OnWednesday evening, April 5th, Mr. Bradlaugh delivered his third lecture on “Christianity and Faith,” before an audience which crowded every corner of the Free Library, Norwich. He said: In delivering the last of this course of lectures, permit me to commence by expressing my regret, that those who differ from me consider it necessary to show their disagreement in the manner in which it was expressed last night, on my leaving this room. If it had been the conduct of some ignorant young persons only, I should not have deemed it right to waste one moment in bringing the matter before you, but there were full-grown and decently dressed persons, who were distributing religious tracts, who encouraged others in following me, and using foul language. I could not help feeling how strong was the cause which I advocate, and how wretchedly weak the cause of my opponents, when such weapons were resorted to in lieu of fair reply.
I now address myself to the last sermon of the Bishop of Peterborough, entitled “Christianity and Faith.” The first portion of this was a recapitulation of the principal arguments of the two previous sermons, and then he made a statement utterly opposed to the whole purpose of his sermons. I will deal with the exact purport, if I do not read to you the precise words he uttered. He said, It is a waste of time to endeavour to satisfy the consistent sceptic. He said, We Christians, have absolutely nothing in common with the consistent sceptic. If that be true, why did the Bishop come to preach the course of sermons to win back sceptics to the Church? Why did the Dean and Chapter inaugurate the course of sermons, if it was, in their opinion, impossible to satisfy the sceptic? Why did the Bishop say it was not only to strengthen the faith of those in the church, but to win back those who had left it? If it be not possible to win them back, then the whole course of sermons was a mere pretence, and I put it that the Bishop was, either consciously or unconsciously, misleading his hearers as to hisreal views, or that he did not know what he was talking about. The Bishop offered some advice to Christians for dealing with sceptics. He said, Before you allow a sceptic to put your belief to the proof, ask him what is it that he believes. That is what you have no right to do. The sceptic does not come to you at all to force his opinions on you. You come to him when he is in the cradle, and by aid of early habit and repetition of phrases in lieu of thoughts, you put your religion into him, you train him to accept your religion in school, you fashion his brain-power before it has stability for resistance. He has a right to express his disbelief in your religion, and you have no right to pretend to answer him with a mere What do you believe? There is no equality in the two positions; religion is law-protected, scepticism is law-condemned; and the Bishop has no right to take such ground: a sceptic’s ignorance would be no evidence of a believer’s knowledge. But give the Bishop the full benefit of the ground, and what does it amount to except that, after the Dean and Chapter had made a parade of their desire to answer infidelity, declaring that they would have the most competent man, this most competent man is obliged to say, The only way I advise you to meet modern infidelity is by admitting in effect, that you can do no more for your faith than to ask the infidel, What do you believe? I dismiss this; it is of so trifling a character that if it had not formed a prominent part of the Bishop’s sermon, it would not have been worth noticing. The Bishop, in dealing with Christianity and Faith, said that morality is built on faith, and that in order to be moral and have a code of morality, we must exercise an act of faith, and believe in our higher and better nature. What is our better nature, judging by the Churchman’s standard? The Articles of the Church of England declare that our nature is always lusting to do evil. The Litany says that each man is always trying to do wickedly, and entreats the Lord to deliver us from the lusts of the flesh. How then can we be asked to trust in a higher or better nature, which the Church declares is a nature fallen, depraved, and constantly tending to evil? The doctrine of the Bible is that there is none who does good, that man’s thoughts are evil continually. It is sufficient for me to quote the Litany in which the Bishop took part before his sermon, which said that we are all miserable sinners, and prayed God to be merciful to us. How can we rise to our higher and better nature, if the existence of thathigher and better nature be authoritatively denied? The Bishop says there is an eternal opposition in our nature, between what he calls the sceptical understanding and the spiritual faculty, between the mind which we share with the animal and “the soul, which we Christians believe we specially derive from God.”
Let us clear away a little difficulty here. By mind I mean the totality of cerebral ability and its results in activity, and I deny that we share mind with any other animal at all. Each animal has the mind special and peculiar to its own organisation; and diverse races of men have diverse characters and degrees of mind, limited by, and resulting from, their organisation and its development. But it is the Bible, and not the sceptic, that says the mind of man and the minds of all other animals are on a level. The Bishop says that the sceptic would degrade man to the level of the beast. You have only to take the Bible and you will read:
“I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them . . . so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast.”
“I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them . . . so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast.”
If the doctrine is degrading, it is the Bible that teaches the doctrine, and not the sceptic. Freethinkers never contend for anything of the kind. On the contrary, we say that the superiority of the intellect is distinctly marked in its development, that not only are men mentally superior to all other animals, but that some races of men are vastly superior to others. What does the Bishop mean by opposition between mind and soul? He did not trouble to give any evidence of the existence of what he calls soul as apart from mind. I challenge any one who may follow me to give me any evidence of any sort of existence apart from mind, that we can call soul. The Bishop said that there is a constant opposition between the intellectual faculty, the mind which we share in common with the beast, and the spiritual soul. I deny that the Bishop advanced the slightest proof of—or gave any clue to—any such soul. I deny that it is possible for any man to conceive the existence of two separate existences in man: one, mind; the other, soul. As to the opposition between them, the Bishop says that God created man’s intellectual faculties, and that he also endowed man with a soul; and that the soul is hostile to the mind; and that the mind is low and grovelling, always in hostility to the soul. He thus makes God put into man a degradingnature, always hostile to religion, and in a constant struggle with the soul. No more degrading supposition can be made respecting God, who is thus pictured as a malicious fiend; and if the Bishop had intended to make infidels, he could not have contrived more effectual means than the preaching this doctrine.
The Bishop, after dealing with the manner in which the spiritual part of our nature overcomes what he calls the animal, 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 other, is only by the unconscious training of the man in Christian society. The Bishop says that God has made many millions of men, and given them minds in opposition to their souls, that these minds are strong enough to lead men to evil, and they cannot be brought to God, unless in Christian society; so that the Buddhists, the Brahmins, the Mohammedans, and men of all other persuasions must necessarily be damned, because, having no Christian society, there is not amongst them the means of overcoming this natural mind. This is a pretty specimen of Christian teaching. But the Bishop is not even content with this. Having told us that Christianity is founded on an act of faith, and that faith is trust, he tells us that he believes that we are better, nobler, than our understanding would persuade us we are. Having told us that we have a wicked nature, a depraved mind in conflict with the spirit, he says that our morality is also to be founded on an act of faith, that we are really better and nobler that we suppose. Where do we find the evidence to justify this act of faith? We are, according to the Bishop and his Church, all miserable sinners, nor can we do good without the help of God. There is that subtle serpent the devil constantly working in us, and our nature is in league against God. The Bishop says the only way to overcome this horrid nature is by the training of man in Christian society, and yet two minutes after, he tries to persuade us that we are better, nobler than he and his church say we are. He says, in fact, we are all very wicked. Adam ate an apple 6,000 years ago, and we are, in consequence, all degraded and depraved; yet we are really nothing of the kind. The Bishop stated that the effect of belief in our nobler, better nature is the improvement of our character, and it is by believing in what is better and nobler, and in the possibility of being better and nobler, that we grow better.Ergo, so long as men believe they areborn in a state of natural depravity, and that of themselves they cannot do good, so long as the mass of men believe that those are depraved to damnation who cannot get trained in Christian society, so long as they believe that millions of men will be lost because they live without even hearing of Christ at all, so long they must be degraded by that belief. They must believe that God made the majority of mankind for damnation and the minority for salvation; their faith must make themselves into the incarnations of vileness and God into an almighty fiend.
The Bishop, not content with such subtle logic, goes on to illustrations drawn from the Bible, and speaks of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. He said there is a moral to be drawn from this temptation story, because Jesus is said to have been with the wild beasts, and there was a deep meaning in this saying. I do read the Gospels sometimes, and therefore puzzled myself about these wild beasts, not having read much of them. I remembered the Jesus-God being taken up a high mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth, as a possible bribe if he would worship his own creature the devil. I remembered his being taken up to a pinnacle of the temple and invited to cast himself down; but I did not remember, nor do I now remember, anything about wild beasts, save a few words in the Gospel of Mark, and it is not even there shown that these wild beasts had anything to do with the Lord’s temptation. Whether the Bishop has a special version of his own I do not know.
Another point of the Bishop was, that when lower natures have to contemplate higher natures, there is some mystery or contradiction to the lower natures. The man who tries to predetermine your decision on an alleged matter of fact, by declaring that it is too mysterious for you to understand, and that being mysterious, you must accept it as he explains it, is a juggler with his intellect, and takes a position to which he has no right. The Bishop was good enough to talk of our degrading creed. Let him talk of his own degrading creed. Our creed has not invented a bottomless pit filled to its brink with brimstone for everlasting torture, nor has it manufactured a devil more mighty than God to destroy God’s work. Our degrading creed, at any rate, does not despair of human kind, nor tell us that we should be poor here in order to be rich hereafter, and be miserable here that we may be happy bye and bye, when the life-ability for happiness is entirely gone. We don’t despair of human kind, we assert the improvability of the human raceand we say if we make this life as good as we can, we shall not be affrighted from our task by any declaration that we may be unhappy hereafter.
But the Bishop went further, and carrying the war into our camp, he declared that it was in consequence of faith in Christ that men did Christian work, and he spoke of men doing good work among the sick, and poor, and ignorant, and wretched, day by day because they were Christians. Does he mean to say that Mohammedans, and Buddhists, and Brahmins have amongst them no kindly work for one another? Does he mean to say that men cannot be human unless they have the special Christian’s creed? But this Christian work has been going on for 1800 years, so at least the Bishop says. Let us turn the pages of its history over and read what it has really done. When Christianity was cradled in the world, Italy and Greece had their poets, painters, sculptors, men of literary fame, orators, comedians, and tragedians. Wait for a century or two till your much-vaunted Christianity has, by the aid of forgery, fraud, and manufactured miracle, acquired some force. Wait till the priests, crushing out all other learning, have become the sole literary power in Europe. Did they teach the people? No, they kept the people ignorant. (A voice, “No.”) If any one says no, I will show century after century what Christianity has been. Your first century I will not trouble with until you show me its actual pages; your second and third centuries are crowded with the fabrication of forged evidences, the canonisation of pretended saints; your fourth century shows the same work, and marks also the quarrels commencing amongst yourselves for the spoils now large enough to excite good Christians against each other; in the fifth century Salvian one of your own presbyters, said the Christian Church had become such a sink of vice, that it was a species of sanctity for any one to be a little less vicious than the others. He says of his fellow Christians that they lie and cheat, are adulterers and murderers; that it is easier to find a Christian guilty of all these crimes than one guilty of none. Take the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries of Christianity, when infidelity was almost powerless, before Voltaire lived, before Spinosa wrote, before Bruno trod Europe round, and you have in these centuries, when Christianity was the most powerful, the dark ages of this European world, when all literature was stopped, all philosophy was hindered, all science manacled by the Church. What was the Christian work in the eleventh, twelfth, andthirteenth centuries, when Christians marched to the Holy Land? Let the plundered and miserable countries tell; let burned villages and ravished women show the way in which the soldiers of the Cross manifested their religion even to their fellow Christians. Let these pages of blood and rapine be read for Christian work. Where then was liberty or popular rights? When the king, the barons, and the priests were in power, did Christianity help the people to get liberty? It is only within the last 300 years, since the rise of heresy in Europe, that the people have gained any freedom. The Church of England may say, This is not our work; but it is a branch of the Church of Rome, and ought not to repudiate the trunk it grew from. Nay, it has not even the same right to plead to us as the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome is consistent, and says to its followers, You on religion are unable to think, we will and we do think for you. The Church of England says, You have a right to think for yourselves, but damns you if you think differently from the Church. You say that hospitals are the fruits of Christianity. Where, save in the monasteries, were the hospitals for 1500 years? You boast of schools. Where were these at all for 1500 years? There were even in this country none worthy of the name for little children till Robert Owen set his example at New Lanark. You talk of going into the back streets, but is it not true that squalor, misery, and vice, crowd the back streets because the Bishops and the English Church have taken so much from the people, and have so hindered the populace from self-improvement, that they have only back streets themselves to live in, while they build palaces for the king, and magnificent structures for the Church? I attack the Church of England because the Church has challenged me. I attack it as a leech that for centuries has sucked the life-blood out of the people, and which, with the power to aid and help civilisation, has done nothing but retard it.
The Bishop said, Let us suppose the existence of a supremely righteous, true, and holy being; let us suppose a revelation from such a being; what do you suppose such a revelation should be like? and he urged that the Christian possessed such a revelation as groundwork for his faith. I hold the supposed revelation in my hand. What does it reveal? That God made man and woman in the same day, but that he made them separately, the man long before the woman. That God gave them the fruit of every tree for food, but prohibited them from eating the fruit of one tree, and never intendedthat of another to be eaten by them; 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 death, but the fruit of which was made good for food and pleasant to the eyes; that God made a serpent more subtle than all the beasts of the field; that this serpent tempted Eve, and she ate the forbidden fruit, and gave to the man who ate also, and thus both fell; that God, who had foreseen and predestined all this terrible farce, cursed for Adam’s sake all human kind, millions being thus involved in Adam’s ruin. That all this was the work of an all-wise and all-good God, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning. This God, who is not a man that he can repent, afterwards repented that he had made man, and, although not subject to passions, it grieved him at his heart, and he resolved to destroy all mankind. That, man’s thoughts being wicked, this God of love and forgiveness, of long suffering and loving kindness, destroyed not only the full-grown man and woman, but also the little child as yet without thought. Man’s thoughts being wicked, God drowned the whole world, including bird, beast, and creeping thing. Did you ever picture to yourselves this story of the flood? Just paint in imagination a mother with her child in her arms, wearily toiling up some hill, slippery with the falling waters. See her fleeing from the waves coming swift behind, like ravenous wolves, with gaping mouths greedy for her life. Imagine her cry to heaven for mercy, not for herself alone, not so much for herself, but for her child, a child, which sucking at her breast, as yet knows no sin. Then picture your all-loving and merciful God shutting his ears to her wild shrieks for mercy, and drowning her and her babe in the flood.
Did you ever picture to yourselves the scene when, the world being again peopled, its inhabitants intended to build a tower that would reach to heaven, and God, the all-wise, hearing of it in heaven, where he then resided, came down to earth to see whether the rumour was true, and finding that it was, confounded the language of men? Do you recollect how God chose Abraham—and I don’t deny that he was worth choosing, a man who was just 75 years old when he had lived 135 years—how God, the infinite and omnipresent, came down from heaven and told Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and that Abraham, though so old that his body was “as good as dead,” should have a son in his old age? Have you read how God, who cannot lie,with a covenant and an oath promised a certain land to Abraham, and how he never gave him “so much as to set his foot on?” Have you read how Sarah, it having ceased to be with her after the manner of women, laughed when God made the promise of a son; how God asked why she laughed; and how Sarah, whose faith is praised, denied to God’s very face that she had laughed at all? Have you read that God said, I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; that Jacob proved to be a knave and a liar; that Jacob made a conditional bargain with the Almighty God, that if the Lord would do certain things for him, then the Lord should be his God? Have you read how God promised to protect Abraham’s children, and how they became slaves in Egypt, and how he left them to be oppressed? Have you read how, hearing their cries, God took them out of Egypt, amongst a number of nations who had committed no crime against the Jews, but were created by God to be destroyed by his chosen people? Have you traced the track of blood and murder from Egypt to Palestine? Have you read how God gave the Israelites the right to make war on any city, and if the inhabitants made peace, then they were tributaries, but if not “I, the Lord God, will deliver them into thy hands; thou shalt smite them utterly, and leave alive nothing that breatheth?”
I say that this is not a revelation of love; it is the revelation, the outgrowth of the instincts, of a barbarous and brutal people. My Lord Bishop, not content with relying on this revelation, after telling us that the existence of a Deity cannot be demonstrated, seeks to supply us with a demonstration by a vague reference to the argument from design. He says that there are in the universe evidences of a designer. This argument from design is a most dangerous one, for the existence of stings and fangs may be evidences of a designing malevolence; but permit me to dismiss the argument with a quotation from Sir William Hamilton. He says:
“We are utterly unable to conceive that it is possible for the complement of existence to have been either increased or diminished. We cannot, on the one hand, conceive of nothing becoming something, or on the other hand, of something becoming nothing.”
“We are utterly unable to conceive that it is possible for the complement of existence to have been either increased or diminished. We cannot, on the one hand, conceive of nothing becoming something, or on the other hand, of something becoming nothing.”
I challenge the Lord Bishop to show that it is possible to imagine any time when the whole of the universe did not exist. Creation! who is it that really believes in creation? Do any of you? Let us fathom the depths of the past as far back as we will, there is still the great impenetrable beyond. No man, evenin thought, can annihilate existence, or bring to light a first evolution of nature, and say, Here the universe began. There can be no origination of the universe conceivable by the human mind. But suppose you could in thought annihilate the universe. You say that God is unchangeable. Was there a moment when he began to create? Then is not that an assumption of an act of change? I will not stop to argue on this point. The bishop did not on this head condescend to argue at all. His third sermon was only a torrent of ably delivered words, and however fitting it might be for those whose faith was firm, it was useless for drawing to the Church those without faith. The Bishop says, Our faith in Christ is confirmed by the story of his life as recorded by his disciples. He says that whether the Gospel of John is true or untrue, it contains the delineation of a perfect being. He spoke of Christ as being better than any man the world has yet seen, as the only teacher whose life was better than his teaching. What is the history of his life? Jesus was born without a father. His mother’s husband had two fathers. Jesus was descended from David, through Joseph, who was not his father. He was born in the reign of Herod, but was not born till after the death of Herod. Jesus passed his early life in Egypt, but he was during the same time in Judæa. He was baptised by John, who knew him before the baptism, but who did not know him till he had been baptised. Jesus was taken into the wilderness, where he fasted forty days, but he was during part of the same time at a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. During the forty days’ fasting, the devil took Jesus to the top of a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and said, All these will I give thee, it thou wilt fall down and worship me. Yet this Jesus was, as the Bishop teaches, very God of very God; and if so, could not be tempted with an offer of his own creation by his own creature; and the temptation must have been a sham. Jesus is said to have worked miracles, but the people who had the opportunity of seeing them never believed in them or him. He fed 5,000 persons with five loaves and a few fishes, and yet his own disciples—who, he promised, should sit on twelve thrones, judging the tribes of Israel—when many persons had to be fed at another time, wondered how it was to be done. Jesus was betrayed by Judas with a kiss; but he was not so betrayed, for when the armed men came to Jesus he asked them, Whom seek ye? and they answered,Jesus of Nazareth; he said, I am he. Jesus was crucified early in the morning, and yet at noon he was still on his trial. Jesus was three days and three nights in the grave; but he was crucified on Friday, his body was taken down from the cross on Friday evening, and it must have been late on Friday evening when he was put into the sepulchre; the first people who looked into it on Saturday night, as it began to dawn towards Sunday morning, found that the body was gone; so that from Friday night till Sunday morning, made three days and three nights! Jesus appeared to two of his disciples, and they did not know him; he walked with them till the evening, and then they knew him. When it was daylight they did not know him, but when it was dark then they knew him. While they could see him, they did not know him; when they knew him, they could not see him. Such is the story of Jesus. It is not true that his life was better than that of any other man.
I will take a noble life, and put it against the life of Jesus, the life of the Infidel Bruno against the life of your God Jesus. Bruno was born near Naples, and trained as a monk. Leaving his ministry, to teach people in their vulgar tongue, he was driven out of Italy. Going to Switzerland, bigotry was too strong, and he was driven thence. At Paris he debated with the doctors of the Sorbonne, until arguments failing them, they drove him away with threats of the faggot. From Paris he went to England, there debating at Oxford and Cambridge; thence to Germany; and thence back to Italy, where a prison awaited him, as a full refutation of his heresies, where he was confined in a dungeon for eleven years, where the rack was the answer to his arguments, and where he at last died, a gallant martyr at the stake. He died fearlessly confronting his enemies, having truly told them that they had more fear in condemning him to be burned alive, than he had in being condemned.
Jesus was God, and could not die; but if your Bible be true, his last words were a despairing cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Compare these two men in their lives and their deaths, and see which was the nobler and the braver. Jesus did not come to save the world. He said, I am sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus told his disciples not to go to the Gentiles, be forbade them even to visit the Samaritans, and it was not till after his resurrection that he said, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. I have spoken in language which you may think unfittingfor such a theme. Do you believe the Bishop, that Jesus died to save all mankind? Do you believe the doctrine, that only those who have faith in Jesus can be saved? What is to become of those who have never heard his name? Do you believe that all the Chinese will be damned? If you believe this, what must you think of God? If you believe that the Chinese will be pardoned, because they cannot be expected to believe in Jesus of whom they have not heard, how can you be so wicked as to send them Bibles and missionaries, which may bring them to damnation? I plead here for what some call infidelity, for what some call heresy. I plead for the rights of humanity. I plead against a system which, to my mind, has greatly hindered the education of the world, and impeded its improvement; and if you tell me that my language is coarse and blasphemous, I will ask you in what language do your missionaries describe the Mohammedan and his Koran, the Brahmin and his Vedas? You call me an Infidel; what are you? You disbelieve all the religions of the world save one, I disbelieve that one also; my disbelief is but one degree greater than yours.
A Bishop comes now in the nave of the Cathedral, to answer modern Infidelity. Why does modern Infidelity exist? Why has Infidelity grown? It has grown because the Church has grown fat and the people lean. It has grown because Convocation quibbles over rites and formularies, instead of devising schemes for the redemption of mankind from ignorance; because the Church said nothing while back streets were built for the poor, and grand abbeys and cathedrals for the priest. The rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer, while the Church pretends to regard as a blessing the poverty she carefully avoids. The Church pretends to have the authority to speak in the name of God, and the Bishop, on that last evening, prayed for my conversion. You see the effect of that prayer in these lectures. Clergymen threw down the gauntlet, and it has been taken up. We have been attacked, and we will compel the Church to afford us a hearing. You have now no right to say that we are too insignificant, after you have yourselves challenged us to the fray. You must not pretend that modern Infidelity is too blasphemous; you have undertaken to confute it by competent persons. I appeal to Christians of every sect for one thing only; I don’t ask you to give me your faith, but to remember that amid the hundreds of religions with innumerable antagonistic Churches and Chapels,that amid the multiplicity of error, you may be wrong. We do not pretend to be perfect thinkers, nor thinkers free from error; we claim only to be earnest thinkers, desiring to be set right where wrong. I deny the right of any Church to pretend to be the only true Church. I take the right to utter my thoughts. The Church of England is a rotten Church, a falling Church, a Church divided against itself, a Church with Colensos and Voyseys, as against Puseys and Mackonochies, a Church which by the admission of her own divines is illogical, which cannot defend her Thirty-nine Articles, nor her Athanasian Creed.
I have finished these lectures, and I ask those who intend to follow me to remember that Freethought has done something since the days of Spinoza, Carapanella, and Bruno. It is only since Freethinkers began to fight against the Church that there has been any real popular progress made by you Liberals. The Church has not helped you at all. It has by its bench of bishops hindered your reforms as long as it could, and maintained tithes and exactions and bad laws till humanity rebelled against the obstruction. Whether right or wrong, we have at least done something to make the world better worth living in. (Applause.)
Printed by Austin & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London E.C.
The Rights of Man. By Thomas Paine
1
3
Common Sense, being an Address to the Inhabitants of America on several interesting subjects. By Thomas Paine
0
6
An Address to the People of France on the Abolition of Royalty. By Thomas Paine. To which are added several interesting extracts on the subject of the French Revolution
0
2
The Life of Paine. By the Editor of the “National.”
0
6
A Letter on the Affairs of North America, addressed to the Abbe Raynal. By Thomas Paine
0
6
The Age of Reason. Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology. By Thomas Paine. With an Essay on his Character and Services, by G. J. Holyoake. New and Improved Edition, post free
1
0
Christian Mysteries; a Dialogue between a Christian Missionary and a Chinese Mandarin, wherein the Mysteries of the Christian Religion are set forth: the design of which is, to stimulate an Inquiry after Truth, and to promote a Knowledge of Christianity
0
2
An Address on Free Inquiry: on Fear as a Motive of Action. By Robert Dale Owen
0
2
A Lecture on Consistency. By Robert Dale Owen
0
2
Galileo and the Inquisition. By Robert Dale Owen
0
2
The Value of Biography in the Formation of Character. By G. J. Holyoake
0
2
Hume’s Essay on Miracles
0
2
Holy Scriptures Analysed. By Robert Cooper
0
8
Thomas Cooper’s Eight Letters to the Young Men of the Workings Classes
0
6
Wat Tyler. A Dramatic Poem in three Acts. By Robt. Southey
0
2
An Inquiry concerning Political Justice, and its Influence on Morals and Happiness. By William Godwin. Two vols in one, cloth lettered
5
0
Moral Physiology: a Brief and Plain Treatise on the Population Question. By Robert Dale Owen
0
6
Fruits of Philosophy: or the Private Companion of Young Married People. By Charles Knowlton, M.D.
0
6
A Brief Sketch of the Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley
0
2
Cerebral Physiology and Materialism. An address delivered to the Phrenological Association in 1842 by W. C. Engledue, M.D. With a letter from Dr. Elliotson, on Mesmeric Phrenology and Materialism
0
4
The Vision of Judgment, by Lord Byron (under the title of Quevedo Redivivus), suggested by the composition so entitled by the author of “Wat Tyler”
0
3
The Doubts of Infidels; or queries relative to Scriptural Inconsistencies and Contradictions. With all the Contradictory passages of the Bible carefully given
0
3
The Speech of Robert Emmett, Esq., as delivered in the Sessions House, Dublin, before Lord Norbury, on being found guilty of high treason in 1803
0
1
The Masque of Anarchy, to which are added “Queen Liberty,” and song “To the Men of England.” By P. B. Shelley. With a preface by Leigh Hunt
0
3
Modern Slavery. By the Abbé de Lamennais. With a few notes
0
4
The Life and Character of Richard Carlile. By G. J. Holyoake
0
6