Flowers of Freethought Volume I Part 2

Surely this is a good work. Whoever takes part in it is giving the race an unmixed blessing. War with the army of enslavement! Down with the seducers of childhood--the spiritual profligates who debauch the youthful mind! Banish them, with their spooks, from the school, the college, the court of justice, the hall of legislation! Let us train generations of sound minds in sound bodies, full of rich blood, and nervous energy, and frank inquiry, and dauntless courage, and starry hope; with faces that never pale at truth, hearts that hold no terms with falsehood, knees that never bend before power or mystery, heads that always keep a manly poise, and eyes that boldly challenge all things from height to depth.

d.a.m.nED SINNERS.

"Thou shalt be brought unto the blood of sprinkling, as an undone helpless, d.a.m.ned sinner."

--John Wesley, Sermon on "Justification by Faith."

Polite ears, which are often the longest, will be shocked at the t.i.tle of this article. This is an age in which it is accounted vulgar to express plain doctrines in plain language. Spurgeon was the last doctor of a good old school. Their theology was hateful: an insult to man and a blasphemy against G.o.d--if such a being exists; but they did not beat about the bush, and if they thought you were booked for h.e.l.l, as was most likely, they took care to let you know it. They called a spade a spade, not a common implement of agricultural industry. They were steeped in Bible English, and did not scruple to use its striking substantives and adjectives. When they p.r.o.nounced "h.e.l.l" they aspirated the "h" and gave the full weight of the two "l's." "d.a.m.n" and "d.a.m.nation" shot from their mouths full and round, like a cannon ball sped with a full blast of gunpowder.

But, alas, how are the mighty fallen! No longer do the men of G.o.d indulge in thunderous Saxon. They latinise their sermons and diminish the effect of terrible teaching. You shall hear them designate "h.e.l.l" with twenty roundabout euphemisms, and spin "d.a.m.nation" into "condemnation" and "d.a.m.ned" into "condemned," until it has not force enough to frighten a cat off a garden wall.

Let us not be blamed, however, if we emulate the plain speech of the honest old theologians, and of the English Bible which is still used in our public schools. We despise the hypocritical cry of "vulgar!" We are going to write, not on "condemned transgressors," but on "d.a.m.ned sinners." Yes, d.a.m.nED SINNERS.

Now, beloved reader, it behoves us to define and distinguish, as well as amplify and expatiate. We must therefore separate the "d.a.m.ned" from the "sinners." Not indeed in fact, for they are inseparable, being in truth one and the same thing; for the adjective is the substantive, and the substantive is the adjective, and the "d.a.m.ned" are "sinners" and "sinners" are the "d.a.m.ned." The separation is merely _mental_, for reasons of _convenience_; just as we separate the inseparable, length from breadth, in our definition of a line. This is necessary to clear and coherent thought; man's mind being finite, and incapable of operating in all directions at once.

What then are _sinners_? A simple question, but not so easy to answer.

_All_ men are _sinners_. But what is a _man_? A featherless biped? So was the plucked fowl of Diogenes. A man is--well a man; and a sinner is--well a sinner. And this is near enough for most people. But it does not satisfy a rational investigator, to say nothing of your born critic, who will go on splitting hairs till his head is as bare as a plate, and then borrow materials from his neighbor's cranium.

In ancient Egypt it was a sin to kill a cat; in England cats are slain in myriads without a tremor of compunction. Among the Jews it is a sin to eat pork, but an English humorist writes you a delicious essay on Roast Pig. Bigamy is a sin in the whole of Europe but the south-eastern corner, and there it is a virtue, sanctioned by the laws of religion.

Marrying your deceased wife's sister is a sin in England; four thousand years ago, in another part of the world, it was no sin at all; in fact, a gentleman of remarkable piety, whom G.o.d is said to have loved, married his wife's sister without waiting for a funeral. Did not Jacob take Rachel and Leah together, and walk out with them, one on each arm?

Sin as a _fact_ changes with time and place. Sin as an _idea_ is disobedience to the law of G.o.d; that is, to the doctrines of religion; that is, to the teaching of priests. _Crime_ is quite another thing. It is far less heinous, and far more easily forgiven. Of course crime and sin may overlap; they may often be the same thing practically; but this is an accident, for there are crimes that are no sins, and sins that are no crimes. It is a crime, but not a sin, to torture a heretic; it is a sin, but not a crime, to eat meat on a Friday.

A sinner is a person on bad terms with his G.o.d. But who, it may be asked, is on good terms with him? No one. According to Christianity, at any rate, we have all sinned; nay, we are all full of original sin; we derived it from our parents, who derived it from Adam, who caught it from Old Nick, who picked it up G.o.d knows where. Now every sinner is a d.a.m.ned sinner. He may not know it, but he is so; and the great John Wesley advises him to recognise it, and come as a "d.a.m.ned sinner" to G.o.d, to be sprinkled or washed with the blood of Christ.

What is _d.a.m.ned_ then? We take it that "d.a.m.ned sinners," that is _all_ sinners, are persons to whom G.o.d says "d.a.m.n you!" To whom does he say it? To all sinners; that is, to all men. And why does he say it? Because he is wroth with them. And why is he wroth with them? Because they are sinners. And why are they sinners? Because they are men. And why are they men? Because they cannot help it. They were born in sin and shapen in iniquity, and in sin did their mothers conceive them.

Every Christian admits this--theoretically. He goes to church and confesses himself a "miserable sinner," but if you called him so as he came out of church he would call you something stronger.

A sinner may be d.a.m.ned here, apparently, without being d.a.m.ned hereafter.

He is liable to h.e.l.l until he dies, but after that event he is sometimes reprieved and sent to heaven. But the vast majority of the human race have no share in the atoning blood of Christ. They were "d.a.m.ned sinners"

_in posse_ before they were born, they are "d.a.m.ned sinners" _in esse_ while they live, and they will be "d.a.m.ned sinners" for ever when they leap from this life into eternity, and join the immortal fry Of almost everybody born to die.

This is a very comfortable doctrine for the narrow, conceited, selfish elect. For other people--all the rest of us--it is calculated to provoke unparliamentary language. Why should G.o.d "d.a.m.n" men? And how can men be "sinners"? Certainly they can sin against each other, because they can injure each other. But how can they sin against G.o.d? Can they injure him? He is unchangeable. Can they rob him? He is infinite. Can they deceive him? He is omniscient.

Can they limit his happiness? He is omnipotent. No, they _cannot_ sin against him, but he _can_ sin against them. And if he exists he _has_ sinned against every one of them. Not one human being has ever been as strong, healthy, wise, n.o.ble, and happy as G.o.d might have made him. Nor is man indebted to G.o.d for his creation. There cannot be a debt where there is no contract. It is the creator and not the creature who is responsible, and the theological doctrine of responsibility is the truth turned upside down.

Suppose a man had the power of creating another thinking and feeling being. Suppose he could endow him with any qualities he chose. Suppose he created him sickly, foolish, and vicious. Would he not be responsible for the curse of that being's existence?

Man is what he is because he is. He is practically without choice. The cards are dealt out to him, and he must take them as they come. Is it just to d.a.m.n him for holding a bad hand? Is it honest to give him h.e.l.l for not winning the game?

Let us use for a moment the cant language of theology. Let us imagine the _vilest_ of "d.a.m.ned sinners" in Gehenna. Does not every scientist, and every philosopher, know that the orb of his fate was predetermined?

Would not that "lost soul" have the right to curse his maker? Might he not justly exclaim "I am holier than thou"?

Do not imagine, reader, that this new reading of the book of fate has no practical significance. When we get rid of the idea of "d.a.m.ned sinners,"

when we abolish the idea of "sin" altogether and its correlative "punishment," and learn to regard man as a complicated effect in a universe of causation, we shall bring wisdom and humanity into our treatment of the "criminal cla.s.ses," we shall look upon them as moral lunatics and deal with them accordingly. And this spirit will extend itself to all human relations. It will make us less impatient and angry with each other. We shall see that "to know all is to pardon all."

Thus will the overthrow of theology be the preparation for a new moral development. Another link of the old serpent of superst.i.tion will be uncoiled from the life of humanity, leaving it freer to learn the splendid truth, taught by that divine man Socrates, that wisdom and virtue are one and indivisible.

WHERE IS h.e.l.l?

This is a question of great importance, or at least of very great interest. According to the Christian scheme of salvation, the vast majority of us will have to spend eternity in "sulphurous and tormenting flames," and we are naturally curious as to the situation of a place in which we shall experience such delightful sensations.

But there is hardly any subject on which we can obtain so little information. The clergy are becoming more and more reticent about it.

What little they ever knew is being secreted in the depths of their inner consciousness. When they are pressed for particulars they look injured. Sometimes they piteously exclaim "Don't." At other times they wax wroth, and exclaim to the questioners about the situation of h.e.l.l, "Wait till you get there."

Just as heaven used to be spoken of as "up above," h.e.l.l was referred to as "down below." At one time, indeed, it was believed to be underground.

Many dark caves were thought to lead to it, and some of them were called "h.e.l.l Mouth." Volcanoes were regarded as entrances to the fiery regions, and when there was an eruption it was thought that h.e.l.l was boiling over. Cla.s.sic mythology, before the time of Christ, had its entrances to h.e.l.l at Acherusia, in Bithynia; at Avernus, in Campania, where Ulysses began his journey to the grisly abodes; the Sibyl's cave at c.u.mae, in Argolis; at Taenarus, in the southern Peloponnesus, where Hercules descended, and dragged Cerberus up to the daylight; and the cave of Trophonius, in Lebadea, not to mention a dozen less noted places.

The Bible always speaks of h.e.l.l as "down," and the Apostles' Creed tells us that Christ "descended" into h.e.l.l. Exercising his imagination on this basis, the learned Faber discovered that after the Second Advent the saints would dwell on the crust of the earth, a thousand miles thick, and the d.a.m.ned in a sea of liquid fire inside. Thus the saints would tread over the heads of sinners, and flowers would bloom over the lake of d.a.m.nation.

Sir John Maundeville, a most engaging old liar, says he found a descent into h.e.l.l "in a perilous vale" in Abyssinia. According to the Celtic legend of "St. Brandon's Voyage," h.e.l.l was not "down below," but in the moon, where the saint found Judas Iscariot suffering incredible tortures, but let off every Sunday to enjoy himself and prepare for a fresh week's agony. That master of bathos, Martin Tupper, finds this idea very suitable. He apostrophises the moon as "the wakeful eye of h.e.l.l." Bailey, the author of _Festus_, is somewhat vaguer. h.e.l.l, he says, is in a world which rolls thief-like round the universe, imperceptible to human eyes:

A blind world, yet unlit by G.o.d, Boiling around the extremest edge of light, Where all things are disaster and decay.

Imaginations, of course, will differ. While Martin Tupper and other gentlemen look for h.e.l.l in the direction of the moon, the Platonists, according to Macrobus, reckoned as the infernal regions the whole s.p.a.ce between the moon and the earth. Whiston thought the comet which appeared in his day was h.e.l.l. An English clergyman, referred to by Alger, maintained that h.e.l.l was in the sun, whose spots were gatherings of the d.a.m.ned.

The reader may take his choice, and it is a liberal one. He may regard h.e.l.l as under the earth, or in the moon, or in the sun, or in a comet, or in some concealed body careering through infinite s.p.a.ce. And if the choice does not satisfy him, he is perfectly free to set up a theory of his own.

Father Pinamonti is the author of a little book called _h.e.l.l Open to Christians_, which is stamped with the authority of the Catholic Church, and issued for the special edification of children. This book declares that h.e.l.l is four thousand miles distant, but it does not indicate the direction. Anyhow, the distance is so small that the priests might easily set up communication with the place. But perhaps it only exists in the geography or astronomy of faith.

Father Pinamonti seems particularly well informed on this subject. He says the walls of h.e.l.l are "more than four thousand miles thick." That is a great thickness. But is it quite as thick as the heads of the fools who believe it?

Our belief is that h.e.l.l is far nearer than the clergy teach. Omar Khayyam, the grand old Persian poet, the "large infidel," as Tennyson calls him, wrote as follows--in the splendid rendering of Edward Fitzgerald:--

I sent my soul through the invisible, Some letter of that after-life to spell, And by and bye my soul returned to me, And answered, I myself am heaven and h.e.l.l.

h.e.l.l, like heaven, is within us, and about us in the hearts of our fellow-men. Yes, h.e.l.l is on earth. Man's ignorance, superst.i.tion, stupidity, and selfishness, make a h.e.l.l for him in this life. Let us cease, then, to dread the fabled h.e.l.l of the priests, and set ourselves to the task of abolishing the real h.e.l.l of hunger, vice, and misery.

The very Churches are getting ashamed of their theological h.e.l.l. They are becoming more and more secularised. They call on the disciples of Christ to remedy the evils of this life, and respond to the cry of the poor for a better share of the happiness of this world. Their methods are generally childish, for they overlook the causes of social evil, but it is gratifying to see them drifting from the old moorings, and little by little abandoning the old dogmas. Some of the clergy, like Archdeacon Farrar, go to the length of saying that "h.e.l.l is not a place." Precisely so, and that is the teaching of Secularism.

SPURGEON AND h.e.l.l.

Charles Lamb was one of the best men that ever lived. He had his failings, but he never harmed anyone but himself. He was capable of astonishing generosity, and those acquainted with the inner tragedy of his life know that it was a long act of self-denial. He was also extremely modest but not utterly devoid of indignation; and if he could not denounce bitterly, he could speed a shaft of satire into the breast of wickedness or cruelty. On one occasion, in the days of his youth, he was justly annoyed by his friend Coleridge, whose character was very inferior to his own, though he always a.s.sumed a tone of moral superiority. Lamb was so galled by Coleridge's air of virtue and piety, at a moment when the humorist was suffering terribly in consequence of his sister's calamity, that he sent the transcendental poet a list of stinging questions. One of them asked whether one of the seraphim could fall, and another whether a man might not be d.a.m.ned without knowing it.

This last question suggests itself in the case of Mr. Spurgeon. Mrs.

Spurgeon, Dr. Pierson, and other of the great preacher's friends, are all a.s.suring us that he is in glory. Writing seven days after his death, Mrs. Spurgeon said "he has now been a week in heaven." It is natural that she should think so, and we do not wish to rob her of any consolation, nor do we suppose that this article will ever come under her notice. But is it not just possible that Spurgeon has gone to h.e.l.l?

And why should not the question be raised? We mean no personal offence; we speak in the interest of justice and truth. Spurgeon was very glib in preaching about h.e.l.l, and we do not know that he had a monopoly of that special line of business. He never blenched at the idea of millions of human beings writhing in everlasting torment; and why should it be blasphemy, or even incivility, to wonder if he himself has gone to perdition?

Predestination, as the Church of England article says, is wonderfully comforting to the elect; that is, to those who imagine themselves to be so. But what if they are mistaken? What if a man, yea a fancied saint, may be d.a.m.ned without knowing it? G.o.d Almighty has not published lists of the Sect. Many a Calvinistic Pharisee is perhaps a self-elected saint after all, and at the finish of his journey may find that he has been walking in the wrong direction.

One of Spurgeon's rooted notions was that unbelievers were _sure_ of h.e.l.l. They bore the mark of predestinate d.a.m.nation broad upon their fore-heads. Now at the bottom this means that a man may be d.a.m.ned for believing wrongly. But how can anyone be sure that Spurgeon was absolutely right? The Baptists are only one division of Christians.