Acknowledgements
Whileresearchingandwritingthiswork,Ihavebeenfrequentlyreminded ofthemanydebtsIowe.
Firstandforemost,IwishtothankNicholasAdams,DavidFergusson, IainTorranceandGrahamWard.Nicksawtheoriginalityandutilityof thisprojectwhenitwasstillinitsgenesis,andheprovidedinvaluable commentsonanumberofearlydrafts.ToDavidIowetwodebts.First, heofferedanumberofhelpfulcommentstowardsthelaterstagesofthe projectthatsavedmefromunnecessaryerrors.Second,Davidhasbeena greatsupportereversincemyundergraduatedays,anditistohimthat IowemanyoftheopportunitiesIhavebeenprivilegedtoenjoy.Iamalso gratefultoIainandGrahamfortakingthetimetoreadmyworkandfor theircommentsonanearlierinstantiationofthisbook.
IalsowishtothankthemanyotherUniversityofEdinburghstaffwho, indifferentways,playedaroleinthiswork’sdevelopment.Inparticular, IwishtothankZenonBańkowski,SimonPodmore,PaulNimmoand SaraParvis.
ThisprojectwasmadepossiblebyagenerousArtsandHumanities ResearchCouncilaward,whichaugmentedmyslenderChurchofScotlandstipend,andenabledmyfamilyandmetolivecomfortablyduring thecourseofmyresearch.Fortheprovisionofthesepublicfunds Iexpressmysinceregratitude.
Fortheirsupportforthisbook,andforeditorialandtechnical guidanceduringitsproduction,Ialsowishtoexpressmygratitudeto CambridgeUniversityPress,andespeciallytoBeatriceRehlandMargaret Puskar-Pasewicz.
My fi nalnoteofthanksistomyfamily,andinparticulartomywife Samantha,foralltheirlove,careandsupportovertheyears.Thepathof researchcanbealonelyone,andSamanthahadtosuffermanyevenings withoutherhusband.Thisworkstandsasatestamenttoherforbearance.
Introduction
ThisisastoryaboutProtestantism.Itisastoryabouttheattemptto finda newfoundationfortheChristianfaithapartfromtheauthorityand traditionoftheRomanCatholicChurch,andtheinstabilitiesandcontradictionsthatarosefromit.Thethesisofthisworkisthatthesetensionsand contradictionsgaverise – inthefullnessoftime – totwoopposing,yet related,formsofthought:Protestantfundamentalismandnewatheism. Thisworkbeganasanattempttodeterminewhethercomparisons betweenfundamentalismandnewatheismwerecogent.Investigation revealedthatthesecomparisons,farfrombeingsuperfi cial,arosefrom deepsimilaritiesinstructurebetweenthetwogroups.Yetinvestigation alsorevealedthatthesesimilaritiesrestupontwosharedpresuppositions, presuppositionswhoseintellectualandsocialgenealogystretchesbackto theReformationinEngland.Inordertoprovideacompleteanswertothe questionoftherelationoffundamentalismtonewatheism,then,it becamenecessarytointegrateanalysisoftheircontemporarystructure withagenealogyofthepresuppositionsthatgaverisetoit.Thetwo relatedquestionsthatthisworkattemptstoanswer,therefore,arethese: first,whatcommonhistoricalandtheologicalrootdonewatheistand Protestantfundamentalistthoughtcomefrom,and,second,howdoesthis commonroot,andthepresuppositionsthatarisefromit,structuretheir thought?Inansweringthesequestions,thefollowingargumentwillbe advanced:thatnewatheistandProtestantfundamentalistthoughtis structuredbythepresuppositionofaliteral,univocalandperspicuous Scripture,andthepresuppositionthatdivineactivitydisruptsandsubstitutesfornaturalcausation,beliefsthathavearisenfromacommon historicalroot.
2 Atheism,FundamentalismandtheProtestantReformation
Anumberofcommentatorshavemadecomparisonsbetweennew atheismandfundamentalism.Armstrong,Beattie,deBotton,Vernon, Cunningham,RobertsonandEagleton, interalia,haveallnotedresemblancesbetweenthetwogroups.1 Nevertheless,theexistingliteratureon thesubjectofnewatheismandfundamentalismsuffersfromthreerelated failures.First,themajorityoftheseremarksaremadeinpolemicaland popularworksdirectedtoattackingthesocialandintellectualstandingof newatheism.Forthisreason,comparisonswithfundamentalismcouldbe rejectedoutrightasbeinglittlemorethaninsults.Thisfailingisjoinedby asecond,theoccasionalnatureoftheexistingliterature.Mostofthese comparisonsaremadeinpassing,andwhenmoredetailisgiven,itis generallynotsupportedwithsustainedargument.Theseproblemsare compoundedbyathirdfactor,theseriousneglectofatheismasasubject fortheologicalinvestigation.Althoughtheprofileofatheisminthepublic lifeofBritainandAmericaisgreaterthanever,andthepublishing opportunitiesavailableforatheistandanti-atheistwritersunparalleled, themajorityofacademicengagementswithatheismareintheformof polemicalworkswrittenbyacademictheologians.2 Thishastwounfortunateconsequences.First,itrepresentsafailureofacademictheologyto fullyaddressaserioussocial,politicalandintellectualchallengetothe ChurchandtheChristianfaith,aspolemicalworksarenotsuitablefor thedetailanddepthofanalysisnecessarytocritiquetheorigins,structure andargumentsofnewatheism.AsHymannotes,thelackofserious researchintotheoriginsandstructureofatheismmeanthatitsnature andtruesigni ficanceareapttobemisunderstood. 3 Thepolemicalnature oftheexistingtheologicalengagementwithatheismleads,second,tothe impressionthatatheismismerelya ‘popular’ subject,andbeneaththe
1 AlainDeBotton, ReligionforAtheists (London:HamishHamilton, 2012), 12;Mark Vernon, AfterAtheism (London:PalgraveMacmillan, 2007), 4, 7, 55–6;DavidBentley Hart, AtheistDelusions (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 2009), 4, 231–2;David Robertson, TheDawkinsLetters (Ross-shire:ChristianFocus, 2010), 78–83;Karen Armstrong, TheCaseforGod (London:VintageBooks, 2010), 290;TerryEagleton, God,Faith,andRevolution (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 2009), 53;Conor Cunningham, Darwin’sPiousIdea (GrandRapids:WilliamB.Eerdmans, 2010),xi; TinaBeattie, TheNewAtheists (London:Darton,LongmanandTodd, 2007), 4; StephenLeDrew, TheEvolutionofAtheism (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2016), 2.
2 E.g.AlisterMcGrathandJoannaCollicuttMcGrath, TheDawkinsDelusion? (London: SPCK, 2007);KeithWard, WhyThereAlmostCertainlyIsaGod (Oxford:LionBooks, 2008);JohnF.Haught, GodandtheNewAtheism (Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnox Press, 2008).AlsoseeJohnHughesed., TheUnknownGod (Eugene:CascadeBooks, 2013).
3 GavinHyman, AShortHistoryofAtheism (London:I.B.Tauris, 2010),ix–x.
attentionofserioustheologians.Thisisdoublyunfortunate,fornotonly doesitfurtherstigmatisetheologicalinvestigationofaprevalentintellectual,politicalandpastoralissue,but,asthepresentworkshallreveal, prohibitsinvestigationoftheserioustensionsandcontradictionswithin Protestanttheologywhichgave,andcontinuetogiverise,toatheism.
Thereare,however,exceptionstothisjudgement.MichaelBuckley’s AttheOriginsofModernAtheism beganthecontemporaryacademic studyofatheism,arguingthatatheism,contrarytopopularopinion,did notarisefromanindependent,non-Christiansource,butfromwithin Christianityitself,andthenatural-theologicalargumentsadvancedbythe Churchtodefenditscoredoctrines.4 Thethesisofatheologicaloriginfor atheismwascontinuedbyAlanKorsin AtheisminFrance1650–1729: TheOrthodoxSourcesofDisbelief, whichdemonstratedhowintraecclesialdebatesconcerningnaturaltheologyandphilosophygenerated argumentslaterusedbyatheists. 5 AsimilarstorywastoldbyTurner, whoin WithoutGod,WithoutCreed chartedthewayinwhichAmerican Christianitybecameassimilatedtosecularformsofthought,andbecame alienatedfromitsowndistinctivebeliefsandpatternsofreasoning.6 Drawinguponthedependencethesisconcerningthetheologicalorigins ofatheism,yetfocusinguponthedoctrineofGod,GavinHymanhas recentlyadvancedtheargumentthatchangesinlatemedievaltheology laidthefoundationsforatheismbyendangeringGod’stranscendence, andre-conceptualisingGod’sbeingasmerelythehighestamongother beings. 7 Reducedtoanobjectwithintheuniverse,itwastheneasyfor sciencetorejectGod’sexistence.This ‘modern’ conceptionofGodis passingaway,however,andHymanforeseesacorrespondingchangein thenatureofWesternatheism.Anotherrecentacademicworkthathas engagedseriouslywithatheism,whilealsomakingconnectionsbetweenit andfundamentalism,isConorCunningham’s Darwin’sPiousIdea.Cunningham’sworkuncoverstheagreementbetweenultra-Darwinistsand creationistsontheanti-religiousimportofevolution,yetarguesthattheir sharedconceptionofevolutionisfaulty,andthatacorrectconceptionof evolutionbynaturalselectioniscompatiblewithfaith.
4 MichaelJ.Buckley, AttheOriginsofModernAtheism (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 1987).
5 AlanC.Kors, AtheisminFrance1650–1729 (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1990).
6 JamesTurner, WithoutGod,WithoutCreed (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1985).
7 Hyman, ShortHistory, 47–80
Inthelastfewyears,twootherworksexploringthetheologicalimplicationsofunbeliefhavealsoappeared.Althoughnotanacademicwork –andhencenotexplicitlyaddressingtheexistingliterature – NickSpencer’s Atheists:TheOriginoftheSpecies offeredapartialhistoryofthedevelopmentofBritishatheismfromthelateseventeenthcenturytothetwentieth,andoffersanumberofimportantinsightsthatparallelmyown conclusions.8 DominicErdozain’s TheSoulofDoubt issimilartothe workslistedpreviouslyinarguingforareligiousoriginforatheism,yet tracesthisoriginlesstospeci ficideasthantheinculcationof conscience amongEuropeanthinkers,adevelopmentthatledincreasingnumbersof educatedpeopletoquestionbiblicalmorality,andrejectthefaith.9
Thepresentworkdrawsuponthisearlierresearchbydefendingthe argumentthatatheisminBritainandAmericahadatheologicalorigin, yetdiffersfromitbyproceedingwithanalternativemethodology,anda differentestimationofthefactorsinvolved.First,onefeatureofallof theseworksistherelativeabsenceofdiscussionconcerningtheimportanceofbiblicalhermeneutics.Theoverwhelmingemphasisisonnatural theologyandscience,which,whileoftheupmostimportance,cannot fullybeseparatedfromthescripturalinterpretationstheyweretasked withexplicatingandprotecting.Thisoversightisrelatedtoasecondissue, therelativeabsenceofdiscussionconcerningtheReformationandits aftermath.WhileTurnerundertakesdiscussionofReformedtheology, itsfocusismoreuponNewEnglandpuritanismthanthesalienttheologicalchangesthatmadepuritanismpossible.Turner’sworkalsosuffers fromacertaindiffuseness,ashis – relativelyshort – historyattemptsto outline every reasonforAmericanunbelief.Thethirddifferencebetween thisandearlierworkscomesintherelationofhistorytoourcontemporarycontext.Alloftheforegoingworks,withtheexceptionofHyman’s introductorytext,focusoneitherhistoryorthecontemporarydebate,so thattheinsightsfromoneareaofenquiryarenotbroughttobearupon theother.
Thisworkremediestheseoversightsinanumberofways.First,it focusesonbothbiblicalhermeneutics and scienceandnaturaltheology, andstressestheirinterrelatedness.Second,itpushesbacktheoriginsof BritishandAmericanatheismtotheEnglishReformation.Third,itrelates thehistoricaltothecontemporary,stressingthecontinuitiesbetween
8 NickSpencer, Atheists:TheOriginoftheSpecies (London:BloomsburyContinuum, 2014).
9 DominicErdozain, TheSoulofDoubt (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2015).
contemporaryatheismanditstheologicalorigins.Thefourth – and greatest – contrastwithearlierworks,however,isthatIarguethatthe samebiblicalandnatural-theologicalproblemsthatgeneratedatheism also gaverisetoProtestantfundamentalism,andthatthiscommonheritagegivesrisetoasimilarintellectualstructureinbothgroups.Centralto thisistheidenti ficationoftwopresuppositionsfoundationaltoboth ProtestantfundamentalismandnewatheisminBritainandAmerica:a literal,univocal,andperspicuousunderstandingofScripture,andadisruptiveandsubstitutionaryaccountofdivineactivityinnature.
Themethodthatstructuresthiswork,andmakessuchanextensive analysispossible,isadaptedfromR.G.Collingwood,andmaybecharacterisedastextual,genealogicalandanalytic.10 Thismethodminimises threepotentialdif ficultiesincarryingoutaworkofthiskind.The first potentialdif ficultyishistorical.Ahistoricalaccountoftheoriginsof atheismandProtestantfundamentalisminBritainandAmericawould requireamulti-volumework,leavinglittleroomforcriticalengagement withtheircontemporaryforms.Thepresentworkdoesnotattemptto provideahistoryoftheoriginsofatheismandfundamentalisminBritain andAmerica,butonlyagenealogyoftwokeypresuppositionsthat structurethem,andwhichplayedanimportantpartintheirgenesis.It isnotarguedthatthesepresuppositionsexhaustallthecausalfactorsthat contributedtothedevelopmentofatheismandfundamentalism.Aswe shallsee,awiderangeofintellectualandsocialfactorswereimplicated. Rather,itisarguedthatthesepresuppositionsplayedaparticularly importantroleintheirdevelopment,andcontinuetoplayanimportant intellectualfunctionintheircontemporaryforms.Historicaldiscussionis undertakenonlytoexplaintheoriginordevelopmentofthesepresuppositions,ortoshowtheireffectindifferenttimeperiods.Thelatterisof equalimportancetotheformer,forIarguethatthesepresuppositions havebeenunstablethroughouthistory,andcontinuallygiverisetotheir ownnegation.Furthermore,thestrategiesusedtostabilisethemare equallyunstable,orinadvertentlycontradictthepresuppositionsthey areemployedtoprotect.
Evenwhenquali ficationsarestated,however,thegenealogical approachusedinthisworkmayproveunsatisfactorytosome,adissatisfactionarousedbythewidetimescalethatissurveyed.YetasBrad Gregoryhasrecentlyargued,ifhistoricalinvestigationisconfinedtothe
6 Atheism,FundamentalismandtheProtestantReformation
lifeofoneindividualoronenarrowtimeframethenanalysisofintellectual developmentandlong-termtrendsbecomesimpossible.Wearethen robbedofimportanthistoricalinsightsthatcanilluminatethepresent.11 ToechoPeterHarrison,whiletherearemanywaysofdoinghistory,to theextentthattheyaregovernedbyreasonableargumentsandsound evidencetheyareworthyofourattentionandseriousengagement.12
Theseconddif ficultythatagenealogicalmethodavoidsisthatof decontextualisationinthestudyofatheism.Thisapproachisadvanced againsttwogroups.FirstarethosesuchasPeterGayandcontemporary newatheistwriters,whoarguefortheoriginsofatheisminscienceor secularphilosophy,andwhotraceitshistorybacktoeighteenth-century France.13 Second,itisadvancedagainstwriterssuchasDavidBerman andJamesThrowerwhoattempttoprovideisolatedhistoriesofatheism, asiftherehasalwaysbeenananti-ChristiantraditionrunningindependentlyofChristiantradition,andthatthebeliefsofGreekphilosophersand seventeenth-centuryEnglishpeasantscouldbebroughtunderasingle category.14 Theseassumptionscandistortthequestionsweaskandthe investigationsweundertake,leadingustooverlooknationalcontexts, andthedominanceofreligioneveninareputedlyreligionless Enlightenment.15
Thedangerofdecontextualisationisrelatedtoathirdpotentialproblemthatthemethodadoptedinthisworkminimises:thedangerof conflatinghistoricalcontingencywithlogicalnecessity.Thispotential dif ficultyhastwoaspects.First,intracingthegenealogyofthetwo presuppositionsthatformtheprimarybasisofnewatheistandProtestant fundamentalistthought,itisnotarguedthatatheismorfundamentalism follow necessarily fromProtestantism.Rather,itisarguedthat,undera rangeofcontingentsocial,politicalandintellectualconditions,certain presuppositionsestablishedbetweentheReformationandRestoration cametoplayanimportantroleinatheistandfundamentalistthought.
11 BradS.Gregory,The UnintendedReformation (Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPressof HarvardUniversityPress, 2012), 3–5
12 PeterHarrison, TheTerritoriesofScienceandReligion (ChicagoandLondon:Chicago UniversityPress, 2015), 185.
13 E.g.PeterGay, TheEnlightenment:AnInterpretation, 2 vols.(NewYork:Knopf, 1966–1969).
14 JamesThrower, WesternAtheism (Amherst:PrometheusBooks, 2000);DavidBerman, AHistoryofAtheisminBritain (London:CrookHelm, 1988).
15 Cf.B.W.Young, ReligionandEnlightenmentinEighteenth-CenturyEngland (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1998), 1–2
Thesecondaspectofthispotentialdif ficultyrelatestothe ‘Protestant Reformation’ referredtointhiswork’stitle.Thegenealogicalmethod adoptedinthisworkdoesnotpretendthatallformsofProtestantism fromtheReformationtothepresentdayarestructuredbyaliteral, univocalandperspicuousunderstandingofScripture,oradisruptive andsubstitutionaryunderstandingofdivineactivity.Allthatisargued isthatthesepresuppositionswerepresentwithinasignificantsectionof ProtestantthoughtinBritainandAmerica,andthat,atvarioustimes, theyheldpopularsway.Protestantism,inthisregard,iswiderthan professionalProtestanttheologyandencompassesarangeofpopular beliefsandpractices.JustastheLordleftaremnantinIsraelduringthe daysofElijahthatdidnotbendthekneetoBaal,sotherehasalwaysbeen aremnant – sometimesgreater,sometimesweaker – thatrefusedtogive thesepresuppositionsthehonourothersthoughtduetothem.
Whilethemethodadoptedinthisworkminimisesanumberofpotentialdiffi culties,thereremainsthequestionofhowtodefi neatheismand fundamentalismthemselves,andtherelatedquestionofwhichtextsto examine.Wecan fi ndanavenueintothisquestionbyconsideringStephen Bullivant’sviewsinthe OxfordHandbookonAtheism .AsBullivantsays, ‘Theprecisedefinitionofatheismisbothavexedandvexatiousquestion’ and ‘Atheismsimplypossessesnosingle,objective,defi nition.’16 Inspite oftheseobservations,Bullivantcomestoadoptaworkingdefinitionof atheismastheabsenceofbeliefinGodorgods,aswellasrulingoutother conceptionsthatwouldpositadependenceofatheismuponreligion: Certainly,thereissometruthtothisclaim Butthefactthatprevailingtheisms conditionthefocusandexpressionofcertainkindsofatheism,doesnotmeanthat eithertheyoratheismingeneralhavenowiderreferent.17
Bullivant’sviewsstandincontrasttothoseofBuckley: Atheismisessentiallyparasitic atheismdependsupontheismforitsvocabulary,foritsmeaning,andforthehypothesisitrejects.18
Wehaveheretwodifferentconceptionsofatheism:thesimpleabsenceof beliefinGodorgods,oraparasiticmovementthatisdependentuponthe religionitrejects.Itisinstructivetorecallthatthesecompetingconceptionsareadvancedbyasociologistandanhistorianrespectively.Ifwe
16 StephenBullivant, ‘Defining “Atheism”’,in TheOxfordHandbookofAtheism,ed. StephenBullivantandMichaelRuse(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2013), 11, 12. 17 Bullivant, ‘Defining “Atheism”’ , 18 18 Buckley, Origins, 15
brackethistoricalconsiderations,andlookonlyatthecurrentintellectual andsocialmanifestationsofatheism,Bullivant’sdefinitionisplausible. Atheistshavetheirownphysicalandonlinecommunities,theirown particularworldview,andtheyengageinarangeofsocialpracticesthat markthemoutfromothers.Inthissense,theyareassubstantialand ‘positive’ asanyothergroup.Yetwhenonecomestoask why theyhold thebeliefstheydo,lookingnotonlytotheircurrentsocialformbut examiningtheirhistoricalorigins,oneveryquicklycomestorealisethat Buckley’sdependencethesisismoreplausible.Asweshallsee,atevery turn,atheismandanti-ChristianthoughtinBritainandAmericahave beendependentfortheirmotivation,methods,arguments,vocabulary, categoriesandsocialandpoliticalformupontheChristianitytheyreject.
Inspiteofthis,Bullivant’sdefinitionishelpfulwhenweturntothe present-daycontext,foritencouragesusnottoseekatheologicalexplanationforatheistoranti-Christianbeliefstooreadily.Forthatreason, Iattempttoassessatheistargumentsontheirownterms,payingclose attentiontotheself-understandingofthetextssurveyed.
Whilethisworkadvancesadependencemodelofatheismingeneral, thereremainsamorespecifi cissueregardingthedefinitionof new atheism.Inspiteofthewideuseofthephrase,andthemultitudeofworks seekingtodefendorattackit,Zenkhasurgedscholarstorefrainfromuse oftheterm:
Byusingthelabel ‘NewAtheism’,severalindividualsaresubsumedunderone unifyingconcept,therebyimplyingauniformphenomenon ... thereissimplyno programmeormanifestoof ‘NewAtheism’ andthereisnoall-embracingorganization,inwhichall,orevenmost,oftheso-labelledpersonsareunited.19
Zenk’sapproachtoatheismissimilartoBullivant’s,yettakesanegative form.LikeBullivant,Zenkisconcernedto findapositivede finitionfor atheism,yet,failingto findsuchadefinition,heurgesscholarstorefrain fromusingatermthatsuggeststhatsuchade finitionexists.Yetthe existenceofaspateofpopularanti-Christiantexts,writteninEnglish sincetheearlyyearsofthenewmillennium,isafact,asisthelabelling ofthesetextsas ‘newatheist’.WhileZenkclaimsto find ‘moredifferences thansimilarities’ inthesetexts,asweshallsee,thetextualevidencetothe contraryissogreatthatitisdif ficulttoseehowZenkcanholdthisview.20
19 ThomasZenk, ‘NewAtheism’,in TheOxfordHandbookofAtheism,ed.Stephen BullivantandMichaelRuse(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2013), 255.
20 Zenk, ‘NewAtheism’ , 255
Nevertheless,Zenkpresentsahelpfulwarningforscholarsnottosee connectionswheretherearenone.Inparticular,heremindsusthatnot allnewatheistwritersclaimtobeatheists.Forthepurposesofthis work,however,thisobservationisnotparticularlyimportant.First,the resultsofthegenealogicalmethodadoptedinthisworkmakeitclear thatBritishandAmericanatheism – asahistoricallycontingentand theologicallydependentphenomenon – possessa fl uidnature,sometimesresemblinganextremeformofProtestantismwhileatothertimes resemblingsomethingthatstandsoverandagainstProtestantism,and, indeed,Christianityitself.Thisisnotafailingofscholarship,butthe scholarlyrecognitionofwhatisacomplexsocialandintellectualphenomenon.Second,Idonotseektoaddresstheissueofwhethernew atheisttextsaretruly ‘atheist’ ornot,butonlywhethertherangeof textscalled ‘newatheist’ havesimilaritieswithProtestantfundamentalisttexts,and,ifso,whythisisthecase.Forthisreason,theselection oftextsisnotdependentuponthemmeetingacertainde fi nitionof ‘atheist’ butuponthefarmoremodestcriterionofbeingpopularantiChristianworkswritteninEnglishsincethemillennium.Theonly addendumtothiscriterionisthatoccasionalreferencewillbemadeto earliertextsbynewatheistauthorssuchasRichardDawkins,or,less commonly,othertextsthathavebeenparticularlyin fl uentialonnew atheistwriters.Suchworkscanhelpilluminatethecurrentphenomenon ofnewatheism.
Analogousdif ficulties,however,attendthedefinitionof ‘fundamentalist’.Recentdecadeshavewitnessedagreatexpansioninthequantityof literatureonfundamentalism,andacorrespondingincreaseintherange ofphenomenalabelledassuch.Thistrendreacheditsclimaxin The FundamentalismProject ofMartinMartyandScottAppleby,which examinedfundamentalismasaglobalphenomenon,encompassinga rangeofdiversereligions,practicesandbeliefs.21 Theuseoftheword ‘fundamentalist’ is,however,deeplyproblematic,asthereisnoagreement onitsdefi nition.22 AsPartridgeandRuthvennote,inpractice,itis sometimeslittlemorethanatermofabuse,usedbyculturallydominant groupswithinWesternsocietytolabelothergroupstheyviewassocially
21 MartinE.MartyandR.ScottAppleby,eds., TheFundamentalismProject (Chicago: ChicagoUniversityPress, 1993–1995).
22 KathleenC.Boone, TheBibleTellsThemSo (Albany:StateUniversityofNewYork, 1989), 7–8
undesirable.23 Itisa ‘receptacleforsociallyundesirablequalities, ’ an ‘intolerantepithetforthoseweregardasintolerant ... alabelthat immediatelydelegitimates’ . 24 Thedif ficultiesareparticularlygreatwhen thetermisusedtodescribecommunitiesandsocialphenomenavery differentfromtheconservativeevangelicalcultureinwhichitoriginated. Whilefactorssuchasexclusivity,foundationalismandantipathytothe corenarrativesofothergroupsserveasusefulcriteriafortheapplication oftheterm,itisbettertospeakof fundamentalisms ratherthan fundamentalism,andanyresearchermustbeattentivetotheparticularhistoricalandsocialcontextofthephenomenatheyarestudying.25
Thecurrentworknavigatesthesedif ficultiesintwoways.First,it examinestheformoffundamentalismthatgaveitsnametoallothers: conservativeProtestantism.Importantly,theuseoftheword ‘fundamentalist’ was firstusedbymembersofthisgrouptodescribetheirownbeliefs andwasnotmeantpejoratively.Forthisreason,itisa native term,and notimposeduponthematerialinanarbitrarymanner.Second,thisstudy deploystheterminaveryspeci ficway.Therearetwomethodsthatone mightadoptwheninvestigatingtherelationbetweenProtestantfundamentalistandnewatheistthought.Themostcommonwouldbetobegin withasetofcriteriafor ‘fundamentalism’,andthencompareeachformof thoughtwithittodiscernwhethertheyare,orarenot, ‘fundamentalist’ . Alternatively,onemightcomparenewatheistandProtestantfundamentalisttexts,andconsidertheirsimilarities.Itisthelattermethodthatis adoptedinthiswork.Indoingso,muchofthedif ficultyindefiningand limitingtheterm ‘fundamentalism’ isavoided,andthediscussionisgiven atextualspecifi citythatmilitatesagainstabstractionandgenerality.
Nevertheless,whiletheterm ‘fundamentalist’ isnativetoconservative Protestantism,therearemanydifferentkindsofconservativeProtestantism,andreferencetoeveryworkbyconservativeProtestantswouldbe unfeasible.Forthisreason,themajorityofProtestantfundamentalist textsexaminedarefromtheReformedtradition,includingthosestrands
23 ChristopherH.Partridge, ‘Introduction’ in Fundamentalisms (Carlisle:Paternoster, 2001),xiv;MaliseRuthven, Fundamentalism:TheSearchforMeaning (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress, 2004), 6–7.
24 SaraSavage, ‘APsychologyofFundamentalism’,in Fundamentalism:Churchand Society,editedbyMartynPercyandIanJones(London:SPCK, 2002), 31;Mark Juergensmeyer, ‘TheDebateoverHindutva’ , Religion 26,no. 2 (1996): 130
25 HarrietA.Harris ‘HowHelpfulistheTerm “Fundamentalist”?’,in Fundamentalisms, ed.ChristopherH.Partridge(Carlisle:Paternoster, 2001), 14–16;Partridge, ‘Introduction’,xvi.
oftheBaptisttraditionthathavebeenmostinfluencedbyReformed theology.Inthisway,Pentecostaltexts – whichmayalsoconceivablybe called ‘fundamentalist’– havenotbeenexamined.Evenwiththislimitation,however,therangeofpossibletextsforexaminationwouldstillbe toogreat.Forthepurposesofthiswork,therefore,investigationhasbeen limitedtoEnglish-languageworksproducedsincethelate 1960s – when theseminal GenesisFlood wasproduced – withparticularattention directedtowardstextsthatopposeevolution.Thereasonforafocusupon evolutionisthreefold.First,itistheissueofevolutionaroundwhich fundamentalistoppositiontocontemporarysocialandintellectualnorms hascrystallised.Second,itisupontheissueofevolutionthatthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweennewatheistsandProtestantfundamentalists becomemostclear.Third,itisthedebatebetweenatheistsandfundamentalistsovertheissueofevolutionthathasreceivedmostattention fromcommentators.Afocusuponthisissuethereforeallowsengagement withanexistingcorpusofliterature.
FocusuponProtestantfundamentalisttextsthatopposeevolution, however,raisestwofurtherissuesthatrequirecomment.First,itmight beobjectedthatthefocusofthisworkshouldnotbeuponProtestant fundamentalismbut six-daycreationism.Whileunderstandable,this argumentismisguidedforhistorical,logicalandsocialreasons.Historically,six-daycreationismdoesnothaveanindependentgenealogyfrom Protestantfundamentalism.Foraworkemployingagenealogical method,thisisadecisiveconsideration.Theargumentalsofailsonlogical grounds.Six-daycreationismisunintelligiblewithoutabeliefinscriptural inerrancyandapreferenceforaliteral,univocalandperspicuousunderstandingofthebiblicaltext.ItisdependentuponsuchProtestantfundamentalistbeliefsforitsexistence.Lastly,theargumentfailsforsocial reasons.Creationistsdonotformaseparatecommunityfromother Protestantfundamentalists.Therearenot,forexample,specialsix-day creationistchurchesthatonlypreachonsix-daycreationistthemes.The illusionthatsix-daycreationismisaseparateintellectualandsocial phenomenoniscreatedbytheexistenceofProtestantfundamentalist ministriesestablishedtodemonstratethescientificaccuracyofaliteral readingofGenesis 1–3.Notwithstanding,thereisasecondissueconcerningthechoiceofanti-evolutionaryworks.Occasionalreferenceismadein whatfollowstotheworkofintelligentdesigntheoristPhilipE.Johnson. Whilethereareimportantdifferencesbetweensix-daycreationismand intelligentdesigntheory,themoreconservativeandphilosophicalof intelligentdesigntheorists – likeJohnson – sharealmostexactlythesame
philosophyofscienceassix-daycreationistsdo,andthereisnowan increasingcross-pollinationoccurringbetweenthetwo,withcreationists adoptingmanyargumentsthat firstarosewithJohnson.Occasional referencetointelligentdesigntheorycanthereforebeusedtoilluminate certainfeaturesofProtestantfundamentalistthought.
Withthesemethodologicalconsiderationscomplete,weturnnowto thestructureofthefollowingwork.Itisdividedinto fivechapters,with Chapters 1–3 tracingthegenealogyandhistoriceffectsofthekeypresuppositionsofnewatheistandProtestantfundamentalistthought. Chapters 4 and 5 thenexaminethewayinwhichthesepresuppositions continuetostructureeachformofthought,andtheproblemsthat attendthem.
Chapter 1 examineshowtheEnglishReformationanditsaftermath generatedpresuppositionsandoppositionsthatgaverisetothe fi rst anti-ChristianformsofthoughtinBritishhistory.Byassaultingthe authorityandtraditionoftheRomanCatholicChurchwiththeprinciples ofsolascriptura and sola fide ,thereformerssetinmotionacrisis ofauthority,adialecticwithinProtestantthoughtthatwouldseethe polemicalweaponrywieldedbyProtestantsagainsttheirtheological adversariesbeingused,inturn,tounderminethepositionofthe ChurchofEngland.Thiscrisisofauthorityresultedinaproliferation ofheterodoxandanti-ChristiansectsduringtheCivilWar.TheRestorationChurch,seekingtoinhibitthecausticeffectsof solascriptura and sola fide ,adoptedarobustliteralism,yetonegroundedinreasonrather thantheologicaltradition.ThisstrategyreacheditsapogeeinthephilosophyofJohnLocke,whomanifestedandfurtheredthephilosophical andtheologicaltrendsofhistime.Unfortunately,thisstrategybackfi red,givingrisetothe fi rstfreethinkers,who,lookingtoScripture alone,andadoptingthenewrobustliteralism,questionedtheauthority ofScripture.Thegrowthoffreethoughtwastemporarilyaverted,however,bythepromotionofnaturaltheology,whichwedtheologytothe burgeoningsciences,andmadeadisruptiveandsubstitutionaryunderstandingofdivineactivityinnatureavitalcomponentofcosmology, physicsandbiology.Yetthishadtheeffectofmakingdivineactivity onecauseamongothers,sothatthecustomarydistinctionbetween primaryandsecondarycausation – andtherelatednotionofgeneral concurrence – becamelargelyredundantinrelationtothequestionof origins,aswellascertainaspectsofpreservation.Attheendofthese developments,thepresuppositionsfoundationaltonewatheistand Protestantfundamentalisthadcrystallised:aliteral,univocaland 12 Atheism,FundamentalismandtheProtestantReformation
perspicuousunderstandingofScripture,andabeliefthatdivineactivity innaturesubstitutedforordisruptednaturalcausation.
Chapter 2 chartsthewayinwhichthesepresuppositionswereplaced underincreasingstraininlateeighteenth-andnineteenth-centuryBritish society,beforeinvertingthemselvesandcomingtobeheldnegatively, therebygivingrisetoanti-Christianandatheistformsofthought.The riseofevangelicalismbroughtlargenumbersofpoor,uneducated BritonsintothepracticeofunaidedBiblereadingforthe fi rsttime, withthemajorityjoiningnonconformistchurches.Yet,havingrejected theologicaltraditiontoagreaterextentthanAnglicans,nonconformists lackedthetheologicalapparatusneededtoharmoniseapparentinaccuraciesandcontradictionswithinScripture.Whensuchcontradictions andinaccuracieswerefound,theresultwassometimestheabandonmentoffaith,andtheadoptionofamilitantatheismthatmirroredthe literalismandanti-Establishmentideologyofthedissentingdenominations.Whereasnaturaltheologyhadpreviouslyprovidedanalternativejusti fi cationforfaith,thediscoveriesofgeologyandbiology,added toexistingformsofliteralism,didirreparabledamagetothehermeneuticalandnatural-theologicalsynthesisestablishedattheRestoration, therebyclaiminganincreasingnumberofmiddle-andupper-class Anglicansforagnosticismandatheism.Whilethesegroupsmayhave losttheirfaith,however,theyretainedmanyofitspresuppositions regardingScripture,divineactivity,andthecapacityofsciencetohelp orharmfaith,presuppositionsthatwouldbelaterbetransmittedto newatheistthought.
Chapter 3 turnstothegenealogyofProtestantfundamentalism,and howthepresuppositionsofaliteral,univocalandperspicuousScripture andthedisruptiveandsubstitutionarynatureofdivineactivityweregiven newemphasesthroughtheadoptionofScottishCommonSensephilosophybyAmericantheologians.WhilethephilosophyofThomasReid aroseasareactionagainstthedevelopmentofLocke’sphilosophyby DavidHume,Reidactually strengthened theconnectionbetweenknowledgewithimmediateconsciousness,therebyreinforcingatendency alreadyfoundwithinLocke.Thisgaverisetoaninductivemethodin theologyandthesciencesknownas ‘Baconianism’,whichrejected hypothesesandtheoriesintheconstructionofknowledge.Whenradicalisedbywarandunprecedentedsocialupheaval,thisideologywould enablelargenumbersofAmericanstoviewevolutionandbiblicalcriticismasunscientifi c,irrationalandsociallypernicious.Thesedevelopmentsresultedinabreachbetweenconservativeevangelicalsand
contemporarythought,therebylayingthefoundationsforcontemporary Protestantfundamentalism.
Chapter 4 bringsustothepresentdayanduncoversthesecretsympathythatexistsbetweennewatheistandProtestantfundamentalist thought.While,at firstsight,itappearsthattheseformsofthoughtare utterlyunrelated,analysisrevealsthattheysharethesameintellectualand socialstructure,onethatarisesfromtheirinheritanceofthepresuppositionsofaliteral,univocalandperspicuousScripture,andthebeliefthat divineactivityinnaturedisruptsandsubstitutesfornaturalcausation. ThesepresuppositionsgiverisetoacommonconceptionofScriptureand biblicalhermeneutics,thebeliefthatevolutiondisprovesfaith,therejectionofpostmodernityandadismissiveattitudetowardsnonfundamentalistChristians.Thesebeliefs,andthepresuppositionsthat groundthem,arisefromeachgroup’ssharedtheologicalandhistorical rootsinProtestantism,aProtestantismthat,inthefaceofscientific advancesandsocialchange,hasnowbrokenapartintotwoopposing forms,opposingformsthat,paradoxically,sharethesamestructure,and aremutuallyreinforcing.
Chapter 5 completestheworkandarguesthatthepresuppositionsthat structurenewatheistandProtestantfundamentalistthoughtareintrinsicallyunstable.Thebeliefsandstrategiesusedtostabilisethem,moreover, contradicttheirfoundationalpresuppositions,renderingeachformof thoughtself-contradictory.Thechapterconcludeswitharecapitulation ofthegenealogyof Chapters 1–3,anditsintegrationwiththeanalysisof Chapter 4.
Incourseofadvancingitsprimaryargument,thisworkreachesa numberofimportantconclusionsregardingatheism,fundamentalism andthestructureofProtestantthoughtinBritainandAmerica,conclusionsthatcallfornewkindsoftheologicalandhistoricalenquiry.First,it willbedemonstratedthat,whilelackingdetail,popularcomparisons betweennewatheistsandProtestantfundamentalistsarecogent.Second, itwillbeshownthatatheisminBritainandAmericagrewoutofproblems withinProtestantism.Thisdiscoveryunderminesarangeofacademicand newatheistauthorswhoseenosuchconnection,orwhovehementlydeny anyhistoricaldependenceofatheismuponChristianity.Third,itwillbe shownthatProtestantfundamentalismwasitselfaresponsetothesame trainofproblemsthatgaverisetoatheism.Fourth,itwillbeshownthat newatheismisnotanareligiousmovementbutanatheologicalone, which fi ndsitnecessarytoengageinthetaskoftheologyinorderto rejecttheexistenceofGodandthetruthoftheChristianfaith.Fifth,this
studycastsdoubtontheself-understandingofbothProtestantfundamentalismandnewatheism.ItshowsthatProtestantfundamentalismisnot properlybiblical,nornewatheismscientific,andthatbothareheavily indebtedtopresuppositionsthatneithercanproperlyjustify,andwhich renderbothself-contradictory.
Inadditiontothesesubstantivecontributionstoscholarship,thediagnosisofproblemsandtensionswithinProtestant – andinparticular Reformed – theologyinBritainandAmericamakesthestudyprogrammatic,andprovidesabasisforfutureacademicstudy.First,ithighlightsa numberofareaswhichecclesiasticalhistoriansshouldexaminefurtherin ordertounderstandthegenesisofatheism.Second,itraisesawarenessof areasofProtestanttheologythatstandinneedofrepairbysystematic theologians,especiallywhenthesecontinuetoinformcontemporary thought.Theneedforsuchworkispressing,anditisthehopeofthis workthat,ifnothingelse,furtherresearchwillbecarriedouttodiagnose andrepairthetheologicalproblemsthatengenderatheism,andwhich continuetostructuremuchoftheChurch’spracticeandproclamation. Withtheseintroductoryremarkscomplete,webeginourstory.
PA R T I .
INFANTRY EXERCISE, MOVEMENTS, &c.
MUSKET FLINT LOCK.
lb. lb.
Weight of Musket 10 } 11
Do. of Bayonet 1 }
Charge, Ball cartridge 6 drams.
Blank cartridge 5 drams.
PERCUSSION SMALL ARMS.
1. Percussion Musket, Smooth-bore: 1842 Pattern.
{Length 3 ft. 3 in.
Barrel
Musket
Bayonet
Arm complete
{Diameter of bore ·753 inch.
{Length 4 ft. 7 in.
{Weight 10 lb. 2 oz.
{Length beyond muzzle 1 ft. 5½ in.
{Weight 1 lb. 1 oz.
{Length 6 ft. ½ in. with bayonet
{Weight 11 lb. 3 oz.
Bullet (Spherical) ·689 inch diameter, weight 490 grains. Charge, 4½ drams F. G.
Sixty rounds with 75 Caps = 6 lb. 10 oz.
2. Artillery Carbine: 1853 Pattern.
{Length 2 feet.
Barrel
Carbine
{Diameter of bore ·577 in.
{Length 3 ft. 4½ in.
{Weight 6 lb. 7½ oz.
Sword Bayonet {Length 1 ft. 10¾ in. beyond muzzle {Weight 1 lb. 12 oz.
Arm Complete {Length 5 ft. 3 in. with bayonet
{Weight 8 lb. 3½ oz.
The Rifling is 3 grooves and one turn, 6 ft. 6 in.[2]
Bullet
{Weight 530 gr.
{Diameter ·568 in.
Charge of Powder, 2 drams F. G.
Weight of 20 Rounds, with 25 Caps = 1 lb. 11 oz. 2 drams.
3. Regulation Rifle—Musket: 1851 Pattern.
{Length 3 ft. 3 in.
Barrel
{Bore ·702 in.
Rifling, 4 Grooves, one turn in 6 ft. 6 in.
Musket
Bayonet
Arm complete
{Length 4 ft. 7 in.
{Weight 9 lb. 9¼ oz.
{Length beyond muzzle 1 ft. 5½ in.
{Weight 15½ oz.
{Length 6 ft. 0½ in.
with bayonet
Bullet (Minie)
{Weight 10 lb. 8¾ oz.
{Weight 696 gr. {Diameter ·691 in.
Sixty rounds and 75 Caps = 7 lb. 0 oz. 8 drs.
Charge, 2½ drs. F. G.
4. Enfield Rifle—Musket: 1853 Pattern.
Barrel {Length 3 ft. 3 in.
{Bore ·577 in.
Three grooves, one turn in 6 ft. 6 in.
Musket {Length 4 ft. 7 in.
{Weight 8 lb. 8 oz.
{Length beyond muzzle 1 ft. 5½ in.
Bayonet
{Weight 11 oz.
Complete with {Length 6 ft. 0½ in.
Bayonet {Weight 9 lb. 3 oz.
Bullet {Weight 530 gr {Diameter ·567 in.
Charge, 2½ drams F. G.
Sixty rounds and 75 Caps = 5 lb. 8 oz. 4 drams.
5. Victoria Carbine: (For Cavalry.)
Barrel {Length 2 ft. 2 in.
Bullet (Spherical)
{Bore ·733 in.
{Weight 490 gr. {Diameter ·689 in.
Charge, 2½ drams F. G.
Arm {Length 3 ft. 6 in.
complete {Weight 7 lb. 9 oz.
6. Naval Rifle.
1842 Pattern. Percussion musket, Rifled with 3 or 4 grooves.
Bullet (Minie), {Weight 848 gr. with iron cup {Diameter ·746 in.
Charge, 3 drams F. G.
7. Pistol: Army pattern.
Barrel {Length 9 inches {Weight 1 lb. 6 oz. {Diameter of bore ·733 in.
Arm complete {Weight 3 lb. 4 oz. {Length 1 ft. 3½ in.
Charge of Powder for Ball cartridges, 2½ drams.
Ball, Lead, the same as for the Line-pattern Musket.
BLANK CARTRIDGES.
The charge of powder for Blank cartridges, for all the abovementioned Small arms, is the same; viz., 3½ drams.
The cartridges are made with blue paper.
MANUFACTURE OF CARTRIDGES
The following articles are required for the manufacture of Cartridges:
Five tin measures, containing two and a half drams.
Five tin funnels. A large knife.
An iron straight edge for cutting the paper
Five cylindrical mandrels of hard wood, to roll the cartridge.
A former, to make the hollow in the inner case, to receive the point of the bullet.
A set of tin patterns for shaping the paper.
Cartridge paper and fine white paper.
Bullets and gunpowder.
To construct the Cartridge.—Cut the paper according to the patterns, place the rectangle (fig. 9) on the little trapezium (fig. 10), the sides A B C of the rectangle coinciding with the sides A B C of the trapezium, lay the mandrel on the rectangle, parallel to the side B C, the base of the mandrel even with the side C D of the rectangle; roll the whole tightly on the mandrel; place it vertically, and fold the remainder of the trapezium paper into the hollow in the base of the mandrel; commencing with the acute angle of the trapezium, make use of the point of the former to close the folds; examine the bottom of the inner case thus formed, to see that there remains no hole for the escape of the powder when charged; introduce the point of the bullet into the aperture at the base of the mandrel; take the trapezium envelope (fig. 11), place the mandrel and bullet parallel to the side F G, the base of the bullet at half an inch from the base F H, of the envelope; press up the point of the bullet into the cavity; roll the envelope tightly on the bullet and on the mandrel; fold the remainder of the envelope on the base of the bullet, commencing with the acute angle; place the base of the cartridge on the table; withdraw the mandrel, squeezing the case of the cartridge with the left hand, and raising up the mandrel with the right hand.
To charge the cartridge, introduce the point of the copper funnel into the bottom of the case of the cartridge; pour in 2½ drams of fine grain powder from the powder-flask; withdraw the funnel, taking care that none of the powder escapes between the case and the envelope; squeeze the top of the cartridge, and twist it round.
Fig. 9. Fig. 10.
1½ inch. 4 inches. Rectangle.
2⅛ inches 4 inches 5 inches Little Trapezium
Fig. 11.
5½ inches 4½ inches 3¼ inches Trapezium Envelope
When completed, the base of the cartridge must be dipped up to the shoulder of the bullet in a pot of grease, consisting of six parts tallow to one of bees-wax.
SMALL ARM AMMUNITION.
Dimensions of Boxes.
Length, 1 ft. 4 in. Depth, 8⅝ in. Breadth, 7¼ in. including the cleat.
Weight of Boxes.
Empty, 7 lb. 6 oz.
Contents and Weight of Barrels and Boxes.
Musket, Pattern 1842
Musket, ” 1851
Rifle Musket, ” 1853
ridges.
Barrel. Box.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR BROWNING GUN BARRELS
The following ingredients, viz.:—
1½ oz. of Spirits of wine, 1½ oz. Tincture of steel, ½ oz. of Corrosive sublimate, 1½ oz. of Sweet spirit of Nitre, 1 oz. of Blue vitriol, ¾ oz. of Nitric acid.
are to be mixed and dissolved in one quart of soft water.
Previous to commencing the operation of browning, it is necessary that the barrel should be made quite bright with emery or a fine smooth file (but not burnished), after which it must be carefully cleaned from all greasiness; a small quantity of pounded lime rubbed well over every part of the barrel is best for this purpose: a plug of wood is then to be put into the nose of the barrel, and the mixture applied to every part with a clean sponge or rag. The barrel is then to be exposed to the air for twenty-four hours; after which it is to be well rubbed over with a Steel scratch-card or Scratch-brush, until the rust
is entirely removed; the mixture may then be applied again, as before, and in a few hours the barrel will be sufficiently corroded for the operation of scratch-brushing to be repeated. The same process of scratching off the rust and applying the mixture is to be repeated twice or three times a day for four or five days, by which the barrel will be made of a very dark-brown colour.
When the barrel is sufficiently brown, and the rust has been carefully removed from every part, about a quart of boiling water should be poured over every part of the barrel, in order that the action of the acid mixture upon the barrel may be destroyed, and the rust thereby prevented from rising again. The barrel, when cold, should afterwards be rubbed over with linseed oil, or common oil. It is particularly directed that the use of the hard hair-brush be discontinued in browning, and the steel scratch-card or scratchbrush used in place of it, otherwise the browning will not be durable, nor have a good appearance. The browning mixture must be kept in glass bottles, as it will soon lose its virtue if kept in earthenware.
The locks are on no account to be made of the hardening colour, as the repetition of the operation of hardening has a very injurious tendency.
PERCUSSION FIRELOCKS
Muskets with Percussion locks require to be carefully handled, to prevent the cocks being made loose, by which their direct fall on the nipples would be rendered uncertain.
They will, at all times, when unloaded, be used with the cocks down upon the nipples; but, when they are loaded, the caps, or primers, will be put on, and the muskets carried at half-cock for safety, there being then less risk of accidental explosion than with the cocks resting on the caps.
When marching with the cap on, the cock will be brought up under the arm-pit, the sling resting on the arm; but at other times the firelock may be carried with the barrel downwards, the right hand
grasping the piece between the loop and swell; and the left the right arm just below the elbow.
INFANTRY EXERCISE, AND MOVEMENTS,
Extracted from
“FIELD EXERCISES AND EVOLUTIONS OF THE ARMY,”
the Parts and Sections being numbered according thereto.[3]
PACES
Slow time, each step, 30 inches, and 75 paces in a minute.
Quick time, each step, 30 inches, and 108 paces in a minute.
Double time, each step, 36 inches, and 150 paces in a minute.
Back step, each 30 inches. Side or Closing step, 10 inches.
To calculate the number of Paces (each 30 inches) required for a given number of Files.
As a soldier occupies 21 inches, take two-thirds of the number of Files in the division, and add an inch for each File.
Table of the number of Paces corresponding to a given number of Files.
Number of Files in a Division, each occupying 21 inches.
Front of Divisions in Paces of 30 inches.
FLINT FIRELOCKS. MANUAL EXERCISE.
1. Secure arms.
2. Shoulder arms.
3. Order arms.
4. Fix bayonets.
5. Shoulder arms.
6. Present arms.
7. Shoulder arms.
8. Port arms.
9. Charge bayonets.
10. Shoulder arms.
11. Advance arms.
12. Order arms.
13. Advance arms.
14. Shoulder arms.
15. Support arms.
16. Stand at ease.
17. Attention.
18. Carry arms.
19. Slope arms.
20. Stand at ease.
21. Attention.
22. Carry arms.
23. Order arms.
24. Unfix bayonets.
25. Stand at ease.
PLATOON EXERCISE.
As front rank standing. or, As rear rank standing.
— As front rank kneeling.
— As rear rank kneeling.
1. Prime, and Load.
2. Handle cartridge.
3. Prime.
4. ’Bout.
5. Draw ramrods.
6. Ram down cartridge.
7. Return ramrods.
8. As front rank, Ready.
9. Present.
10. Load.
11. Shoulder arms. As rear rank, Ready, &c.
AS A COMPANY
Prime and Load. Company Ready. Present.
At the word “Cease firing,” the Company, if made ready, receives the words, Half-cock arms. Shoulder arms.
Or the word will be given to “Fire a volley; and half-cock,” (at priming position,) Shoulder arms. Shut pans.
INSPECTION OF A COMPANY
1. Attention.
2. Fix bayonets.
3. Shoulder arms.
4. Rear rank take open order—March.
5. Open pans.
6. Slope arms.
7. Carry arms.
8. Shut pans.
9. Order arms.
10. Examine arms.
11. Return ramrods.
12. Unfix bayonets.
13. Rear rank take close order—March.
14. Stand at ease.
DISMISSAL
OF A COMPANY
Attention. Shoulder arms.
Recover arms.
Ease springs.
Right face.
Lodge arms.
PERCUSSION FIRELOCKS.
MANUAL EXERCISE.
Words of Command similar to those for Muskets with Flint locks.
THE PLATOON EXERCISE, AND DIFFERENT FIRINGS FOR THE ORDINARY OR RIFLE MUSKET
To load from the shoulder, standing Prepare to load.
” from the Advance, standing Prepare to load.
” from the Order, standing
Prepare to load.
Load. Rod. Home. Return. Cap.
As Front, or Rear rank —Yards, Ready, Present.
Load, &c., as above.
To shoulder, when at the Capping position Shoulder arms.
To advance arms, from the Capping position Advance arms.
To make ready from the shoulder —Yards—Ready.
” from the Advance —Yards—Ready.
To fire kneeling As front rank kneeling. —Yards—Ready.
Present.
Load, &c., as above. Cap.
Shoulder arms. Advance arms.
To load from the shoulder, As front rank, kneeling. as Front Rank, kneeling Prepare to load.
To load from the Advance, As front rank, kneeling. as Front Rank, kneeling Prepare to load.
Shoulder, or } as before Advance arms, } directed. As rear rank, kneeling, Yards —Ready.
Present.
Load, &c., as above. Cap.
Shoulder, or } as before Advance arms, } directed.
To load from the shoulder, As rear rank, kneeling, as Rear Rank, kneeling
Prepare to load.
To load from the Advance. As rear rank, kneeling, as Rear Rank, kneeling Prepare to load.
As a Company, Load
Company, at yards, Ready.
Present.
Half-cock arms. Shoulder arms.
Firing as a wing, or as a Battalion, is performed precisely as laid down for a Company.
A Company, Wing, or a Battalion can load, or make ready from the Order with the same ease, as from the shoulder.
Trailing arms
To resist Cavalry
Trail arms.
Change arms.
Prepare to resist Cavalry. Ready, &c.
FUSIL EXERCISE.
1. Secure arms.
2. Shoulder arms.
3. Order arms.
4. Fix bayonets.
5. Shoulder arms.
6. Port arms.
7. Charge bayonets.
8. Shoulder arms.
9. Support arms.
10. Stand at ease.
11. Attention.
12. Carry arms.
13. Slope arms.
14. Stand at ease.
15. Attention.
16. Carry arms.
17. Trail arms.
18. Shoulder arms.
19. Order arms.
20. Unfix bayonets.
21. Stand at ease.
22. Attention.
THE MANUAL AND PLATOON EXERCISES OF RIFLEMEN THE MANUAL EXERCISE.
Present arms. Shoulder arms.
Order arms.
Shoulder arms.
Support arms. Carry arms. Trail arms.
Shoulder arms.
From the Order, to Trail arms. Trail arms.
From the Trail, to Order arms.
Order arms. Fix swords. Shoulder arms. Charge bayonets. Shoulder arms. Order arms.
Unfix swords. Stand at ease.
THE PLATOON EXERCISE. Prepare to load. Load. Rod. Home. Return. Cap. Shoulder. Make ready. Present.
After firing, the rifle to be brought immediately to the position of— Prepare to load.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AIMING WITH THE RIFLE MUSKET. Firing at a Human figure. Firing at the Target.
At 100 yards.—Aim at the waist. Aim with the sight down, straight at the bull’s-eye.
At 150 yards.—Raise the slidingbar, raise the sight, and aim with the 200 yards’ point at the thigh.
At 200 yards.—Aim at the waist with the 200 yards’ point.
At 250 yards.—Press down the sliding-bar, aim with the 300 yards’ point at the knees.
At 300 yards.—Aim with the 300 yards’ point at the waist.
At 350 yards.—Raise the slidingbar at half distance between the 300 and 400 yards’ point, and aim at the waist.
Raise the sliding-bar, raise the sight, aim with the 200 yards’ point at the bottom of the black ring.
Aim at the bull’s-eye with the 200 yards’ point.
Press down the sliding-bar, aim with the 300 yards’ point six inches below the black ring.
Aim with the 300 yards’ point at the bull’s-eye.
Raise the sliding-bar to half distance between the 300 and 400 yards’ point, and aim at the bull’s-eye.
From 400 yards to 800 yards.—Make use of the sliding-bar, by raising it to the respective distances, as marked on the back sight.
WORDS OF COMMAND FOR FUNERAL PARTIES
Ranks open—Arms shouldered—Bayonets unfixed, facing the quarters of the Deceased.
When the Corpse is brought out:
| Present arms—Reverse arms—Rear rank take close
| order—March.
Divisions, Sub-divisions, or Sections are wheeled forwards (or backwards) to form Column left in front.
| Rear rank take open order—March.
