple and earnest desire
 to ascertain its truth1      try it1   
casting aside the trivial interests that
 the profligate man      has in the     
disproof of it4  ,try it and see if     
there does not come      into your soul 
that conviction not created by science1 
but springing      from the inner life  
of the soul1 that shall be like a well  
of water      springing up to           
everlasting life4  ,as in life so in    
religion1      8blessed are they that   

have not seen1 and yet have believed40  
,,second ,,reply  ,,of  ,,mr4 ,c4       
,,bradlaugh4  ,,christianity ,,and      
,,scepticism4      ,,on ,tuesday        
evening1 ,april #dth1 ,mr4 ,bradlaugh   
delivered his second lecture  on        
8,christianity and ,scepticism10 before 
a very crowded audience1 in the  ,free  
,library4  ,he commenced by observing3  
,in continuing this course of lectures1 
,i naturally follow the same  wording of
 the subjects as that taken by the      
,bishop of ,peterborough2 and  ,i may   
say that those who charge me with       
misquoting the ,bishop1 will  probably  
think differently when ,i say that ,i   
have taken fair pains to be  accurate in
 my representation4  ,i took careful and
 almost verbatim notes1  and ,i hold in 
my hand a transcript of the notes of an 
independent  shorthand writer1 and where
 these have disagreed1 which has been   
very  seldom1 ,i have checked them by so
 much of the lecture as appeared        
summarised in the ,daily ,press4  ,it   

appeared to me to be accurate1 and ,i   
think there was no ground for saying    
that ,i misrepresented the ,bishop4     
,you who think so1 had better leave that
 for him to say1 if he thinks it        
necessary4  ,he took the instance of    
,thomas as that of a representative     
,sceptic4  ,he was good enough to tell  
us that the unbelief of ,thomas was  not
 unreasonable1 that1 on the contrary1 it
 was reasonable and natural  that he    
should feel some doubt about the        
resurrection of ,jesus ,christ4  ,i     
propose to examine that position4  ,was 
it reasonable that ,thomas should       
doubt8  ,thomas was a disciple selected 
by ,jesus4  ,he had been present at  the
 whole of the miracles of ,jesus4  ,if  
the ,bishop's case be true1 he had  seen
 ,jesus raise ,lazarus from the dead1 he
 had heard ,jesus say he came to  die1  
and to rise again2 and ,i ask you1 if it
 was reasonable for ,thomas to  doubt   
after he had seen a hundred miracles    
performed1 then how much more           

reasonable for me to doubt8  ,i have    
never seen any miracles4  ,but1 said    
the ,bishop1 ,thomas is a fair example  
of the ,sceptic1 for ,thomas said1 ,i   
will not believe unless ,i see1 c4      
,this1 the ,bishop said1 is the very    
essence of scepticism4  ,now ,i don't   
know where my ,lord ,bishop got his     
notion of scepticism2 ,i am sure that   
there is no writer on the side of  the  
party which permits me to speak for it1 
who defines scepticism in  that manner4 
,i have here the explanation of ,buckle1
 which ,i take as that  of a man        
occupying a position independent of the 
prejudices attaching to  my extreme     
heresy4  8,by ,scepticism1 ,i merely    
mean hardness of belief1 so  that an    
increased ,scepticism is an increased   
perception of the difficulty  of proving
 assertions1 or1 in other words1 it is  
an increased application  and an        
increased diffusion of the laws of      
evidence4  ,this feeling of  hesitation 
and of suspended judgment1 has in every 

department of thought  been the         
invariable preliminary to all the       
intellectual revolutions  through which 
the human mind has passed1 and without  
it there could be no  progress1 no      
change1 no civilisation4  ,in physics it
 is the necessary  precursor of science1
 in politics of liberty1 in theology of 
toleration40  ,now ,i take leave to say 
that there is no sceptical writer1      
neither  ,hobbes1 nor ,hume1 nor ,locke1
 nor ,berkeley1 no sceptical writer     
either  upon my own side or upon the    
side of theology1 unless you take the   
ravings of some wretched madman1 who    
defines ,scepticism as my ,lord ,bishop 
defined it4  ,i say it was either a     
false definition within the knowledge   
of the ,bishop1 or that ,dr4 ,magee was 
imperfectly acquainted with the  views  
he proposed to answer4  ,the definition 
conveys a false notion of  ,scepticism1 
which is really but a word for          
investigation4  ,the ,bishop  draws a   
distinction1 and a correct distinction1 

between knowledge and  belief1 and in   
that very distinction he annihilated his
 own definition of  ,scepticism4  ,he   
said1 and rightly1 ,when once the senses
 have taken  cognizance of any          
phenomenon1 that is no longer a matter  
of belief but a  matter of knowledge4   
,if ,i sensate any condition of         
existence1 ,i have  passed the stage of 
belief and arrived at the stage of      
knowledge4  ,i now  come to a marvellous
 position--marvellous as advanced by a  
bishop--viz41  that religion or         
,christianity must be taken as incapable
 of scientific  demonstration2 because1 
if that be true1 what becomes of the    
arguments of  the ,paleys1 of the ,pye  
,smiths1 and of the ,gillespies8  ,are  
the volumes of  proofs of the existence 
of ,deity all waste paper8  ,what       
becomes of the  huge mass yearly issued 
from the press to prove the truth of    
,christianity8  ,i take it that in the  
opinion of the ,bishop every one of     
these has hitherto failed1 for he says  

we cannot demonstrate the  existence of 
a ,deity or the truth of the ,christian 
religion so as to  leave no doubt4  ,a  
demonstration so complete that it leaves
 no doubt1 is  admitted to be           
impossible2 that is an admission for    
which ,i thank the  ,lord ,bishop1      
because it is a justification to        
doubters4  ,we have two  admissions1 one
 that the doubt of ,thomas is a         
reasonable doubt1 and  another1 that    
,christianity under no circumstances can
 be rendered free  from doubt4  ,i will 
thank you to bear those two positions in
 mind4  ,the  ,bishop says we cannot    
demonstrate the existence of ,god1 and  
,i am inclined  to accept his position1 
but he gives reasons of the strangest   
description  to justify his conclusions4
  ,he says we cannot prove the existence
 of ,god  because he is invisible4      
,does the ,bishop mean that only the    
things  cognised by sight can be proved8
  ,is it true that he believes in an    
invisible ,god8  ,what say the          

,thirty-nine ,articles of the ,church8  
,they  say that ,jesus1 with body1      
flesh1 and bones1 ascended to heaven4   
,were  these invisible8  ,the ,bishop   
believes what is pictured in the ,bible4
  ,does the ,bible teach an invisible   
,god8  ,we read in the twenty-fourth    
chapter of ,exodus1 #i1 #aj1 #aa3 8,then
 went up ,moses1 and ,aaron1 ,nadab1 and
  ,abihu1 and seventy of the elders of  
,israel2 and they saw the ,god of       
,israel2 and there was under his feet as
 it were a paved work of a  sapphire    
stone1 and as it were the body of heaven
 in his clearness4  ,and  upon the      
nobles of the children of ,israel he    
laid not his hand2 also they  saw ,god1 
and did eat and drink40  ,i want to know
 if this ,god is an  invisible ,god8  ,i
 want to know whether the ,bishop is on 
this point an  infidel1 and whether he  
here disbelieves the ,bible8  ,the      
,bible says that  ,god is not invisible4
  ,which are we to believe8--the        
,bishop1 the ,bible1 or  the            

,thirty-nine ,articles8  ,we are        
forbidden to deny either the ,bible or  
the ,thirty-nine ,articles under penalty
 of prosecution4  ,the ,bishop said a   
,jew is not a sceptic1 and the reason   
given is certainly equally a  marvellous
 one1 for he said the ,jew believes in  
,moses1 and therefore  cannot believe in
 ,jesus4  ,is it logical that any body  
who believes in  ,moses cannot believe  
in ,jesus8  ,surely the ,bishop         
contradicted himself1  for it is to     
,moses and the prophets he appeals4  ,it
 is not true1 even  from the ,church of 
,england stand-point1 that a man        
disbelieves in ,jesus  because he       
believes in ,moses4  ,it is not true    
that if ,i believe in the  authenticity 
of the ,pentateuch1 it necessarily      
excludes my belief in the  ,gospel1 and 
yet this is the reasoning indulged in by
 the able and learned  confuter of      
modern infidelity4  ,the ,bishop said   
that the ,deist and the  ,pantheist are 
not sceptics1 for they have a belief1   

nor1 he said1 are  even those sceptics  
who say there is no ,god4  ,i never     
read1 except in  tracts and sermons1 and
 religious essays1 of any who say there 
is no ,god4  ,some persons talk about   
the fools who say there is no ,god1 and 
bishops  preach against them1 but an    
,atheist does not say there is no ,god4 
,the  ,atheist says the term 8,god0     
conveys no idea to his mind4  ,i have   
never  yet heard a definition of ,god   
from any living man1 nor have ,i read a 
definition by dead or living man that   
was not self-contradictory4  ,i  don't  
deny the word 8,god10 because ,i don't  
know anything about its  meaning4       
,denial like affirmation must refer to  
some proposition that is  understood4   
,but the moment you tell me you mean the
 ,god of the ,bible1 or  the ,god of the
 ,koran1 or the ,god of any particular  
church1 ,i am prepared  to tell you that
 ,i deny that ,god4  ,so long as the    
term means your absence  of knowledge as
 to particular phenomena1 and represents

 the undiscovered1  ,i am not 8fool0    
enough to say there is no ,god2 and ,i  
say the ,bishop  should have known that 
no modern ,atheist ever propounded such 
a  proposition to any one4  ,it is when 
you tell me of ,god distinct from the   
universe1 creating the universe         
different from himself1 and adding to   
his  own existence1 that ,i am compelled
 to deny that ,god4  ,the ,bishop said  
the  sceptic is not only one who denies1
 but one who asks for evidence of an    
unreasonable kind4  ,suppose myself2 am 
,i a sceptic as to the ,bible1          
according to the ,bishop's notion8      
,when ,i examine the ,bible1 ,i find it 
is  admitted that the common version is 
so bad that a better is now in hand4  ,i
 find when ,i refer to the sources of   
this version there are only three       
sources--the ,hebrew1 the ,samaritan1   
and the ,septuagint4  ,when ,i examine  
the ,septuagint ,i find the ,protestant 
writers such as ,fulke and ,whittaker1  
writing against ,bellarmine and others1 

declaring that the ,septuagint is       
corrupt from beginning to end4  ,dr4    
,irons says no one knows where the      
so-called ,septuagint version was       
written1 when it was written1 nor by    
whom it was written1 and it is clearly  
the work of different generations4      
,when ,i examine the ,greek of the      
,septuagint as against the ,hebrew1 ,i  
find  words and verses in the one that  
are not in the other4  ,as a sceptic is 
it unreasonable for me to ask the       
,bishop how he knows that one is better 
than the other8  ,when ,i go to the     
,hebrew the difficulty is still greater4
  ,i say that not even the ,bishop knows
 enough of the ,hebrew to guide us  with
 reasonable explanation4  ,it is not    
enough to say that mere ignorant        
infidels do not know it4  ,i find       
,spinoza1 writing #bjj years ago1       
declaring that ,hebrew was a language   
utterly dead1 that its grammars and     
lexicons were lost1 that time1 the great
 consumer1 had blotted out the  meaning 

of many words from the memory of man4   
,suppose that ,i have  recourse to those
 professing some knowledge of ,hebrew4  
,gesenius1  ,bellamy1 ,parkhurst1       
,newman1 ,eichorn1 ,bresslau1 ,ginsburg1
 give me  different meanings for many of
 the same words on important points of  
theology4  ,how am ,i to be satisfied8  
,what objections will be reasonable8    
,suppose ,i try to be content with the  
ordinary ,hebrew version1 what then8  ,i
 find that it is a version written with 
points1 which points have not  existed  
more than #abej or #acjj years2 and the 
text itself is of two  characters4      
,that which is written is not always    
read1 and that which is  read is not    
written4  ,i find a clergyman of the    
,church like ,dr4 ,irons  admitting that
 the traditional reading of the ,hebrew 
text is often of  more value than the   
text4  ,i find ,christians saying this  
,hebrew is an  ancient language1 and    
when ,i try to trace it ,i find that    
before #bejj  years back there is no    

trace of it at all4  ,moses could not   
have written  in the ,hebrew we have1   
for what to-day we call the ,hebrew did 
not then  exist4  ,who is to decide on  
this point as to the reasonableness of  
my  scepticism8  ,am ,i to decide or my 
,lord ,bishop8  ,let us consider this a 
little more4  ,we have a ,samaritan1 a  
,septuagint1 and ,hebrew ,bible1 but in 
the ,samaritan we have only the         
,pentateuch1 and ,i find words and      
verses in  the ,samaritan not in the    
,septuagint1 and not in the ,hebrew1 and
 ,i find  words and verses in the       
,hebrew and ,septuagint1 which are not  
in the  ,samaritan4  ,is it unreasonable
 for me to ask how so many blunders have
  got into this book1 if it contains a  
revelation from ,god8  ,then ,i come to 
try to get a clue from the ,gospels1 and
 ,i find again that no man knows  when  
they were written1 where they were      
written1 or by whom they were  written4 
,clergymen of the ,church have invented 
arguments from the first  century       

fathers for the existence of the        
,gospels4  ,i used to believe that  such
 testimony existed2 ,i could not suppose
 that writers like ,dr4 ,paley  had     
invented testimony of the fathers1 but  
when ,i went to the great  libraries to 
verify authorities1 and ,i found that he
 manufactured  evidence1 ,i ask1 was ,i1
 as a sceptic1 a reasonable man in      
challenging the  ,church8  ,the ,bishop 
says a ,sceptic is not to be attacked   
because he  doubts1 but because of his  
reason for the doubt4  ,i doubt because 
,i  cannot help it4  ,is that a good    
reason or not8  ,is the ,church entitled
 to  say 8,it is not true1 you might    
believe if you like80  ,and mark1 the   
,bishop had the audacity to declare that
 ,christianity is not intolerant of  the
 doubter1 but of the spirit of doubt4   
,the ,church used to burn the  doubter1 
and then it burnt his books1 and locked 
him up in prison4  ,it  now gathers     
#c1jjj people into the nave of the      
,cathedral to hear the  attack on the   

doubter1 and refuses to grant the use of
 any place for a  reply4  ,it is not    
intolerant to the doubter1 it is only   
intolerant of the  spirit of doubt6  ,i 
learned from the ,bishop that a man     
might be a  religious believer1 and at  
the same time a sceptic1 and in         
explaining  this he used language of an 
astounding character4  ,he said if a man
 were  to say1 ,i cannot believe in the 
existence of ,god till ,i have it       
demonstrated to me as clearly as that   
the three angles of a triangle are      
equal to two right angles1 then he is in
 principle a sceptic1 because if  he had
 not that sort of proof1 he would begin 
to doubt of the existence  of ,god2 all 
this time his assent to the existence of
 ,god would have  rested on a sceptical 
foundation4  ,this was one of the most  
marvellous  pieces of nonsense that any 
one could talk4  ,how can any one1 while
  assenting to ,god's existence1 say1 ,i
 cannot believe in ,god till it is      
proved to demonstration8  ,he makes the 

true believer commence by saying  he    
cannot believe in ,god till it is       
proved4  ,if anyone here had used that  
language1 ,i should have said that he   
did not understand what he was  talking 
about2 but when a ,bishop1 a learned    
,bishop1 the paragon of  eloquence and  
logic1 brought here as more competent   
than your own ,bishop1  talks such      
nonsense1 how am ,i to reply8  ,let us  
take a startling contrast  which the    
,bishop thought right to give us4  ,he  
contrasted ,thomas the  doubter with    
,simon ,peter the believer4  ,i have    
read the ,bible a little1  and ,i think 
that of all the cowardly rascals of whom
 ,i ever read1 the  greatest rascal was 
,simon ,peter4  ,he was called under    
great advantages2  he had been out      
fishing1 and he caught nothing1 and the 
,lord helped him  to a good catch of    
fish2 ,simon ,peter's wife's mother was 
cured of a  fever2 ,simon ,peter was    
with ,jesus when he fed the people with 
a few  loaves and fishes1 and he took   

part in the collection of the fragments4
  ,he was present at the transmigration4
  ,it was to him that ,jesus said1 8,to 
thee ,i give the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven40  ,simon ,peter was with the    
,lord all through his life2 and when    
,jesus came to trouble1 he was the      
first who abandoned him and denied him1 
even with oaths1 8,i know not the  man20
 and that ,peter is the model of faith  
whom the ,bishop presents to  you4  ,of 
the two ,i rather prefer ,thomas to     
,peter4  ,certainly ,peter came  back to
 the ,church when he caught more fish4  
,when ,jesus rose from the  dead1 ,peter
 did not or would not know him1 but when
 ,jesus said 8,throw in  your net10 and 
he did so1 and caught more fish1 then he
 knew ,jesus  directly4  ,i will ask    
what lesson the ,lord ,bishop meant to  
convey by the  contrast between those   
two8  ,in what sort of way is ,peter put
 in  contrast8  ,simon ,peter was true  
enough when any profit was to be got by 
it2 he ran away when danger came4  ,this

 is the model which the ,lord  ,bishop  
puts before you to copy4  ,but ,dr4     
,magee said that ,christianity  could   
not be demonstrated4  ,christian        
evidences were of some use as  weapons  
when believers were exposed to assaults 
on their faith4  ,if ,i  thought he had 
intended to preach a comic sermon       
instead of a serious  one1 ,i could have
 heartily laughed at this4  ,he says    
that the evidences  of ,christianity are
 weapons to put in the hands of every   
man and woman  when his or her innermost
 soul is assailed by the enemy with     
desolating  doubt4  ,is it true that    
,god permits an enemy to reduce man to  
the level  of the beast1 and to be      
continually besieging the soul of man8  
,is it  true that the subtle devil      
tempts man from the faith8  ,if it be   
true1  then the devil exists either     
because ,god cannot help it1 or will not
  prevent it2 and if he exists because  
,god is powerless to prevent1 then  ,god
 is not omnipotent2 if ,god wills it1   

then ,god consents to--nay1 strives  to 
procure man's damnation4  ,but1 says the
 ,bishop1 ,christianity does not  repel 
the doubter1 and he even admits the     
utility of doubt1 subject only  to one  
condition4  ,before ,i deal with the    
,bishop's condition1 permit me  to quote
 what ,buckle has said on the effect of 
doubt1 and ,i quote him  because he     
stands in a position entitling him to   
the attention of the  extreme heterodox1
 as well as of the extreme orthodox4    
,he says3        8,although the         
acquisition of fresh knowledge is the   
necessary      precursor of every step  
in social progress1 such acquisition    
must      itself be preceded by a love  
of inquiry1 and therefore by a spirit of
      doubt1 because without doubt there
 will be no inquiry1 and without        
inquiry there will be no knowledge1 for 
knowledge is not an inert and           
passive principle which comes to us     
whether we will or no2 but it      must 
be sought before it can be won2 it is   

the product of great      labour1 and1  
therefore1 of great sacrifice4  ,and it 
is absurd to      suppose that men will 
incur the labour and make the sacrifice 
for      subjects respecting which they 
are already perfectly content4  ,they   
who do not feel the darkness1 will never
 look for the light4  ,if on      any   
point we have attained to certainty1 we 
make no further inquiry      on that    
point1 because inquiry would be useless 
or perhaps dangerous4      ,the doubt   
must intervene before the investigation 
can begin4  ,here1      then1 we have   
the act of doubting as the originator1  
or at all events      the necessary     
antecedent of all progress4  ,here we   
have that      scepticism1 the very name
 of which is an abomination to the      
ignorant1      because it disturbs their
 lazy and complacent minds2 because it  
troubles their cherished superstitions2 
because it imposes on them      the     
fatigue of inquiry2 and because it      
rouses even sluggish      understandings

 to ask if things are as they are       
commonly supposed1      and if all is   
really true which they from their       
childhood have been      taught to      
believe4  ,the more we examine this     
great principle of      scepticism1 the 
more distinctly shall we see the immense
 part it has      played in the progress
 of ,european civilisation4  ,to state  
in general      terms1 what in this     
introduction will be fully proved1 it   
may be said      that to scepticism we  
owe that spirit of inquiry which1 during
 the      last two centuries1 has       
gradually encroached on every possible  
subject1 has reformed every department  
of practical and speculative            
knowledge2 has weakened the authority of
 the privileged classes1 and      thus  
placed liberty on a surer foundation2   
has chastised the      despotism of     
princes2 has restrained the arrogance of
 the nobles1 and      has even          
diminished the prejudices of the clergy4
  ,in a word1 it is      this which has 

remedied the three fundamental errors of
 the olden      time1 errors which made 
the people in politics too confiding1 in
      science too credulous1 in religion
 too intolerant4  ,we have thus seen    
the rise of that scepticism which in    
physics must always be the              
beginning of science1 and in religion   
must always be the beginning of         
toleration4  ,there is1 indeed1 no doubt
 that in both cases individual          
thinkers may by a great effort of       
original genius1 emancipate             
themselves from the operation of this   
law4  ,but in the progress of           
nations no such emancipation is         
possible4  ,as long as men refer the    
movements of the comets to the immediate
 finger of ,god1 and as long      as    
they believe that an eclipse is one of  
the modes by which ,deity      expresses
 his anger1 they will never be guilty of
 the blasphemous      presumption of    
attempting to predict such supernatural 
appearances4      ,before they could    

dare to investigate the causes of these 
mysterious      phenomena1 it was       
necessary that they should suspect that 
the      phenomena themselves were      
capable of being explained by the human 
mind4  ,in the same way until men are   
content in some degree to bring         
their religion before the bar of their  
own reason1 they never can              
understand how it is that there should  
be a diversity of creeds1 or      how   
any one can differ from themselves      
without being guilty of the      most   
enormous and unpardonable crime40       
,chillingworth says1 8,reason gives us  
knowledge1 while faith only gives us    
belief1 which is a part of knowledge1   
and is1 therefore1 inferior to it4  ,it 
is by reason1 and not by faith1 that we 
must discriminate in religious  matters1
 and it is by reason alone that we can  
distinguish truth from  falsehood40  ,he
 solemnly reminds his readers that in   
religious matters no  one ought to be   
expected to draw strong conclusions from

 imperfect  premises1 or to credit      
improbable statements upon scanty       
evidence2 still  less1 he says1 was it  
ever intended that men should so        
prostitute their  reason as to believe  
with infallible faith that which they   
are unable to  prove with infallible    
arguments4  ,the ,bishop1 agreeing in   
the utility of  doubt1 which he         
expressed in language nearly as strong  
as that of ,buckle1  says there is one  
condition without which doubt cannot be 
useful1 and  this condition1 being in   
truth an entire hindrance to doubt1 is  
utterly  unreasonable and impossible4   
,he says the condition on which doubt   
can be  accepted as useful is that it   
starts on a certain basis of religious  
belief4  ,now a doubt so based is only a
 fictitious doubt1 a sham doubt1 a      
hypocritical pretence of doubt4  ,when  
the ,bishop said it was possible to     
have a doubt based on belief in the     
proposition to be doubted1 he said  what
 he could not defend on any platform    

where reply was permitted4  ,i  feel    
that in talking of a man in his absence 
,i may be under the  imputation of      
saying harsh things4  ,the manner in    
which this debate has  gone on is not   
one of my fashioning4  ,the ,church has 
taken the pains to  give lectures in the
 ,cathedral where no reply could be     
offered2 but ,i  promise you that ,i    
will endeavour to carry the war into    
,peterborough1 and  see whether the     
,bishop will attempt an answer under the
 shadow of his own  cathedral4    ,i    
have now to complain of something still 
worse than that the ,bishop  should have
 forgotten his ,bible1 entirely ignored 
the ,thirty-nine  ,articles1 and        
occasionally in the hurry of rapid      
speech contradicted his  previous       
sentences4  ,all these are matters at   
which in even an  extraordinary man     
burdened with a bishop's dignity1 we    
need not wonder at  all2 but when we    
find him blundering in metaphysics1 when
 we find him  making mistakes which a   

man versed in the merest student's      
rudiments of  ,mill or the ,scotch and  
,german metaphysicians1 would not make1 
when we  find the ,bishop so blundering1
 either wilfully or ignorantly1 it puts 
me  in a position of extreme difficulty4
  ,he distinguished between the         
,sceptic and the ,christian1 and said   
the ,christian had a faith in  something
 underlying all phenomena4  ,the        
,christian's faith is nothing of  the   
kind4  ,i will explain my position1 and 
then that of the ,christian4  ,the      
position of the ,naturist is that there 
is only one existence4  ,i can  only    
know that existence as conditioned1 as  
phenomenal4  ,what we call  8things0 are
 modes or conditions of existence1 known
 or distinguished  from other conditions
 by various characteristics or          
qualities2 we only  know substance or   
existence as conditioned4  ,we only know
 the phenomenal  or the conditioned4    
,we affirm one existence1 and that all  
we know is  condition of that one       

existence4  ,but that is not the        
,christian's  position4  ,the ,christian
 says there are two existences1 the one 
what he  calls the material universe1   
and the other the ,deity1 distinct and  
differing in essence1 who is the creator
 of that universe out of nothing1  and  
who can be the destroyer of it4  ,when  
the ,bishop tried to make these  two    
opinions into one1 he either did not    
know what he was talking about1  or he  
supposed that the people to whom he was 
talking had not the time to  study4     
,the ,bishop defined faith as trust or  
assent1 and he declared that  not only  
in religion but in all other matters we 
have faith4  ,he said1  for example1 and
 his illustration appeared to me most   
unfortunately  chosen1 that we trusted  
in our wives1 and children1 and friends1
 that it  was possible that our wives   
might all the time be unfaithful1 our   
children unloving1 and our friends      
treacherous4  ,these are not the words1 
but they give the exact sense of the    

words4  ,now ,i will explain the        
difference between religious faith and  
the ordinary faith4  ,our ordinary      
faith in one another in every-day life  
is a confidence founded upon our  own   
experience and the experience of others2
 and it is because we find  the         
unfaithful wives are the fewest in      
number1 and the treacherous  friends the
 fewest in number1 that we trust in our 
wives and our friends4  ,but religious  
faith is something entirely different1  
it is not only not  founded on          
experience1 but it contradicts          
experience4  ,religious belief  is the  
prostration of the intellect2 ordinary  
every-day trust is the  result of the   
exercise of the intellect4  ,the ,bishop
 spoke of morality4  ,he said morality  
was based upon faith1 and he asked1     
supposing you did  not go to faith1     
where were you to get your standard of  
morality8  ,what  is morality1 the      
,bishop did not tell you4  ,with me that
 is moral which  tends to the greatest  

happiness of the greatest number1 which 
inflicts  the least injury on any4      
,what is moral the ,bible does not tell 
you1 the  ,thirty-nine ,articles do not 
tell you1 the ,creeds do not tell you1  
the  ,nicene ,creed does not tell you1  
the ,apostles' ,creed does not tell you4
  ,they say that it is moral not to     
steal1 but you must not say this with   
the ,bible in your hand1 where you find 
a thief protected and rewarded4  ,and as
 to adultery1 ,david got to heaven      
though he committed adultery1 and       
planned the most treacherous murder of  
the dishonoured husband4  ,it is  moral 
to speak the truth1 but ,jacob1 who     
lied1 got to heaven1 and was  loved by  
,god1 while his brother was hated1      
though he appears to have been  the     
better man of the two4  ,what is the    
morality of the ,athanasian ,creed8     
,you are to believe in a ,father1 a     
,son1 and a ,holy ,ghost1 three persons 
in  one ,god1 and if you do not believe 
in this1 without doubt you are to       

perish everlastingly4  ,is that your    
morality8  ,he that believes and is     
baptised1 shall be saved4  ,is faith in 
,christ morality8  ,here it is moral  to
 eat beefsteaks1 but on the banks of the
 ,ganges it is immoral4  ,where  will   
you get your guide to morality8  ,no one
 man1 no one book1 no one  church1 can  
give it you4  ,your guide to morality   
can only be got by  gathering from the  
wisdom1 and availing yourself of the    
experience of the  greatest minds of    
past ages and the present times1 and    
thus you may learn  to be moral4  ,i    
don't speak to annihilate the ,bible4   
,no man can  annihilate a book4  ,if    
,moses or ,isaiah wrote1 no man can     
sweep their work  away from the page of 
history1 but ,i say that no book should 
dominate the  world4  ,i am a sceptic1  
for ,i deny the absolute authority of   
one book to  dominate all people4  ,i   
find among the ,brahmins1 among the     
,buddhists1  among the ,chinese and     
,japanese1 phases of human truth which  

in other  lands are almost entirely     
forgotten1 which your ,jew books do not 
contain4    ,if you want to know how ,i 
would make a code of morality1 ,i would 
make it  as you would a bouquet of      
flowers3 from one plot in a garden you  
cull the  rose1 from another other      
flowers of sweet perfume1 from another  
the  flowers of brilliant hue1 until    
colour blending with colour and         
fragrance  aiding1 your bouquet presents
 beauty to the eye and sweet perfume to 
the  scent2 so ,i would take from       
,shakspere the fruit of his wide        
grasping  brains1 from ,swift his       
brilliant wit1 from ,montesquieu his    
great power of  generalisation1 from    
,voltaire his grand irony1 from         
,rabelais his biting  thought1 from     
,spinoza his grand logic1 from ,john    
,locke his wise reason1 ,i  would take  
from ,dr4 ,magee his eloquence1 and     
bring them and the thoughts  of the     
world's poets and philosophers together4
  ,i would make my bouquet  of thought4 

,i say the ,bible is not a book to cast 
away1 but to place on  our shelves      
beside the ,koran1 the ,vedas1 and other
 old-world books1 to  mark how the      
thought of the world has grown4  ,we    
know that religion has a  hold upon the 
mass1 but ,i claim for scepticism a     
higher morality4  ,the  belief in       
religion is the wearing the old clothes 
of a former age1 the  swaddling clothes 
adopted in the childhood of humanity1   
but scepticism is  the bursting out from
 these old swaddling clothes4  ,it is   
the effort of  buried brain to burst its
 grave and stand out alive for human    
deliverance4          ,,third           
,,discourse  ,,of ,,the  ,,bishop ,,of  
,,peterborough4  ,,christianity ,,and   
,,faith4      ,,on ,thursday evening1   
,march #cjth1 #ahga1 the nave of the    
,cathedral1  ,norwich1 was much crowded 
with the citizens of all classes1 to    
hear the  third sermon of the ,bishop of
 ,peterborough1 on 8,christianity and   
,faith40  ,before the sermon the ,bishop

 prayed specially for the conversion of 
the  infidels present4  ,he selected his
 text from the ,gospel according to ,st4
  ,john1 xx4 #bi1        8,blessed are  
they that have not seen1 and yet have   
believed40    ,his ,lordship said3      
,last night1 ,i endeavoured to show you 
what scepticism is1 and what it         
leads to4  ,we saw that scepticism is   
not simply doubt1 but that it is        
doubt of a particular kind4  ,it is that
 state of doubt which arises      from  
insisting on referring every question   
for solution to one part1      and one  
only1 of our nature1 to the sceptical   
understanding4  ,it is      that state  
of doubt which arises from refusing to  
believe until it      has been made     
scientifically and mathematically       
impossible to doubt4      ,and we saw   
what this leads to2 we saw that it      
necessarily leads to      the           
destruction of all belief properly      
so-called1 to the destruction      of   
every kind of assent1 except assent to  

scientific and demonstrated      facts2 
that it puts an end to all belief which 
rests upon moral      certainty1 as     
distinguished from scientific certainty1
 and therefore      it puts an end to   
all belief that appeals to any part of  
our nature      except the              
understanding2 all belief with which the
 heart and spirit      of man have      
anything to do2 all belief of the higher
 and nobler kind2      all belief that  
arises out of the higher and nobler part
 of our      nature2 all belief that is 
in character and essence moral1 and all 
the higher and nobler life which arises 
out of such belief4  ,we saw      that  
scepticism was essentially fatal to     
morality2 that there is no              
scientific demonstration of morality1   
and that in order to be moral      it is
 necessary to exercise an act of faith2 
that morality cannot      justify itself
 to the sceptical understanding2 as we  
saw that as      religion is not capable
 of scientific demonstration1 as it does

      appeal to something else than the 
logical faculty1 as it does appeal      
to man's heart and spirit1 it cannot    
justify itself to the sceptical         
intellect2 and that scepticism is       
necessarily as fatal to religion as     
it is to morality1 and to all belief    
except scientific belief4        ,i hope
 you saw what a waste of time it is to  
endeavour to satisfy the      consistent
 sceptic2 we have absolutely nothing in 
common4  ,it is      impossible that    
religion can silence scepticism1 unless 
it ceases to      be religion4  ,it is  
just as absurd to object to religion    
that it is      not science1 as to      
object to science that it is not        
religion4  ,it is      the wisest course
 we can take in dealing with sceptics to
 begin1 and      for the most part to   
end the discussion1 by asking this plain
      question3 ,you tell us that you   
are sceptical1 and you demand all your  
doubts to be satisfied before you       
believe2 we ask you1 ,do you believe    

in anything1 and if so1 what do you     
believe in the proper sense of      the 
word8  ,do you assent to anything on    
trust8  ,do you believe in      anything
 you cannot demonstrate8  ,if so1 you   
have no right to say to      us that we 
should not believe a religion4  ,if you 
say1 ,i believe in      nothing but what
 can be demonstrated1 then we have      
nothing to answer1      we must leave   
you to be refuted by the common sense of
 mankind1 and      by every act of your 
daily life which is based on trust4  ,it
 would      save a vast deal of wasted  
time were we to take this course4  ,let 
me      advise all ,christians2 before  
you allow a sceptic to put you to the   
proof1 ask1 ,what is it you believe8    
,do you believe anything in the         
matter of religion8 and if so1 remember 
you should not bring any      objection 
against our faith which applies equally 
to yours4  ,we      cannot allow of     
faith for all the difficulties of your  
belief1 while      you ask demonstration

 for all the difficulties of our belief4
  ,faith      for both1 or faith for    
neither2 but not faith for one and      
demonstration for the other4  ,we seek  
not to get a logical victory      over  
our opponents2 that is the poorest of   
all ambitions2 but we      recommend    
such a course for this reason1 that you 
may see that the      very same         
objections which are brought against our
 belief1 lie      against any belief1   
and all belief1 and so be strengthened  
in your      faith2 for after all man   
must believe something4  ,there is a    
necessity of belief in the soul of man4 
,we ask for the sake of our             
opponents1 if we throw them back upon   
considering the basis of their      own 
belief1 and ask them if they are not    
unconsciously to themselves      in some
 degree believers while they call       
themselves sceptics8        ,and now1   
while ,i have endeavoured thus clearly  
to show you that      religion1 like    
morality1 has no answer1 properly       

speaking1 to      scepticism--but that  
it rests upon an act of faith in answer 
to what      is ever saying1 ,how1 what1
 and why8--let us come back then to that
      point at which we left it last    
night4  ,that is the point at which we  
saw1 that in order to be moral1 and to  
believe in morality1 we must            
exercise an act of faith1 we must trust 
in ourselves1 in our own      higher and
 better nature4  ,it must be an act of  
faith which never can      justify      
itself to the understanding4  ,submit   
the understanding to the      soul1     
elevate the conscience above the merely 
logical and questioning      faculty2   
say by the exercise of a higher faculty1
 say by the power of      that instinct 
of faith1 which is given us for the very
 purpose that      we may rise above the
 instinct of doubt--say1 ,i know that   
this is      right and this is true1    
while ,i have a soul4  ,there is in the 
heart      of every human being an      
eternal opposition between the merely   

sceptical understanding and the         
spiritual faculty1 between that which   
demonstrates and that which believes1   
between the mind which we share         
with the animal1 and the soul which we  
,christians believe we      specially   
derive from ,god2 and these two are     
opposite the one to the      other4     
,that in us which says1 ,this must be   
so1 this shall be so so1      is a      
higher faculty than that which in us    
inquires1 ,why is it so1 how      can   
this be so8  ,and that act of faith in  
us on which our morality1      our      
religion1 and our higher forms of being 
rest1 is that by which we      assert   
the supremacy of the one above the      
other4  ,we are not always              
conscious1 nor often conscious1 of this 
contradiction in our      innermost     
nature1 of the opposition between the   
spiritual part of our      nature and   
the mere fleshly man4  ,there are times1
 however1 when we      feel conscious of
 it4  ,there are times when to each one 

of us comes      some dire and deadly   
temptation1 when we find ourselves in   
the      presence of some coveted       
object1 when the animal craves for its  
gratification1 and the spirit trembles  
at the thought of the unlawful          
thing2 and then we find the serpent     
intellect pleading in an      ingenious 
way that there is no law against it4  ,i
 say1 there is not      in this church a
 single man or woman who has not felt   
the eternal      opposition between the 
spirit and the flesh2 who has not felt  
that      his deliverance from          
temptation1 the mastery over the evil   
thing that      was leading him on to   
evil1 lies not in any logic or          
demonstration1      but in the          
submission of the logical faculty to the
 spiritual1 in      saying to the animal
 part of our nature1 ,be silent1 submit1
 ,i will be      righteous1 ,i will not 
sin4  ,i say1 in that moment we do      
become      conscious of the opposition 
that exists between the intellectual and

      spiritual part of our nature4  ,it
 is then that the great billows of      
our souls are ebbing and flowing in the 
agony of our temptation4  ,it      is at
 that time we feel the innermost parts  
of our being1 the      fountains of the 
great deep broken up2 and then the      
spirit says1 ,i      will be righteous4 
,and though we are not conscious of it1 
though the      animal has been         
accustomed to obey the man1 there is    
this secret      opposition between the 
two4  ,it is in the nature of what      
oculists      tell us4  ,they tell us1  
that the image of an object is inverted 
on      the retina of the eye1 and that 
it is only by constant habit of         
correction of the impression that we see
 things truly4  ,so there is      the   
natural inversion of the nature of the  
man2 the animal gets the      upper hand
 in the man1 and it is only by the      
unconscious training of      the man in 
,christian society that the supremacy of
 the moral part of      the man is      

strongly established2 and we are not    
conscious of the act      of faith1 but 
still that act of faith underlies all   
morality1 and it      is true in        
morality as in religion1 8,the just     
shall live by faith40      ,there is no 
righteous deed that any one of us has   
done that we did      not do by virtue  
of this act of faith2 8,the just shall  
live by      faith40        ,now let us 
pass on to another question1 for if the 
whole moral and      religious life is  
based upon the act of faith1 there      
doubtless must      be a good reason for
 it4  ,we ,christians believe that ,god 
made us so      for a good reason4  ,can
 we see any reason why we should live   
our      moral life by faith8  ,that    
faith is not a mere assent to           
propositions1 it is trust in a person1  
in a nature1 a belief that we      are  
better1 nobler1 than our understanding  
would persuade us we are4      ,every   
time this opposition which ,i have      
described arises within a      man1 he  

is given a choice2 he has to pass       
through a probation1 or a      test as  
to whether he will or will not believe  
in his better self1      whether he will
 rise up to the idea of his spiritual   
nature1 or sink      down to the depths 
of his animal nature4  ,there is a trial
 for him1      and a discipline in the  
trial1 and a culture and a growth of his
      moral nature if he stands firm in 
the trial4  ,we cannot believe1 in      
such a moment of trial1 in our nobler   
and better selves1 without      becoming
 in the very act of believing1 nobler   
and better out of such      strife2 and 
the man comes out stronger every time he
 wrestles with      his baser self2 his 
purer and nobler self comes out of the  
trial      nobler and purer4            
,there is a deep meaning in the         
temptation of our ,saviour1 when he is  
said to have been with the wild beasts1 
in that hour when the man is            
wrestling with the wild beasts1 or the  
brute part of his nature1 and      his  

spiritual nature comes strong out of the
 struggle2 just as the      waving of   
the branches of the trees in the wind1  
makes the sap      circulate to the     
tiniest leaflet1 and brings the         
life-blood of the      plant to every   
part4  ,this is the use and object of   
the act of faith2      to train1        
discipline1 and elevate the man4        
,further1 ,i have said1 in      every   
case in which a man believes in his     
better self1 he becomes      better2 but
 we have to deal not only with our      
better selves1 we have      to come     
constantly in contact with other natures
 and other      personalities than our  
own4  ,now1 what happens when we        
encounter a      higher or more moral   
nature than our own8  ,just the very    
same trial      and discipline2 because 
if a man comes to deal with a higher and
      better nature than his own1 there 
is always a trial to the lower          
nature4  ,if a higher nature could be   
easily understood by a lower            

nature1 then the two natures would be   
equal4  ,it is the very essence      of 
a higher and purer nature to be         
something of a mystery to a lower       
nature4  ,some of the sayings or the    
doings of that higher nature1      will 
always appear strange and puzzling to   
the lower nature1 just      because it  
is a lower nature4  ,there is always the
 possibility of the      lower nature   
saying of the higher nature1 ,this      
nature is no better      than mine1 ,i  
do not believe in its higher or greater 
goodness4  ,but      are these cynical1 
worldly-wise men who disparage others1  
generally      speaking1 the most       
improving and valuable of our           
acquaintances8  ,do      we not         
generally find these cynical1 bitter1   
disparaging men to be      men of low   
tone8  ,they have lowered their moral   
nature in the hour of      probation and
 trial2 they have sunk lower than       
themselves1 because      they have      
refused to believe in something higher  

and better than      themselves4  ,if   
these men could have risen to the higher
 natures they      had to deal with1    
then in that very hour1 their own nature
 would have      grown purer1 nobler1   
and higher4  ,so we see again1 the act  
of faith      would be an act of        
probation1 an act of discipline1 an act 
of moral      culture and growth4       
,therefore we say it is true1 8,blessed 
are they      that have not seen1 and   
yet have believed40        ,but now let 
us go one step further4  ,we have seen  
that in all      morality there is an   
act of faith1 and we believe in our own 
higher      nature and the higher nature
 of others1 and in so doing we ourselves
      grow better2 but is there not     
something better still8  ,we that       
believe in higher natures than our own1 
is there not in our hearts an           
instinctive belief that there must be   
somewhere perfect      righteousness1   
perfect truth1 perfect holiness8  ,we   
seek for it1      believe in it2 do we  

ever find it8  ,the more we know of men1
 though      we may know more of their  
excellencies1 we are compelled to know  
something more too of their             
imperfections4  ,the result of this     
discovery is that one of two things     
happens1 according as we listen      to 
our understanding or our will4  ,the    
sceptical understanding says1           
,there is no such thing as perfection   
anywhere4  ,that answer is              
unanswerable if we look only to         
experience4  ,is that the answer of     
the soul and heart of man8  ,no1 the    
soul and the heart rebel against        
this cheerless teaching4  ,the soul has 
ever been uttering its protest          
against this despairing creed1 ever     
speaking its belief in the      reality 
of a perfect righteousness1 a perfect   
truth1 a perfect      holiness2 but can 
never attain to it4  ,it may be a dream1
 but it is a      dream that has haunted
 humanity from the first hour of its    
existence4      ,we thus have faith in  

humanity1 and the value of this faith is
 that      it elevates the soul which   
believes in it2 a faith which cannot    
justify itself to the understanding1 a  
faith as deep as the human      heart1  
and as old as the hills4        ,there  
is in very deed1 in a very true sense1  
although it may be a low      sense     
comparatively1 a religion of humanity2 a
 creed and an act of      faith2 and    
that religion has for its creed these   
articles3 man is      pure2 he is not a 
bundle of passions merely2 man is       
responsible1 he      has to answer for  
his beliefs2 man may yet be perfect4    
,there is no      article in this creed 
that can be justified to the sceptical  
intellect1 and yet there is not a single
 article in it that the      loving     
heart of man1 and that his soul in his  
highest and best      moments1 does not 
cling to as the very life of its life4  
,the heart      of man believes in the  
perfectibility of humanity1 in spite of 
sin      and misery and oppression4     

,the long litany of man's imperfections8
      comes down with a wail of         
despairing denial of the possibility of 
perfection4  ,remedy after remedy has   
been tried1 scheme after scheme      has
 been invented1 and have been borne away
 like the bubbles on the      wave2 but 
still the heart of man clings to the    
belief that there is a      perfect     
goodness somewhere1 even when           
civilisation fails to produce      it1  
even in spite of what we have seen in   
the last three months when      the most
 civilised nations of ,europe have      
banded themselves together      for     
mutual destruction2 in spite of all this
 disproof of perfection1      the heart 
of man clings to it still4  ,we do have 
faith in humanity1      and the value of
 the faith is that it elevates the soul 
which      believes in it4  ,this belief
 in the possibility of perfection1 in   
the      possibility of delivering men  
from sin and sorrow1 this is not merely 
the dream of the poet1 it is not merely 

the ,utopia of the      philosopher1 but
 it is the instinctive might in the     
heart of the      earnest worker1 that  
gives strength to him who does his duty 
amid the      haunts of sin and sorrow2 
it is this that sends the ,christian    
worker      into the back streets and   
lanes of our great cities2 it is this   
that      sends the ,christian minister 
to the bedside of the dying2 it is this 
that makes men toil and suffer for their
 fellow men1 like him whom we           
worship1 who saw in his dying hour of   
the travail of his soul and was         
satisfied4        ,and now we take one  
step further4  ,we have seen that there 
is a faith      which underlies all     
morality as well as religion1 and that  
this faith      is the discipline of the
 soul1 and without it the soul cannot   
grow in      morality or religion4  ,let
 us suppose1 for argument's sake1 let us
      suppose that for this yearning of 
the soul after an infinite              
perfection1 there is a corresponding    

reality--an absolutely perfect1 a       
supremely righteous and true and holy   
,being4  ,and let us suppose that       
it pleased him to make a revelation of  
himself to man2 what should we          
expect beforehand respecting that       
revelation8  ,should we not expect      
that it would follow the analogy of all 
other revelations to the      higher and
 better part of man's nature1 and that  
inasmuch as morality      needs faith1  
so this manifestation of the ,perfect   
,one would come in      some way or     
other so as to call out the act of      
faith8  ,should we not      expect that 
if this were the only absolutely perfect
 nature1 it would      appear to our    
lower and inferior nature in some       
respects      unintelligible1 in some   
respects mysterious1 in some respects   
contradictory8  ,for all mysteries1     
everything we cannot understand1        
must come to our understanding in the   
shape of contradictory                  
propositions4  ,we must expect that this

 higher nature1 this perfect            
nature1 should try our faith4  ,if it   
would be unreasonable to suppose        
that an inferior man to himself should  
understand a man1 so also it      would 
be unreasonable to suppose that our     
nature should not find some             
difficulty in perfectly appreciating and
 understanding the absolutely           
perfect nature of a supremely perfect   
,being4  ,should we not expect      from
 analogy that we should have some more  
difficulty in      understanding ,god1  
than we have in understanding man8  ,we 
must expect      the same trial of our  
faith1 the same probation and discipline
 of our      spiritual nature1 when it  
is brought into contemplation of this   
perfect nature4  ,surely we should      
beforehand expect that this would       
be the case2 surely we might say that   
the ,god who was perfectly              
understood could not be the true ,god4  
,when a man says1 ,i want a ,god        
that is not a mystery2 ,i ask1 ,do you  

know a man who is without a             
mystery8  ,are you not a mystery        
yourself8  ,is there one fellow being   
whom you understand8  ,and yet you say1 
,i have not faith in a ,god whom      ,i
 cannot understand4  ,who can comprehend
 him who dwells in ineffable      light1
 in whom there is no variableness nor   
shadow of turning8  ,if      there be   
revelation from ,god at all1 it must try
 the faith of man4      ,in the next    
place1 we should expect that it would be
 a revelation of      a righteous       
person2 because we know that the highest
 tendencies of      our nature at their 
best moments are ever to find a         
righteous person1      and our faith    
that has been cultivated in our brother 
man naturally      looks for a person4  
,faith has ever been trusting in a      
person1 in a      nature1 and therefore 
we should expect beforehand that if     
there came      a revelation of this    
,god1 it would not come in the shape of 
a      revelation of doctrines or       

creeds1 but that it would be a          
revelation      of a person4  ,we       
,christians say there is made to us a   
revelation of      the working of the   
,divine ,will1 and the purpose of the   
,divine      ,designer1 in the works of 
his hands4  ,we say the invisible things
 of      ,god are revealed by the things
 that are made4  ,there is that in the  
world which testifies to a creator and  
designer4  ,this we believe      because
 there is that in us which              
instinctively1 when it finds a work     
of art1 supposes an artist2 and finding 
a work requiring design1 has      belief
 in a designer4  ,we say1 8,the heavens 
declare the glory of ,god1      and the 
firmament shows his handy work40        
,but this revelation must follow the law
 of all other manifestations4           
,there must be a possibility of denying 
it2 a discipline here1 as in      the   
other case1 in which faith is called    
into play2 and therefore1      though   
the world reveals its maker1 it does not

 demonstrate its      maker4  8,day unto
 day is uttering speech1 and night unto 
night      showeth forth knowledge20 but
 the speech is like the speech for      
things spiritual1 the utterance is for  
all who choose to believe it4      ,if  
men will1 they may put it aside2 and    
some deny it in the face of      the    
world4  ,god has willed that there shall
 be nothing in this world      to       
demonstrate his existence2 but it is now
 as of old1 inasmuch as      men did not
 choose to retain ,god in their         
knowledge1 he gave them      over to a  
reprobate mind4  ,there is a            
possibility1 there is a      necessity1 
in the manifestation of ,god1 that it   
should try the faith      of man4  ,once
 more1 we ,christians believe not only  
that ,god has      revealed himself in  
his works1 but also in his word1 in his 
,incarnate      ,word2 that1 in answer  
to the craving desire of the soul of man
 to      look upon human perfection1    
this earth has once been walked upon by 

a      perfect man2 that in the story of
 the ,gospels we possess that which     
no imperfect souls could ever have      
imagined1 the lineaments of a           
perfect being4  ,i am not saying that it
 is so1 but it is our belief4      ,but 
before we opened the ,gospels1 we should
 expect according to the      analogy of
 all other holy and righteous lives that
 we know of1 that      it should not    
demonstrate itself1 should not make     
itself an      impossibility to the     
sceptical mind to find fault with it1   
and should      reveal itself to those  
whose lives were like it1 so that wisdom
      should justify herself by her     
children4  ,we should not expect1       
judging from analogy of what we see in  
the world1 that this life      should in
 all respects silence all opposition1   
and be understood by      every mind    
that it came in contact with4  ,we      
should expect to hear      that he was  
despised and rejected of men1 and some  
people besought      him to depart from 

their coasts4  ,if the revelation of a  
divine and      perfect nature is to    
follow the analogy of all revelations of
 a lower      degree of perfection1 and 
all manifestations of inferior natures1 
then we must expect the same law will   
govern this case as all others2         
there will be a possibility of doubt1   
and a trial of faith1 and to      those 
who conquer the doubt and exercise the  
faith1 will the promise      be         
realised1 8,blessed are they that have  
not seen1 and yet have      believed40  
,ah1 it was not with faith in a series  
of propositions      only1 nor in a set 
of dogmas--though we believe the        
propositions and      hold the dogmas1  
but in the light of faith in this       
person--that the      disciples of the  
,perfect ,one went out to convert the   
world4  ,they did      not preach       
,christ's teaching1 but ,christ4        
,did it ever occur to you to read the   
,acts of the ,apostles8 if so1 you      
will have seen how little of the words  

of ,christ1 how little of the           
teachings of ,christ1 appears there4    
,when we read in the ,acts1 how      the
 ,apostles went out to preach ,christ1  
do we read that they gathered      the  
multitude in the forum8  ,did they say1 
,listen to the morality of      the     
,gospels8  ,you will not find a         
quotation from the ,sermon on the       
,mount4  ,what did they do8  ,they      
gathered the multitude together1 and    
preached not the words of ,christ1 but  
,christ4  ,they said1 ,come and         
believe in this man2 it was the         
personality1 it was the life and        
death1 and resurrection and ascension of
 him1 that they preached4  ,it      was 
a person in whom they asked the people  
to believe2 and the result      is this 
extraordinary and singular fact1 that   
,christ is the only      teacher among  
men whose life is greater than his      
teaching4  ,all other      teachers have
 faded into insignificance in comparison
 with their      teaching4  ,who cares  

about the life of ,euclid8 but everybody
 believes      in his teaching4  ,men   
are fond of comparing ,christ with      
,socrates4      ,let us take it so4     
,did any man ever hear a person say1 ,i 
am dead      with ,socrates2 ,i am      
buried with ,socrates2 the life that ,i 
live is by      faith in ,socrates8     
,were such words ever heard of any      
heathen      teacher8  ,how comes it    
that men said this of ,christ8  ,the    
faith of      the soul went out to the  
nature and work of ,christ4  ,the faith 
of man      triumphed in the discovery  
of the perfect man4        ,now we have 
reached the last point to which ,i have 
desired to bring      you in this series
 of sermons4  ,we have reached the      
historical fact1      as to which others
 will follow me who will take up the    
subject1 and      who will show the     
evidence arising from history and       
prophecy4  ,my      task ends in        
removing the stumbling-blocks which     
would prevent your      coming to hear  

them4  ,it has been my part to lead you 
to the steps1      to the threshold of  
the temple4  ,we have found difficulties
 that have      kept many away from the 
entrance to the temple4  ,the first is  
the      belief that ,christianity is   
opposed to ,freethought4  ,and ,i have  
endeavoured to show you that            
,christianity does not deny it1 but     
asserts it2 that where ,christianity    
does deny it1 law and society      deny 
it4  ,the second difficulty is that of  
scepticism4  ,we have seen      that it 
is fatal to morality1 and to all the    
higher forms of human      life1 and    
that the sceptical understanding should 
submit to the soul4      ,christianity  
only requires what morality has done4   
,i have answered      the objection that
 ,christianity must appeal to faith1 and
 must do so      because it cannot find 
demonstration4  ,our answer is that it  
has all      the demonstration that is  
possible for the supernatural or for    
history4  ,christianity does make       

demands on faith1 but it acts in        
accordance with the analogy of human    
life2 and ,christianity in      claiming
 faith justifies its claim to be a      
religion4        ,now the time comes to 
close this discourse1 in which from my  
inmost      soul ,i have set the truth  
before you4  ,i will ask you in all     
sincerity1 ,why do you suppose ,i am    
here8  ,some may say because we are     
priests and bigots4  ,to me1 if ,i must 
put it so1 it makes no      difference  
whether ,i come here or not4  ,why do ,i
 come here8  ,do you      really1       
honestly believe1 that ,i have come here
 to deceive you8  ,will      you not    
give me credit1 that to the best of my  
ability and in all      earnestness and 
honesty1 ,i have endeavoured to put     
before you the      reasons that seem to
 me sufficient for my belief8  ,hear us1
 then1 for      this reason if for no   
other1 that we desire your souls for our
 ,lord      and ,master1 that it is in  
his name we come among you1 and because 

we      believe that ,jesus is the ,son 
of ,god and came down from heaven to    
save men4  ,it is for this reason1 and  
this only1 that we are here to          
speak to you1 that we may with the help 
of ,god deepen your faith or      shake 
your unbelief4  ,we come with his word1 
that calls on you to      follow the    
higher and not the lower part of your   
nature4  8,believe in      the ,lord    
,jesus ,christ1 and ye shall be saved40 
,there are some who      don't believe  
in the first part of this message1 there
 are few who do      not believe that   
men need to be saved1 saved in this     
world1 and saved      in the next1 saved
 from some of the sin and misery in this
 world4  ,i      ask1 is there no need  
of faith1 is there no desire for the    
objects of      faith8  ,among men have 
we not some need of faith8  ,the world  
is      growing old and sick at heart4  
,all the remedies that have been tried  
for the evils of society1 have been     
tried in vain4  ,idol after idol        

has been set up1 has been rocked on its 
basis1 and shivered4  ,the      gods of 
mankind have been taken away1 and the   
cry of despondency has      been raised1
 ,we have no humanity4  ,is there any   
evidence that there      shall be a     
perfection of humanity8  ,is it from    
faith in men of      science8  ,did     
science ever comfort the afflicted1 or  
allay human      sorrows8  ,faith in    
civilisation8  ,can it remedy the evils 
that are      conquering society8       
,civilisation now means the gathering of
 men in      great masses1 to live the  
luxurious1 the voluptuous life of great 
towns2 it means the weary1 toilful1     
haggard life of others in these         
same towns2 it means the rich growing   
richer1 and the poor growing      poorer
 every day4  ,civilisation throws its   
dark shadows in its track4              
,civilisation and science1 have they    
arrested war1 or softened the      heart
 of humanity1 or prevented strife       
between nations8      ,civilisation1    

science and art have invented           
mitrailleuses1 and      invented        
destructive methods of wholesale murder4
  ,where will you      find in all these
 things a substitute for faith8  ,some  
speak of the      millennium1 and of the
 natural state of man being remedied in 
this      world4  ,we believe in the    
final perfection of man1 but not in this
      world4  ,we believe in the reign  
of righteousness1 but it is in the      
eternal world4  ,it is in that faith    
that we gain courage to look on      the
 scenes and sorrows that afflict        
humanity4  ,it is in the strength       
of that faith that we look down on the  
graves of the departed1 and      believe
 all is not dust of the earth2 but we   
take up the song of      ,christian     
triumph over death1 and thank ,god for  
the message 8,blessed      are they that
 have not seen and yet have believed40  
,,third ,,reply  ,,of  ,,mr4 ,c4        
,,bradlaugh4  ,,christianity ,,and      
,,faith4      ,,on ,wednesday evening1  

,april #eth1 ,mr4 ,bradlaugh delivered  
his third  lecture on 8,christianity and
 ,faith10 before an audience which      
crowded  every corner of the ,free      
,library1 ,norwich4  ,he said3 ,in      
delivering the  last of this course of  
lectures1 permit me to commence by      
expressing my  regret1 that those who   
differ from me consider it necessary to 
show their  disagreement in the manner  
in which it was expressed last night1 on
 my  leaving this room4  ,if it had been
 the conduct of some ignorant young     
persons only1 ,i should not have deemed 
it right to waste one moment in         
bringing the matter before you1 but     
there were full-grown and decently      
dressed persons1 who were distributing  
religious tracts1 who encouraged  others
 in following me1 and using foul        
language4  ,i could not help  feeling   
how strong was the cause which ,i       
advocate1 and how wretchedly  weak the  
cause of my opponents1 when such weapons
 were resorted to in  lieu of fair      

reply4    ,i now address myself to the  
last sermon of the ,bishop of           
,peterborough1  entitled 8,christianity 
and ,faith40  ,the first portion of this
 was a  recapitulation of the principal 
arguments of the two previous sermons1  
and then he made a statement utterly    
opposed to the whole purpose of his     
sermons4  ,i will deal with the exact   
purport1 if ,i do not read to you the   
precise words he uttered4  ,he said1 ,it
 is a waste of time to endeavour to     
satisfy the consistent sceptic4  ,he    
said1 ,we ,christians1 have absolutely  
nothing in common with the consistent   
sceptic4  ,if that be true1 why did  the
 ,bishop come to preach the course of   
sermons to win back sceptics to  the    
,church8  ,why did the ,dean and        
,chapter inaugurate the course of       
sermons1 if it was1 in their opinion1   
impossible to satisfy the sceptic8  ,why
 did the ,bishop say it was not only to 
strengthen the faith of those  in the   
church1 but to win back those who had   

left it8  ,if it be not  possible to win
 them back1 then the whole course of    
sermons was a mere  pretence1 and ,i put
 it that the ,bishop was1 either        
consciously or  unconsciously1          
misleading his hearers as to his real   
views1 or that he  did not know what he 
was talking about4  ,the ,bishop offered
 some advice  to ,christians for dealing
 with sceptics4  ,he said1 ,before you  
allow a  sceptic to put your belief to  
the proof1 ask him what is it that he   
believes4  ,that is what you have no    
right to do4  ,the sceptic does not     
come to you at all to force his opinions
 on you4  ,you come to him when he  is  
in the cradle1 and by aid of early habit
 and repetition of phrases in  lieu of  
thoughts1 you put your religion into    
him1 you train him to accept  your      
religion in school1 you fashion his     
brain-power before it has  stability for
 resistance4  ,he has a right to express
 his disbelief in  your religion1 and   
you have no right to pretend to answer  

him with a mere  ,what do you believe8  
,there is no equality in the two        
positions2 religion  is law-protected1  
scepticism is law-condemned2 and the    
,bishop has no  right to take such      
ground3 a sceptic's ignorance would be  
no evidence of  a believer's knowledge4 
,but give the ,bishop the full benefit  
of the  ground1 and what does it amount 
to except that1 after the ,dean and     
,chapter had made a parade of their     
desire to answer infidelity1 declaring  
that they would have the most competent 
man1 this most competent man is  obliged
 to say1 ,the only way ,i advise you to 
meet modern infidelity is by  admitting 
in effect1 that you can do no more for  
your faith than to ask  the infidel1    
,what do you believe8  ,i dismiss this2 
it is of so trifling a  character that  
if it had not formed a prominent part of
 the ,bishop's  sermon1 it would not    
have been worth noticing4  ,the ,bishop1
 in dealing  with ,christianity and     
,faith1 said that morality is built on  

faith1 and  that in order to be moral   
and have a code of morality1 we must    
exercise  an act of faith1 and believe  
in our higher and better nature4  ,what 
is  our better nature1 judging by the   
,churchman's standard8  ,the ,articles  
of  the ,church of ,england declare that
 our nature is always lusting to do     
evil4  ,the ,litany says that each man  
is always trying to do wickedly1 and    
entreats the ,lord to deliver us from   
the lusts of the flesh4  ,how then  can 
we be asked to trust in a higher or     
better nature1 which the ,church        
declares is a nature fallen1 depraved1  
and constantly tending to evil8  ,the   
doctrine of the ,bible is that there is 
none who does good1 that man's  thoughts
 are evil continually4  ,it is          
sufficient for me to quote the  ,litany 
in which the ,bishop took part before   
his sermon1 which said that  we are all 
miserable sinners1 and prayed ,god to be
 merciful to us4  ,how  can we rise to  
our higher and better nature1 if the    

existence of that  higher and better    
nature be authoritatively denied8  ,the 
,bishop says  there is an eternal       
opposition in our nature1 between what  
he calls the  sceptical understanding   
and the spiritual faculty1 between the  
mind which  we share with the animal and
 8the soul1 which we ,christians believe
 we  specially derive from ,god40       
,let us clear away a little difficulty  
here4  ,by mind ,i mean the totality  of
 cerebral ability and its results in    
activity1 and ,i deny that we share     
mind with any other animal at all4      
,each animal has the mind special and   
peculiar to its own organisation2 and   
diverse races of men have diverse       
characters and degrees of mind1 limited 
by1 and resulting from1 their           
organisation and its development4  ,but 
it is the ,bible1 and not the  sceptic1 
that says the mind of man and the minds 
of all other animals are  on a level4   
,the ,bishop says that the sceptic would
 degrade man to the  level of the beast4

  ,you have only to take the ,bible and 
you will read3        8,i said in my    
heart concerning the estate of the sons 
of men1 that      ,god might manifest   
them1 and that they might see that they 
themselves      are beasts4  ,for that  
which befalleth the sons of men         
befalleth      beasts2 even one thing   
befalleth them 4 4 4 so that a man hath 
no      pre-eminence above a beast40    
,if the doctrine is degrading1 it is the
 ,bible that teaches the doctrine1  and 
not the sceptic4  ,freethinkers never   
contend for anything of the  kind4  ,on 
the contrary1 we say that the           
superiority of the intellect is         
distinctly marked in its development1   
that not only are men mentally  superior
 to all other animals1 but that some    
races of men are vastly  superior to    
others4  ,what does the ,bishop mean by 
opposition between mind  and soul8  ,he 
did not trouble to give any evidence of 
the existence of  what he calls soul as 
apart from mind4  ,i challenge any one  

who may  follow me to give me any       
evidence of any sort of existence apart 
from  mind1 that we can call soul4  ,the
 ,bishop said that there is a constant  
opposition between the intellectual     
faculty1 the mind which we share in     
common with the beast1 and the spiritual
 soul4  ,i deny that the ,bishop        
advanced the slightest proof of--or gave
 any clue to--any such soul4  ,i  deny  
that it is possible for any man to      
conceive the existence of two  separate 
existences in man3 one1 mind2 the other1
 soul4  ,as to the  opposition between  
them1 the ,bishop says that ,god created
 man's  intellectual faculties1 and that
 he also endowed man with a soul2 and   
that the soul is hostile to the mind2   
and that the mind is low and            
grovelling1 always in hostility to the  
soul4  ,he thus makes ,god put into  man
 a degrading nature1 always hostile to  
religion1 and in a constant  struggle   
with the soul4  ,no more degrading      
supposition can be made  respecting     

,god1 who is thus pictured as a         
malicious fiend2 and if the  ,bishop had
 intended to make infidels1 he could not
 have contrived more  effectual means   
than the preaching this doctrine4       
,the ,bishop1 after dealing with the    
manner in which the spiritual part of   
our nature overcomes what he calls the  
animal1 the intellectual or mental  part
 of our nature--for he used all these   
words to describe the natural  man at   
war with the spiritual man--says that   
the manner in which the  spiritual      
conquers the other1 is only by the      
unconscious training of the  man in     
,christian society4  ,the ,bishop says  
that ,god has made many  millions of    
men1 and given them minds in opposition 
to their souls1 that  these minds are   
strong enough to lead men to evil1 and  
they cannot be  brought to ,god1 unless 
in ,christian society2 so that the      
,buddhists1 the  ,brahmins1 the         
,mohammedans1 and men of all other      
persuasions must  necessarily be damned1

 because1 having no ,christian society1 
there is not  amongst them the means of 
overcoming this natural mind4  ,this is 
a pretty  specimen of ,christian        
teaching4  ,but the ,bishop is not even 
content with  this4  ,having told us    
that ,christianity is founded on an act 
of faith1  and that faith is trust1 he  
tells us that he believes that we are   
better1  nobler1 than our understanding 
would persuade us we are4  ,having told 
us  that we have a wicked nature1 a     
depraved mind in conflict with the      
spirit1 he says that our morality is    
also to be founded on an act of  faith1 
that we are really better and nobler    
that we suppose4  ,where do we  find the
 evidence to justify this act of faith8 
,we are1 according to the  ,bishop and  
his ,church1 all miserable sinners1 nor 
can we do good without  the help of     
,god4  ,there is that subtle serpent the
 devil constantly  working in us1 and   
our nature is in league against ,god4   
,the ,bishop says  the only way to      

overcome this horrid nature is by the   
training of man in  ,christian society1 
and yet two minutes after1 he tries to  
persuade us  that we are better1 nobler 
than he and his church say we are4  ,he 
says1  in fact1 we are all very wicked4 
,adam ate an apple #f1jjj years ago1 and
  we are1 in consequence1 all degraded  
and depraved2 yet we are really  nothing
 of the kind4  ,the ,bishop stated that 
the effect of belief in our  nobler1    
better nature is the improvement of our 
character1 and it is by  believing in   
what is better and nobler1 and in the   
possibility of being  better and nobler1
 that we grow better4  ,ergo1 so long as
 men believe  they are born in a state  
of natural depravity1 and that of       
themselves  they cannot do good1 so long
 as the mass of men believe that those  
are  depraved to damnation who cannot   
get trained in ,christian society1 so   
long as they believe that millions of   
men will be lost because they live      
without even hearing of ,christ at all1 

so long they must be degraded by  that  
belief4  ,they must believe that ,god   
made the majority of mankind for        
damnation and the minority for          
salvation2 their faith must make        
themselves into the incarnations of     
vileness and ,god into an almighty      
fiend4    ,the ,bishop1 not content with
 such subtle logic1 goes on to          
illustrations  drawn from the ,bible1   
and speaks of the temptation of ,jesus  
in the  wilderness4  ,he said there is a
 moral to be drawn from this temptation 
story1 because ,jesus is said to have   
been with the wild beasts1 and there    
was a deep meaning in this saying4  ,i  
do read the ,gospels sometimes1 and     
therefore puzzled myself about these    
wild beasts1 not having read much of    
them4  ,i remembered the ,jesus-,god    
being taken up a high mountain and      
shown all the kingdoms of the earth1 as 
a possible bribe if he would  worship   
his own creature the devil4  ,i         
remembered his being taken up to a      

pinnacle of the temple and invited to   
cast himself down2 but ,i did not       
remember1 nor do ,i now remember1       
anything about wild beasts1 save a few  
words in the ,gospel of ,mark1 and it is
 not even there shown that these  wild  
beasts had anything to do with the      
,lord's temptation4  ,whether the       
,bishop has a special version of his own
 ,i do not know4    ,another point of   
the ,bishop was1 that when lower natures
 have to  contemplate higher natures1   
there is some mystery or contradiction  
to the  lower natures4  ,the man who    
tries to predetermine your decision on  
an  alleged matter of fact1 by declaring
 that it is too mysterious for you to   
understand1 and that being mysterious1  
you must accept it as he explains  it1  
is a juggler with his intellect1 and    
takes a position to which he has  no    
right4  ,the ,bishop was good enough to 
talk of our degrading creed4  ,let him  
talk of his own degrading creed4  ,our  
creed has not invented a  bottomless pit

 filled to its brink with brimstone for 
everlasting  torture1 nor has it        
manufactured a devil more mighty than   
,god to destroy  ,god's work4  ,our     
degrading creed1 at any rate1 does not  
despair of human  kind1 nor tell us that
 we should be poor here in order to be  
rich  hereafter1 and be miserable here  
that we may be happy bye and bye1 when  
the life-ability for happiness is       
entirely gone4  ,we don't despair of    
human kind1 we assert the improvability 
of the human race and we say if  we make
 this life as good as we can1 we shall  
not be affrighted from our  task by any 
declaration that we may be unhappy      
hereafter4    ,but the ,bishop went     
further1 and carrying the war into our  
camp1 he  declared that it was in       
consequence of faith in ,christ that men
 did  ,christian work1 and he spoke of  
men doing good work among the sick1 and 
poor1 and ignorant1 and wretched1 day by
 day because they were  ,christians4    
,does he mean to say that ,mohammedans1 

and ,buddhists1 and  ,brahmins have     
amongst them no kindly work for one     
another8  ,does he mean  to say that men
 cannot be human unless they have the   
special ,christian's  creed8  ,but this 
,christian work has been going on for   
#ahjj years1 so at  least the ,bishop   
says4  ,let us turn the pages of its    
history over and  read what it has      
really done4  ,when ,christianity was   
cradled in the  world1 ,italy and       
,greece had their poets1 painters1      
sculptors1 men of  literary fame1       
orators1 comedians1 and tragedians4     
,wait for a century or  two till your   
much-vaunted ,christianity has1 by the  
aid of forgery1  fraud1 and manufactured
 miracle1 acquired some force4  ,wait   
till the  priests1 crushing out all     
other learning1 have become the sole    
literary  power in ,europe4  ,did they  
teach the people8  ,no1 they kept the   
people  ignorant4  7,a voice1 8,no407   
,if any one says no1 ,i will show       
century  after century what             

,christianity has been4  ,your first    
century ,i will not  trouble with until 
you show me its actual pages2 your      
second and third  centuries are crowded 
with the fabrication of forged          
evidences1 the  canonisation of         
pretended saints2 your fourth century   
shows the same  work1 and marks also the
 quarrels commencing amongst yourselves 
for the  spoils now large enough to     
excite good ,christians against each    
other2 in  the fifth century ,salvian   
one of your own presbyters1 said the    
,christian  ,church had become such a   
sink of vice1 that it was a species of  
sanctity  for any one to be a little    
less vicious than the others4  ,he says 
of his  fellow ,christians that they lie
 and cheat1 are adulterers and          
murderers2  that it is easier to find a 
,christian guilty of all these crimes   
than one  guilty of none4  ,take the    
sixth1 seventh1 eighth1 ninth1 and tenth
  centuries of ,christianity1 when      
infidelity was almost powerless1 before 

,voltaire lived1 before ,spinosa wrote1 
before ,bruno trod ,europe round1 and   
you have in these centuries1 when       
,christianity was the most powerful1 the
  dark ages of this ,european world1    
when all literature was stopped1 all    
philosophy was hindered1 all science    
manacled by the ,church4  ,what was  the
 ,christian work in the eleventh1       
twelfth1 and thirteenth centuries1  when
 ,christians marched to the ,holy ,land8
  ,let the plundered and  miserable     
countries tell2 let burned villages and 
ravished women show the  way in which   
the soldiers of the ,cross manifested   
their religion even to  their fellow    
,christians4  ,let these pages of blood 
and rapine be read for  ,christian work4
  ,where then was liberty or popular    
rights8  ,when the  king1 the barons1   
and the priests were in power1 did      
,christianity help  the people to get   
liberty8  ,it is only within the last   
#cjj years1 since  the rise of heresy in
 ,europe1 that the people have gained   

any freedom4  ,the ,church of ,england  
may say1 ,this is not our work2 but it  
is a branch  of the ,church of ,rome1   
and ought not to repudiate the trunk it 
grew from4  ,nay1 it has not even the   
same right to plead to us as the ,church
 of ,rome4  ,the ,church of ,rome is    
consistent1 and says to its followers1  
,you on  religion are unable to think1  
we will and we do think for you4  ,the  
,church of ,england says1 ,you have a   
right to think for yourselves1 but      
damns you if you think differently from 
the ,church4  ,you say that  hospitals  
are the fruits of ,christianity4        
,where1 save in the  monasteries1 were  
the hospitals for #aejj years8  ,you    
boast of schools4  ,where were these at 
all for #aejj years8  ,there were even  
in this country  none worthy of the name
 for little children till ,robert ,owen 
set his  example at ,new ,lanark4  ,you 
talk of going into the back streets1 but
 is  it not true that squalor1 misery1  
and vice1 crowd the back streets        

because the ,bishops and the ,english   
,church have taken so much from the     
people1 and have so hindered the        
populace from self-improvement1 that    
they have only back streets themselves  
to live in1 while they build  palaces   
for the king1 and magnificent structures
 for the ,church8  ,i  attack the       
,church of ,england because the ,church 
has challenged me4  ,i  attack it as a  
leech that for centuries has sucked the 
life-blood out of  the people1 and      
which1 with the power to aid and help   
civilisation1 has  done nothing but     
retard it4    ,the ,bishop said1 ,let us
 suppose the existence of a supremely   
righteous1  true1 and holy being2 let us
 suppose a revelation from such a being2
 what  do you suppose such a revelation 
should be like8 and he urged that the   
,christian possessed such a revelation  
as groundwork for his faith4  ,i  hold  
the supposed revelation in my hand4     
,what does it reveal8  ,that ,god  made 
man and woman in the same day1 but that 

he made them separately1 the  man long  
before the woman4  ,that ,god gave them 
the fruit of every tree  for food1 but  
prohibited them from eating the fruit of
 one tree1 and  never intended that of  
another to be eaten by them2 that he    
placed the  man and woman in a garden   
within reach of the tree whose fruit    
they were  forbidden to eat on pain of  
death1 but the fruit of which was made  
good  for food and pleasant to the eyes2
 that ,god made a serpent more subtle   
than all the beasts of the field2 that  
this serpent tempted ,eve1 and she  ate 
the forbidden fruit1 and gave to the man
 who ate also1 and thus both  fell2 that
 ,god1 who had foreseen and predestined 
all this terrible farce1  cursed for    
,adam's sake all human kind1 millions   
being thus involved in  ,adam's ruin4   
,that all this was the work of an       
all-wise and all-good ,god1  with whom  
is no variableness nor shadow of        
turning4  ,this ,god1 who is not  a man 
that he can repent1 afterwards repented 

that he had made man1 and1  although not
 subject to passions1 it grieved him at 
his heart1 and he  resolved to destroy  
all mankind4  ,that1 man's thoughts     
being wicked1 this  ,god of love and    
forgiveness1 of long suffering and      
loving kindness1  destroyed not only the
 full-grown man and woman1 but also the 
little  child as yet without thought4   
,man's thoughts being wicked1 ,god      
drowned  the whole world1 including     
bird1 beast1 and creeping thing4  ,did  
you ever  picture to yourselves this    
story of the flood8  ,just paint in     
imagination  a mother with her child in 
her arms1 wearily toiling up some hill1 
slippery with the falling waters4  ,see 
her fleeing from the waves coming  swift
 behind1 like ravenous wolves1 with     
gaping mouths greedy for her  life4     
,imagine her cry to heaven for mercy1   
not for herself alone1 not so  much for 
herself1 but for her child1 a child1    
which sucking at her  breast1 as yet    
knows no sin4  ,then picture your       

all-loving and merciful  ,god shutting  
his ears to her wild shrieks for mercy1 
and drowning her and  her babe in the   
flood4    ,did you ever picture to      
yourselves the scene when1 the world    
being again  peopled1 its inhabitants   
intended to build a tower that would    
reach to  heaven1 and ,god1 the         
all-wise1 hearing of it in heaven1 where
 he then  resided1 came down to earth to
 see whether the rumour was true1 and   
finding that it was1 confounded the     
language of men8  ,do you recollect  how
 ,god chose ,abraham--and ,i don't deny 
that he was worth choosing1 a man  who  
was just #ge years old when he had lived
 #ace years--how ,god1 the  infinite and
 omnipresent1 came down from heaven and 
told ,abraham that in  his seed all the 
nations of the earth should be blessed2 
and that  ,abraham1 though so old that  
his body was 8as good as dead10 should  
have a  son in his old age8  ,have you  
read how ,god1 who cannot lie1 with a   
covenant and an oath promised a certain 

land to ,abraham1 and how he never  gave
 him 8so much as to set his foot on80   
,have you read how ,sarah1 it  having   
ceased to be with her after the manner  
of women1 laughed when ,god  made the   
promise of a son2 how ,god asked why she
 laughed2 and how ,sarah1  whose faith  
is praised1 denied to ,god's very face  
that she had laughed at  all8  ,have you
 read that ,god said1 ,i am the ,god of 
,abraham1 of ,isaac1 and  of ,jacob2    
that ,jacob proved to be a knave and a  
liar2 that ,jacob made a  conditional   
bargain with the ,almighty ,god1 that if
 the ,lord would do  certain things for 
him1 then the ,lord should be his ,god8 
,have you read  how ,god promised to    
protect ,abraham's children1 and how    
they became  slaves in ,egypt1 and how  
he left them to be oppressed8  ,have you
 read  how1 hearing their cries1 ,god   
took them out of ,egypt1 amongst a      
number of  nations who had committed no 
crime against the ,jews1 but were       
created by  ,god to be destroyed by his 

chosen people8  ,have you traced the    
track of  blood and murder from ,egypt  
to ,palestine8  ,have you read how ,god 
gave the  ,israelites the right to make 
war on any city1 and if the inhabitants 
made  peace1 then they were tributaries1
 but if not 8,i1 the ,lord ,god1 will   
deliver them into thy hands2 thou shalt 
smite them utterly1 and leave  alive    
nothing that breatheth80    ,i say that 
this is not a revelation of love2 it is 
the revelation1 the  outgrowth of the   
instincts1 of a barbarous and brutal    
people4  ,my ,lord  ,bishop1 not content
 with relying on this revelation1 after 
telling us  that the existence of a     
,deity cannot be demonstrated1 seeks to 
supply us  with a demonstration by a    
vague reference to the argument from    
design4  ,he says that there are in the 
universe evidences of a designer4  ,this
  argument from design is a most        
dangerous one1 for the existence of     
stings  and fangs may be evidences of a 
designing malevolence2 but permit me to 

dismiss the argument with a quotation   
from ,sir ,william ,hamilton4  ,he      
says3        8,we are utterly unable to 
conceive that it is possible for the    
complement of existence to have been    
either increased or diminished4      ,we
 cannot1 on the one hand1 conceive of   
nothing becoming something1      or on  
the other hand1 of something becoming   
nothing40    ,i challenge the ,lord     
,bishop to show that it is possible to  
imagine any  time when the whole of the 
universe did not exist4  ,creation6 who 
is it  that really believes in creation8
  ,do any of you8  ,let us fathom the   
depths of the past as far back as we    
will1 there is still the great          
impenetrable beyond4  ,no man1 even in  
thought1 can annihilate existence1  or  
bring to light a first evolution of     
nature1 and say1 ,here the universe     
began4  ,there can be no origination of 
the universe conceivable by the  human  
mind4  ,but suppose you could in thought
 annihilate the universe4  ,you say that

 ,god is unchangeable4  ,was there a    
moment when he began to  create8  ,then 
is not that an assumption of an act of  
change8  ,i will not  stop to argue on  
this point4  ,the bishop did not on this
 head condescend  to argue at all4  ,his
 third sermon was only a torrent of ably
 delivered  words1 and however fitting  
it might be for those whose faith was   
firm1 it  was useless for drawing to the
 ,church those without faith4  ,the     
,bishop  says1 ,our faith in ,christ is 
confirmed by the story of his life as   
recorded by his disciples4  ,he says    
that whether the ,gospel of ,john is    
true or untrue1 it contains the         
delineation of a perfect being4  ,he    
spoke  of ,christ as being better than  
any man the world has yet seen1 as the  
only teacher whose life was better than 
his teaching4  ,what is the  history of 
his life8  ,jesus was born without a    
father4  ,his mother's  husband had two 
fathers4  ,jesus was descended from     
,david1 through ,joseph1  who was not   

his father4  ,he was born in the reign  
of ,herod1 but was not  born till after 
the death of ,herod4  ,jesus passed his 
early life in  ,egypt1 but he was during
 the same time in ,juda4  ,he was       
baptised by  ,john1 who knew him before 
the baptism1 but who did not know him   
till he  had been baptised4  ,jesus was 
taken into the wilderness1 where he     
fasted  forty days1 but he was during   
part of the same time at a marriage     
feast  in ,cana of ,galilee4  ,during   
the forty days' fasting1 the devil took 
,jesus  to the top of a high mountain1  
and showed him all the kingdoms of the  
world1 and said1 ,all these will ,i give
 thee1 it thou wilt fall down and       
worship me4  ,yet this ,jesus was1 as   
the ,bishop teaches1 very ,god of very  
,god2 and if so1 could not be tempted   
with an offer of his own creation by    
his own creature2 and the temptation    
must have been a sham4  ,jesus is  said 
to have worked miracles1 but the people 
who had the opportunity of  seeing them 

never believed in them or him4  ,he fed 
#e1jjj persons with  five loaves and a  
few fishes1 and yet his own             
disciples--who1 he promised1  should sit
 on twelve thrones1 judging the tribes  
of ,israel--when many  persons had to be
 fed at another time1 wondered how it   
was to be done4  ,jesus was betrayed by 
,judas with a kiss2 but he was not so   
betrayed1 for  when the armed men came  
to ,jesus he asked them1 ,whom seek ye8 
and they  answered1 ,jesus of ,nazareth2
 he said1 ,i am he4  ,jesus was         
crucified early  in the morning1 and yet
 at noon he was still on his trial4     
,jesus was  three days and three nights 
in the grave2 but he was crucified on   
,friday1  his body was taken down from  
the cross on ,friday evening1 and it    
must  have been late on ,friday evening 
when he was put into the sepulchre2 the 
first people who looked into it on      
,saturday night1 as it began to dawn    
towards ,sunday morning1 found that the 
body was gone2 so that from ,friday     

night till ,sunday morning1 made three  
days and three nights6  ,jesus  appeared
 to two of his disciples1 and they did  
not know him2 he walked  with them till 
the evening1 and then they knew him4    
,when it was daylight  they did not know
 him1 but when it was dark then they    
knew him4  ,while  they could see him1  
they did not know him2 when they knew   
him1 they could  not see him4  ,such is 
the story of ,jesus4  ,it is not true   
that his life  was better than that of  
any other man4    ,i will take a noble  
life1 and put it against the life of    
,jesus1 the life  of the ,infidel ,bruno
 against the life of your ,god ,jesus4  
,bruno was born  near ,naples1 and      
trained as a monk4  ,leaving his        
ministry1 to teach  people in their     
vulgar tongue1 he was driven out of     
,italy4  ,going to  ,switzerland1       
bigotry was too strong1 and he was      
driven thence4  ,at ,paris  he debated  
with the doctors of the ,sorbonne1 until
 arguments failing  them1 they drove him

 away with threats of the faggot4  ,from
 ,paris he went  to ,england1 there     
debating at ,oxford and ,cambridge2     
thence to ,germany2  and thence back to 
,italy1 where a prison awaited him1 as a
 full  refutation of his heresies1 where
 he was confined in a dungeon for eleven
  years1 where the rack was the answer  
to his arguments1 and where he at  last 
died1 a gallant martyr at the stake4    
,he died fearlessly confronting  his    
enemies1 having truly told them that    
they had more fear in condemning  him to
 be burned alive1 than he had in being  
condemned4    ,jesus was ,god1 and could
 not die2 but if your ,bible be true1   
his last  words were a despairing cry1  
8,my ,god1 my ,god1 why hast thou       
forsaken me80    ,compare these two men 
in their lives and their deaths1 and see
 which was  the nobler and the braver4  
,jesus did not come to save the world4  
,he  said1 ,i am sent only to the lost  
sheep of ,israel4  ,jesus told his      
disciples not to go to the ,gentiles1 be

 forbade them even to visit the         
,samaritans1 and it was not till after  
his resurrection that he said1 ,go  ye  
into all the world1 and preach the      
,gospel to every creature4  ,i have     
spoken in language which you may think  
unfitting for such a theme4  ,do  you   
believe the ,bishop1 that ,jesus died to
 save all mankind8  ,do you  believe the
 doctrine1 that only those who have     
faith in ,jesus can be  saved8  ,what is
 to become of those who have never heard
 his name8  ,do you  believe that all   
the ,chinese will be damned8  ,if you   
believe this1 what  must you think of   
,god8  ,if you believe that the ,chinese
 will be pardoned1  because they cannot 
be expected to believe in ,jesus of whom
 they have not  heard1 how can you be so
 wicked as to send them ,bibles and     
missionaries1  which may bring them to  
damnation8  ,i plead here for what some 
call  infidelity1 for what some call    
heresy4  ,i plead for the rights of     
humanity4  ,i plead against a system    

which1 to my mind1 has greatly  hindered
 the education of the world1 and impeded
 its improvement2 and if  you tell me   
that my language is coarse and          
blasphemous1 ,i will ask you in  what   
language do your missionaries describe  
the ,mohammedan and his ,koran1  the    
,brahmin and his ,vedas8  ,you call me  
an ,infidel2 what are you8  ,you        
disbelieve all the religions of the     
world save one1 ,i disbelieve that one  
also2 my disbelief is but one degree    
greater than yours4    ,a ,bishop comes 
now in the nave of the ,cathedral1 to   
answer modern  ,infidelity4  ,why does  
modern ,infidelity exist8  ,why has     
,infidelity grown8  ,it has grown       
because the ,church has grown fat and   
the people lean4  ,it  has grown because
 ,convocation quibbles over rites and   
formularies1  instead of devising       
schemes for the redemption of mankind   
from ignorance2  because the ,church    
said nothing while back streets were    
built for the  poor1 and grand abbeys   

and cathedrals for the priest4  ,the    
rich grow  richer and the poor grow     
poorer1 while the ,church pretends to   
regard as a  blessing the poverty she   
carefully avoids4  ,the ,church pretends
 to have  the authority to speak in the 
name of ,god1 and the ,bishop1 on that  
last  evening1 prayed for my conversion4
  ,you see the effect of that prayer in 
these lectures4  ,clergymen threw down  
the gauntlet1 and it has been taken  up4
  ,we have been attacked1 and we will   
compel the ,church to afford us a       
hearing4  ,you have now no right to say 
that we are too insignificant1  after   
you have yourselves challenged us to the
 fray4  ,you must not  pretend that     
modern ,infidelity is too blasphemous2  
you have undertaken to  confute it by   
competent persons4  ,i appeal to        
,christians of every sect  for one thing
 only2 ,i don't ask you to give me your 
faith1 but to  remember that amid the   
hundreds of religions with innumerable  
antagonistic ,churches and ,chapels1    

that amid the multiplicity of error1    
you may be wrong4  ,we do not pretend to
 be perfect thinkers1 nor thinkers  free
 from error2 we claim only to be earnest
 thinkers1 desiring to be set  right    
where wrong4  ,i deny the right of any  
,church to pretend to be the  only true 
,church4  ,i take the right to utter my 
thoughts4  ,the ,church of  ,england is 
a rotten ,church1 a falling ,church1 a  
,church divided against  itself1 a      
,church with ,colensos and ,voyseys1 as 
against ,puseys and  ,mackonochies1 a   
,church which by the admission of her   
own divines is  illogical1 which cannot 
defend her ,thirty-nine ,articles1 nor  
her  ,athanasian ,creed4    ,i have     
finished these lectures1 and ,i ask     
those who intend to follow me  to       
remember that ,freethought has done     
something since the days of  ,spinoza1  
,carapanella1 and ,bruno4  ,it is only  
since ,freethinkers began to  fight     
against the ,church that there has been 
any real popular progress  made by you  

,liberals4  ,the ,church has not helped 
you at all4  ,it has by  its bench of   
bishops hindered your reforms as long as
 it could1 and  maintained tithes and   
exactions and bad laws till humanity    
rebelled  against the obstruction4      
,whether right or wrong1 we have at     
least done  something to make the world 
better worth living in4  7,applause47   
99 99 99 99 99                          
99 99 99 99 99      ,printed by ,austin 
,co41 #ag ,johnson's ,court1 ,fleet     
,street1 ,london ,e4,c4          ,,works
 ,,published ,,by ,,austin  ,,co4  #ag1 
,johnson's ,court1 ,fleet ,street4      
,the ,rights of ,man4  ,by ,thomas      
,paine                                  
#a      #c  ,common ,sense1 being an    
,address to the ,inhabitants of ,america
        #j      #f  on several          
interesting subjects4  ,by ,thomas      
,paine  ,an ,address to the ,people of  
,france on the ,abolition of            
#j      #b  ,royalty4  ,by ,thomas      
,paine4  ,to which are added several    

interesting extracts on the subject of  
the ,french ,revolution  ,the ,life of  
,paine4  ,by the ,editor of the         
8,national40                #j      #f  
,a ,letter on the ,affairs of ,north    
,america1 addressed to the          #j  
#f  ,abbe ,raynal4  ,by ,thomas ,paine  
,the ,age of ,reason4  ,being an        
,investigation of ,true and             
#a      #j  ,fabulous ,theology4  ,by   
,thomas ,paine4  ,with an ,essay on his 
,character and ,services1 by ,g4 ,j4    
,holyoake4  ,new and ,improved          
,edition1 post free  ,christian         
,mysteries2 a ,dialogue between a       
,christian                 #j      #b   
,missionary and a ,chinese ,mandarin1   
wherein the ,mysteries of  the          
,christian ,religion are set forth3 the 
design of which is1  to stimulate an    
,inquiry after ,truth1 and to promote a 
,knowledge of ,christianity  ,an        
,address on ,free ,inquiry3 on ,fear as 
a ,motive of ,action4          #j       
#b  ,by ,robert ,dale ,owen  ,a ,lecture

 on ,consistency4  ,by ,robert ,dale    
,owen                      #j      #b   
,galileo and the ,inquisition4  ,by     
,robert ,dale ,owen                   #j
      #b  ,the ,value of ,biography in  
the ,formation of ,character4  ,by ,g4  
#j      #b  ,j4 ,holyoake  ,hume's      
,essay on ,miracles                     
#j      #b  ,holy ,scriptures ,analysed4
  ,by ,robert ,cooper                   
#j      #h  ,thomas ,cooper's ,eight    
,letters to the ,young ,men of the      
#j      #f  ,workings ,classes  ,wat    
,tyler4  ,a ,dramatic ,poem in three    
,acts4  ,by ,robt4 ,southey        #j   
#b  ,an ,inquiry concerning ,political  
,justice1 and its ,influence on       #e
      #j  ,morals and ,happiness4  ,by  
,william ,godwin4  ,two vols in one1    
cloth lettered  ,moral ,physiology3 a   
,brief and ,plain ,treatise on the      
#j      #f  ,population ,question4  ,by 
,robert ,dale ,owen  ,fruits of         
,philosophy3 or the ,private ,companion 
of ,young             #j      #f        

,married ,people4  ,by ,charles         
,knowlton1 ,m4,d4  ,a ,brief ,sketch of 
the ,life of ,percy ,bysshe ,shelley    
#j      #b  ,cerebral ,physiology and   
,materialism4  ,an address delivered to 
#j      #d  the ,phrenological          
,association in #ahdb by ,w4 ,c4        
,engledue1 ,m4,d4  ,with a letter from  
,dr4 ,elliotson1 on ,mesmeric           
,phrenology and  ,materialism  ,the     
,vision of ,judgment1 by ,lord ,byron   
7under the title of           #j      #c
  ,quevedo ,redivivus71 suggested by the
 composition so entitled  by the author 
of 8,wat ,tyler0  ,the ,doubts of       
,infidels2 or queries relative to       
,scriptural           #j      #c        
,inconsistencies and ,contradictions4   
,with all the  ,contradictory passages  
of the ,bible carefully given  ,the     
,speech of ,robert ,emmett1 ,esq41 as   
delivered in the              #j      #a
  ,sessions ,house1 ,dublin1 before     
,lord ,norbury1 on being found  guilty  
of high treason in #ahjc  ,the ,masque  

of ,anarchy1 to which are added 8,queen 
,liberty10          #j      #c  and song
 8,to the ,men of ,england40  ,by ,p4   
,b4 ,shelley4  ,with a  preface by      
,leigh ,hunt  ,modern ,slavery4  ,by the
 ,abb de ,lamennais4  ,with a few notes 
#j      #d  ,the ,life and ,character of
 ,richard ,carlile4  ,by ,g4 ,j4        
,holyoake       #j      #f