This review, and the public announcement, demanded by honesty, that I had joined the Theosophical Society, naturally raised somewhat of a storm of criticism, and the National Reformer of June 30th contained the following:  “The review of Madame Blavatsky’s book in the last National Reformer, and an announcement in the Star, have brought me several letters on the subject of Theosophy.  I am asked for an explanation as to what Theosophy is, and as to my own opinion on Theosophy—­the word ‘theosoph’ is old, and was used among the Neo-platonists.  From the dictionary its new meaning appears to be, ’one who claims to have a knowledge of God, or of the laws of nature by means of internal illumination.’  An Atheist certainly cannot be a Theosophist.  A Deist might be a Theosophist.  A Monist cannot be a Theosophist.  Theosophy must at least involve Dualism.  Modern Theosophy, according to Madame Blavatsky, as set out in last week’s issue, asserts much that I do not believe, and alleges some things that, to me, are certainly not true.  I have not had the opportunity of reading Madame Blavatsky’s two volumes, but I have read during the past ten years many publications from the pen of herself, Colonel Olcott, and of other Theosophists.  They appear to me to have sought to rehabilitate a kind of Spiritualism in Eastern phraseology.  I think many of their allegations utterly erroneous, and their reasonings wholly unsound.  I very deeply regret indeed that my colleague and co-worker has, with somewhat of suddenness, and without any interchange of ideas with myself, adopted as facts matters which seem to me to be as unreal as it is possible for any fiction to be.  My regret is greater as I know Mrs. Besant’s devotion to any course she believes to be true.  I know that she will always be earnest in the advocacy of any views she undertakes to defend, and I look to possible developments of her Theosophic views with the very gravest misgiving.  The editorial policy of this paper is unchanged, and is directly antagonistic to all forms of Theosophy.  I would have preferred on this subject to have held my peace, for the public disagreeing with Mrs. Besant on her adoption of Socialism has caused pain to both; but on reading her article and taking the public announcement made of her having joined the Theosophical organisation, I owe it to those who look to me for guidance to say this with clearness.

“CHARLES BRADLAUGH.”

“It is not possible for me here to state fully my reasons for joining the Theosophical Society, the three objects of which are:  To found a Universal Brotherhood without distinction of race or creed; to forward the study of Aryan literature and philosophy; to investigate unexplained laws of nature and the physical powers latent in man.  On matters of religious opinion the members are absolutely free.  The founders of the society deny a personal God, and a somewhat subtle form of Pantheism is taught as the Theosophic view of the universe, though even this is not forced on members of the society.  I have no desire to hide the fact that this form of Pantheism appears to me to promise solution of some problems, especially problems in psychology, which Atheism leaves untouched.