I consider that when the Bishop’s review called me a misosierist, it paid me the greatest of compliments. To be called a misosierist is the same as to be called Philanthropist. I am proud of the epithet.
I have been accused of being fond of paradox. The word paradox means, beyond common opinion. When common opinion tells me to believe that God, the Supreme First Cause, walked in the garden, or that he, as Jupiter, carried Io away on his back to Crete, I am not afraid of being paradoxical or doing wrong in adopting the opinion of all the first fathers of the church, and in seeking some meaning which the original words do not literally possess.
If the priests can refute the doctrines which I teach, they will not lose a moment in doing it; if they cannot, they will have recourse to turning selected passages and parts of arguments into ridicule. To this they are welcome. I shall rejoice in the proof of my victory.
I have come to one resolution—never to attempt to vindicate myself from any unfounded charge of ignorance or misquotation in this book; but, only to notice such real errors in the work, as may be pointed out, and to correct them, of whatever kind they may be.
Like my learned friend Eusebe de Salverte, I shall be accused of rationalism.[1] I, beforehand, plead guilty to the charge. I can be of no religion which does not appear to be consistent with sound reason, and I cannot stoop, with the advocates of priestcraft and idiotism, to lend my hand to continue the degradation of my fellow-creatures. Since the priests and their abettors have thought proper to convert the exercise of the highest gift of God to man reason into a term of reproach—rationalism—I know not how to return the compliment, though I do not like to render evil for evil, better than by designating their attempted opposition to reason, idiotism.
To guard myself against being accused of the disgusting practice of using abusive epithets, I beg that the term devotee, which will often occur, as of course it conveys no meaning against any one’s moral character, may not be considered to mean a bigot, but merely a person very much, or rather more than usually religious, which is its true and correct meaning. I leave the use of abusive language, such as infidel, to persons who, feeling that their arguments are weak, try to strengthen them by violence.
In the execution of this work I have endeavoured to place myself above all religions and sects, and to take a bird’s-eye view of them all; and, as I have favoured none, I know I shall be favoured by none. A few and very few persons, those persons who are really philosophers will read it. The generality of mankind will read no further than to that part where it begins to touch their own prejudices or their own religion; then they will throw it down. It is very seldom indeed that a religious person is capable of reasoning respecting matters connected with his religion. This is the cause why, on this subject, no two persons scarcely ever agree. And I beg my reader to recollect, that if he take the opinion of a religious person on any matter connected with such a work as this, as
- ↑ Foreign Quarterly Review, No. XII.
