{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30200/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30200","id":"gutenberg_30200","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30200","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Rationalists -- Biography"],"text":"ANCIENT AND MODERN\n\nCELEBRATED FREETHINKERS.\n\nREPRINTED FROM AN ENGLISH WORK, ENTITLED\n\n\"HALF-HOURS WITH THE FREETHINKERS.\"\n\nBy \"Iconoclast.\", A. Collins, and J. Watts\n\n(\"Iconoclast\", pseud. of Charles Bradlaugh.)\n\nEdited by \"Iconoclast,\"\n\n\nBoston\n\nPublished By J. P. Mendum\n\n1877.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS:\n\n     EDITORS' PREFACE.\n\n     THOMAS HOBBES.\n\n     LORD BOLINGBROKE.\n\n     CONDORCET.\n\n     SPINOZA.\n\n     ANTHONY COLLINS.\n\n     DES CARTES.\n\n     M. DE VOLTAIRE.\n\n     JOHN TOLAND.\n\n     COMPTE DE VOLNEY.\n\n     CHARLES BLOUNT.\n\n     PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY.\n\n     CLAUD ARIAN HELVETIUS.\n\n     FRANCES W. D'ARUSMONT.\n\n     EPICURUS\n\n     ZENO, THE STOIC\n\n     MATTHEW TINDAL.\n\n     DAVID HUME\n\n     DR. THOMAS BURNET\n\n     THOMAS PAINE.\n\n     BAPTISTE DE MIRABAUD\n\n     BARON D'HOLBACH.\n\n     ROBERT TAYLOR.\n\n     JOSEPH BARKER.\n\n\n\nEDITORS' PREFACE.\n\nIn these pages, appearing under the title of \"Half-Hours with the\nFreethinkers,\" are collected in a readable form an abstract of the lives\nand doctrines of some of those who have stood foremost in the ranks of\nFree-thought in all countries and in all ages; and we trust that our\nefforts to place in the hands of the poorest of our party a knowledge\nof works and workers--some of which and whom would otherwise be out of\ntheir reach--will be received by all in a favorable light. We shall,\nin the course of our publication, have to deal with many writers whose\nopinions widely differ from our own, and it shall be our care to deal\nwith them _justly_ and in all cases to allow them to utter in their own\nwords their essential thinkings.\n\nWe lay no claim to originality in the mode of treatment--we will\nendeavor to cull the choicest flowers from the garden, and if others\ncan make a brighter or better bouquet, we shall be glad to have their\nassistance. We have only one object in view, and that is, the presenting\nof free and manly thoughts to our readers, hoping to induce like\nthinking in them, and trust-ing that noble work may follow noble\nthoughts. The Freethinkers we intend treating of have also been Free\nWorkers, endeavoring to raise men's minds from superstition and bigotry,\nand place before them a knowledge of the real.\n\nWe have been the more inclined to issue the \"Half-Hours with the\nFreethinkers\" in consequence, not only of the difficulty which many have\nin obtaining the works of the Old Freethinkers, but also as an effective\nanswer to some remarks which have lately appeared in certain religious\npublications, implying a dearth of thought and thinkers beyond the pale\nof the Church. We wish all men to know that great minds and good men\n_have_ sought truth apart from faith for many ages, and that it is\nbecause few were prepared to receive them, and many united to _crush_\nthem, their works are so difficult of access to the general mass at the\npresent day.\n\n\n\n\nTHOMAS HOBBES.\n\nThis distinguished Freethinker was born on the 5th of April, 1588, at\nMalmesbury; hence his cognomen of \"the philosopher of Malmesbury.\" In\nconnection with his birth, we are told that his mother, being a loyal\nProtestant, was so terrified at the rumored approach of the Spanish\nArmada, that the birth of her son was hastened in consequence. The\nsubsequent timidity of Hobbes is therefore easily accounted for. The\nfoundation of his education was laid in the grammar school of his native\ntown, where most probably his father (being a clergyman) would officiate\nas tutor. At the age of fifteen he was sent to Oxford. Five years of\nassiduous study made him proficient as a tutor; this, combined with his\namiability and profound views of society, gained him the respect of the\nEarl of Devonshire, and he was appointed tutor to the Earl's son, Lord\nCavendish. From 1610 to 1628, he was constantly in the society of this\nnobleman, in the capacity of secretary. In the interval of this time he\ntravelled in France, Germany, and Italy; cultivating in each capital\nthe society of the leading statesmen and philosophers. Lord Herbert, of\nCherbury, the first great English Deist, and Ben Jonson, the dramatist,\nwere each his boon companions. In the year 1628, Hobbes again made the\ntour of the Continent for three years with another pupil, and became\nacquainted at Pisa with Galileo. In 1631 he was entrusted with the\neducation of another youth of the Devonshire family, and for near five\nyears remained at Paris with his pupil.\n\nHobbes returned to England in 1636. The troublous politics of this age,\nwith its strong party prejudices, made England the reverse of a pleasant\nretirement, for either Hobbes or his patrons; so, perceiving the\noutbreak of the Revolution, he emigrated to Paris. There in the\nenjoyment of the company of Gassendi and Descartes, with the _elite_ of\nParisian genius, he was for awhile contented and happy. Here he engaged\nin a series of mathematical quarrels, which were prolonged throughout\nthe whole of his life, on the quadrature of the circle. Seven years\nafter, he was appointed mathematical tutor to the Prince of Wales,\nafterwards Charles II. In 1642, Hobbes published the first of his\nprincipal works, \"De Cive, or Philosophical Rudiments Concerning\nGovernment and Society.\" It was written to curb the spirit of anarchy,\nthen so rampant in England, by exposing the inevitable results which\nmust of necessity spring from the want of a coherent government amongst\na people disunited and uneducated. The principles inculcated in this\nwork were reproduced in the year 1651, in the \"Leviathan, or the Matter,\nForm, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil;\" this,\nalong with a \"Treatise on Human Nature,\" and a small work on \"The\nBody Politic,\" form the groundwork of the \"selfish schools\" of moral\nphilosophy. As soon as they were published, they were attacked by the\nclergy of every country in Europe. They were interdicted by the Pontiffs\nof the Roman and Greek Church, along with the Protestants scattered over\nEurope, and the Episcopal authorities of England. Indeed, to such an\nextent did this persecution rise, that even the royalist exiles\nreceived warning that there was no chance for their ostracism being\nremoved, unless \"the unclean thing (Hobbes) was put away from their\nmidst.\" The young prince, intimidated by those ebullitions of vengeance\nagainst his tutor? was obliged to withdraw his protection from him, and\nthe old man, then near seventy years of age, was compelled to escape\nfrom Paris by night, pursued by his enemies, who, according to Lord\nClarendon, tracked his footsteps from France. Fortunately for Hobbes, he\ntook refuge with his old protectors, the Devonshire family, who were too\npowerful to be wantonly insulted. While residing at Chatsworth, he would\nno doubt acutely feel the loss of Descartes, the Cardinal de Richelieu,\nand Gassendi; in the place of those men he entered into a warm\nfriendship with Cowley, the poet, Selden, Harvey, the discoverer of\nthe circulation of the blood, Charles Blount, and the witty Sir Thomas\nBrown.\n\nIn 1654, he published a \"Letter upon Liberty and Necessity;\" this\nbrief tractate is unsurpassed in Free-thought literature for its clear,\nconcise, subtle, and demonstrative proofs of the self-determining power\nof the will, and the truth of philosophical necessity. All subsequent\nwriters on this question have largely availed themselves of Hobbes's\narguments, particularly the pamphleteers of Socialism. It is a fact no\nless true than strange, that Communism is derived from the system of\nHobbes, which has always been classed along with that of Machiavelli, as\nan apology for despotism. The grand peculiarity of Hobbes is his method.\nInstead of taking speculation and reasoning upon theories, he carried\nout the inductive system of Bacon in its entirety, reasoning from\nseparate generic facts, instead of analogically. By this means he\nnarrowed the compass of knowledge, and made everything demonstrative\nthat was capable of proof. Belief was consequently placed upon its\nproper basis, and a rigid analysis separated the boundaries of Knowing\nand Being. Hobbes looked at the great end of existence and embodied it\nin a double axiom. 1st. The desire for self-preservation. 2nd. To render\nourselves happy. From those duplex principles which are inherent in\nall animals, a modern politician has perpetrated a platitude which\nrepresents in a sentence the end and aim of all legislation, \"the\ngreatest happiness for the greatest number.\" This is the _ultimatum_\nof Hobbes's philosophy. Its method of accomplishment was by treating\nsociety as one large family, with the educated and skilled as governors,\nhaving under their care the training of the nation. All acting from\none impulse (self-preservation,) and by the conjoint experience of all,\nderiving the greatest amount of happiness from this activity. Hobbes\nopposed the Revolution, because it degenerated into a faction; and\nsupported Charles Stuart because there were more elements of cohesion\nwithin his own party, than amongst his enemies. It was here where the\ncry of despotism arose; the \"Round-heads\" seeing they could not detach\nthe ablest men from the King's party, denounced their literary opponents\nas \"lovers of Belial, and of tyranny.\" This was their most effective\nanswer to the \"Leviathan.\" In after years, when the Episcopal party no\nlonger stood in need of the services of Hobbes, they heaped upon him the\nstigma of heresy, until his _ci-devant_ friends and enemies were united\nin the condemnation of the man they most feared. Mr. Owen, in his schema\nof Socialism, took his leading idea on non-responsibility from Hobbes's\nexplanation of necessity, and the freedom of the will. The old divines\nhad inculcated a doctrine to the effect that the \"will\" was a separate\nentity of the human mind, which swayed the whole disposition, and was of\nitself essentially corrupt. Ample testimony from the Bible substantiated\nthis position. But in the method of Hobbes, he lays down the facts that\nwe can have no knowledge without experience, and no experience without\nsensation. The mind therefore is composed of classified sensations,\nunited together by the law of an association of ideas. This law was\nfirst discovered by Hobbes, who makes the human will to consist in\nthe strongest motive which sways the balance on any side. This is the\nsimplest explanation which can be given on a subject more mystified than\nany other in theology.\n\nA long controversy betwixt Bishop Bramhall, of Londonderry, followed the\npublication of Hobbes's views on Liberty and Necessity. Charles II. on\nhis restoration, bestowed an annual pension of \u00a3100 on Hobbes, but this\ndid not prevent the parliament, in 1666, censuring the \"De Cive\" and\n\"Leviathan,\" besides his other works. Hobbes also translated the Greek\nhistorian, Thucydides, Homer's Odyssey, and the Illiad. The last years\nof his life were spent in composing \"Behemoth; or, a History of the\nCivil Wars from 1640 to 1660,\" which was finished in the year he died,\nbut not published until after his death. At the close of the year 1679,\nhe was taken seriously ill. At the urgent request of some Christians,\nthey were permitted to intrude their opinions upon his dying bed,\ntelling him gravely that his illness would end in death, and unless he\nrepented, he would go straight to hell. Hobbes calmly replied, \"I shall\nbe glad then to find a hole to creep out of the world.\" For seventy\nyears he had been a persecuted man, but during that time his enemies\nhad paid him that tribute of respect which genius always extorts from\nsociety. He was a man who was hated and dreaded. He had reached the age\nof ninety-two when he died. His words were pregnant with meaning; and\nhe never used an unnecessary sentence. A collection of moral apothegms\nmight be gathered from his table-talk. When asked why he did not read\nevery new book which appeared, he said, \"If I had read as much as other\nmen, I should have been as ignorant.\" His habits were simple; he\nrose early in the morning, took a long walk through the grounds of\nChatsworth, and cultivated healthful recreation. The after part of the\nday was devoted to study and composition. Like Sir Walter Raleigh, he\nwas a devoted admirer of the \"fragrant herb.\" Charles II.'s constant\nwitticism, styled Hobbes as \"a bear against whom the Church played their\nyoung dogs, in order to exercise them.\"\n\nIf there had been a few more similar \"bears,\" the priestly \"dogs\" would\nlong since have been exterminated, for none of them escaped unhurt from\ntheir encounters with the \"grizzly\" of Malmesbury, except it was in the\nmathematical disputes with Dr. Wallis.\n\nHe was naturally of a timid disposition: this was the result of the\naccident which caused his premature birth, and being besides of a\nreserved character, he was ill-fitted to meet the physical rebuffs of\nthe world. It is said that he was so afraid of his personal safety, that\nhe objected to be left alone in an empty house; this charge is to some\nextent true, but we must look to the mitigating circumstances of the\ncase. He was a feeble man, turned the age of three-score and ten, with\nall the clergy of England hounding on their dupes to murder an old\nphilosopher because he had exposed their dogmas. It was but a few years\nbefore, that Protestants and Papists had complimented each other's\nreligion by burning those who were the weakest, and long after Hobbes's\ndeath, Protestants murdered, ruined, disgraced, and placed in the\npillory Dissenters and Catholics alike, and Thomas Hobbes had positive\nproof that it was the intention of the Church of England to _burn\nhim alive_, on the stake, a martyr for his opinions. This, then, is a\nsufficient justification for Hobbes feeling afraid, and instead of\nit being thrown as a taunt at this illustrious Freethinker, it is a\nstanding stigma on those who would re-enact the tragedy of persecution,\nif public opinion would allow it.\n\nSir James Mackintosh says: * \"The style of Hobbes is the very perfection\nof didactic language. Short, clear, precise, pithy, his language never\nhas more than one meaning, which never requires a second thought to\nfind. By the help of his exact method, it takes so firm a hold on the\nmind, that it will not allow attention to slacken. His little tract on\nhuman nature has scarcely an ambiguous or a needless word. He has so\ngreat a power of always choosing the most significant term, that he\nnever is reduced to the poor expedient of using many in its stead. He\nhad so thoroughly studied the genius of the language, and knew so well\nhow to steer between pedantry and vulgarity, that two centuries have not\nsuperannuated probably more than a dozen of his words.\"\n\n     * Second Dissertation:  Encyclopaedia Brit., p. 318.\n\nLord Clarendon describes the personal character of Hobbes as \"one for\nwhom he always had a great esteem as a man, who besides his eminent\nparts of learning and knowledge, hath been always looked upon as a man\nof probity, and a life free from scandal.\"\n\nWe now proceed to make a selection of quotations from the works of this\nwriter, commencing with those on the \"Necessity of the Will,\" in reply\nto Bishop Bramhall.\n\n\"The question is not whether a man be a free agent--that is to say,\nwhether he can write, or forbear, speak, or be silent, according to his\nwill; but whether the will to write, and the will to forbear, come upon\nhim according to his will, or according to anything else in his own\npower. I acknowledge this liberty, that I can _do_, if I _will_, but to\nsay, I can _will_ if I _will_, I take to be an absurd speech.\" Further\nreplying to Bramhall's argument, that we do not learn the \"idea of the\nfreedom of the will\" from our tutors, but we know it intuitively, Hobbes\nsays, \"It is true very few have learned from tutors that a man is not\nfree to will; nor do they find it much in books. That they and in books\nthat which the poets chaunt in the theatres, and the shepherds on the\nmountains, that which the pastors teach in the churches, and the doctors\nin the universities; and that which the common people in the markets,\nand all the people do assent unto, is the same that I assent unto;\nnamely, that a man hath freedom to do if he will; but whether he hath\nfreedom to will, is a question which it seems neither the Bishop nor\nthey ever thought of.... A wooden top that is lashed by the boys, and\nruns about, sometimes to one wall, sometimes to another, sometimes\nspinning, sometimes hitting men on the shins, if it were sensible of its\nown motion, would think it proceeded from its own will, unless it felt\nwhat lashed it. And is a man any wiser when he runs to one place for a\nbenifice, to another for a bargain, and troubles the world with writing\nerrors, and requiring answers, because he thinks he does it without\nother cause than his own will, and seeth not what are the lashings which\ncause that will?\"\n\nHobbes casually mentions the subject of \"praise or dispraise,\" in\nreference to the will; those who are old enough will remember this was\none of the most frequent subjects of discussion amongst the earlier\nSocialists. \"These depend not at all in the necessity of the action\npraised or dispraised. For what is it else to praise, but to say _a\nthing is good?_ Good, I say, for me, or for somebody else, or for the\nState and Commonwealth. And what is it to say an action is good, but to\nsay it is as I would wish, or as another would have it, or according\nto the will of the State--that is to say, according to the law! Does\nmy lord think that no action could please me, or the commonwealth, that\nshould proceed from necessity! Things may be therefore necessary, and\nyet praiseworthy, as also necessary, and yet dispraised, and neither of\nthem both in vain; because praise and dispraise, and likewise reward and\npunishment, do, by example, make and conform the will to good or evil.\nIt was a very great praise, in my opinion, that Vellerius Paterculus\ngives Cato, where he says that he was good by nature, '_et quia aliter\nesse non potuit_.''--'And because he could not do otherwise.'\" This able\ntreatise was reprinted, and extensively read about twenty years ago;\nbut, like many other of our standard works, it is at present out of\nprint.\n\nThe \"Leviathan\" is still readable, a bold masculine book. It treats\neverything in a cool, analytic style. The knife of the Socialist is\nsheathed in vain; no rhapsody can overturn its impassioned teachings.\nRhetoric is not needed to embellish the truths he has to portray, for\nthe wild flowers of genius but too frequently hide the yawning chasms\nin the garden of Logic. It is not to be expected that this book will be\nread now with the interest with which it was perused two centuries ago;\nthen every statement was impugned, every argument denied, and the very\ntone of the book called forth an interference from parliament to stop\nthe progress of its heresies. Now the case is widely different, and the\ngeneral tenor of the treatise is the rule in which are illustrated alike\nthe works of the philosophers and the dreams of the sophists (priests.)\nWe give part of the introduction. \"Nature (the art whereby God hath made\nand governs the world) is, by the art of man, as in many other things,\nso in this also, imitated, that it can make an artificial animal. For\nseeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in some\nprincipal part within; why may we not say that all automata (engines\nthat move themselves by springs and wheels, as doth a watch) have an\nartificial life? For what is the heart but a spring; and the nerves but\nso many strings; and the joints but so many wheels, giving motion to the\nwhole body, such as was intended by the Artificer? Art goes yet further,\nimitating that rational and most excellent work of nature, man. For by\nart is created that great leviathan, called a Commonwealth, or State,\nwhich is but an artificial man though of greater stature and strength\nthan the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended,\nand the sovereignty of which is an artificial soul, as giving life and\nmotion to the whole body. To describe the nature of this artificial man,\nI will consider,\n\n\"1st. The _matter_ thereof, and the _artificer_, both which is man.\n\n\"2nd. _How_, and by what _covenants_ it is made, what are the _rights_\nand _just_ power or authority of a sovereign; and what it is that\n_preserveth_ and dissolveth it.\n\n\"3rd. What is a Christian Commonwealth.\n\n\"Lastly, what is the kingdom of darkness.\n\n\"The first chapter treats of 'Senses.' Concerning the thoughts of man, I\nwill consider them first singly, and afterwards in train, or dependence\nupon one another. Singly, they are every one a representation, or\nappearance, of some quality or accident of a body without us, which is\ncommonly called an object. Which object worketh on the eyes, ears, and\nother parts of a man's body, and by diversity of working, produceth\ndiversity of appearances. The original of them all is that which we call\nsense, for there is no conception in a man's mind, which hath not at\nfirst totally or by parts been begotten upon the organs of sense; the\nrest are derived from that original.\"\n\nSpeaking of \"Imagination,\" Hobbes says, \"That when a thing lies still,\nunless somewhat else stir it, it will lie still forever, is a truth no\none doubts of. But that when a thing is in motion, it will eternally\nbe in motion, unless somewhat else stay it, though the reason be the\nsame--namely, that nothing can change itself--is not so easily assented\nto. For men measure not only other men, but all other things, by\nthemselves; and because they find themselves subject after motion to\npain and lassitude, think everything else grows weary of motion, and\nseeks repose of its own accord--little considering whether it be not\nsome other motion, wherein that desire of rest they find in themselves\nconsisteth.... When a body is once in motion, it moveth (unless\nsomething else hinder it) eternally, and whatsoever hindereth it, cannot\nin an instant, but in time, and by degrees, quite extinguish it; and\nas we see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves give not over\nrolling for a long time after; so also it happeneth in that motion which\nis made in the internal parts of man, then, when he sees, dreams, etc.\nFor after the object is removed, or the eye shut, we still retain an\nimage of the thing seen, though more obscure than when we see it....\nThe decay of sense in men waking, is not the decay of the motion made\nin sense, but an obscuring of it, in such manner as the light of the sun\nobscureth the light of the stars; which stars do no less exercise their\nvirtue, by which they are visible in the day, than in the night. But\nbecause amongst many strokes which our eyes, ears and other organs\nreceive from external bodies, the predominant only is sensible;\ntherefore the light of the sun being only predominant, we are not\naffected with the actions of the stars.... This decaying sense, when\nwe would express the thing itself (I mean fancy itself), we call\nimagination, as I said before, but when we would express the Decay, and\nsignify the sense is fading, old and past, it is called Memory: so\nthat imagination and memory are but one thing, which, for divers\nconsiderations, hath divers names.\" *\n\nSuch is the commencement of this celebrated book, it is based upon\nmaterialism; every argument must stand this test upon Hobbes's\nprinciples, and characteristically are they elaborated. Hobbes (\"De\nCive\") says of the immortality of the soul, \"It is a belief grounded\nupon other men's sayings, that they knew it supernaturally; or that\nthey knew those who knew them, that knew others, that knew it\nsupernaturally.\" A sparkling sneer, and perhaps the truest answer to\nso universal an error. Dugald Stewart, in his analysis of the works of\nHobbes, says, ** The fundamental doctrines inculcated in the political\nworks of Hobbes, are contained in the following propositions:--All men\nare by nature equal, and, prior to government, they had all an equal\nright to enjoy the good things of this world. Man, too, is by nature, a\nsolitary and purely selfish animal; the social union being entirely an\ninterested league, suggested by prudential views of personal advantage.\nThe necessary consequence is, that a state of nature must be a state of\nperpetual warfare, in which no individual has any other means of safety\nthan his own strength or ingenuity; and in which there is no room\nfor regular industry, because no secure enjoyment of its fruits. In\nconfirmation of this view of the origin of society, Hobbes appeals to\nfacts falling daily within the cycle of our experience. \"Does not a\nman, (he asks) when taking a journey, arm himself, and seek to go well\naccompanied? When going to sleep, does he not lock his doors? Nay, even\nin his own house, does he not lock his chests? Does he not there accuse\nmankind by his action, as I do by my words?\" For the sake of peace and\nsecurity, it is necessary that each individual should surrender a part\nof his natural right, and be contented with such a share of liberty\nas he is willing to allow to others; or, to use Hobbes's own language,\n\"every man must divest himself of the right he has to all things by\nnature; the right of all men to all things, being in effect no better\nthan if no man had a right to anything.\" In consequence of this\ntransference of natural rights to an individual, or to a body of\nindividuals, the multitude become one person, under the name of a State,\nor Republic, by which person the common will and power are exercised for\nthe common defence. The ruling power cannot be withdrawn from those to\nwhom it has been committed; nor can they be punished for misgovern-ment.\nThe interpretation of the laws is to be sought, not from the comments\nof philosophers, but from the authority of the ruler; otherwise society\nwould every moment be in danger of resolving itself into the discordant\nelements of which it was at first composed.--The will of the magistrate,\ntherefore, is to be regarded as the ultimate standard of right and\nwrong, and his voice to be listened to by every citizen as the voice of\nconscience.\"\n\n     * Leviathan.    Ed. 1651.\n\n     ** Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Science, p. 41.\n\nSuch are the words of one of Hobbes's most powerful opponents. Dr.\nWarburton says, \"The philosopher of Malmesbury was the terror of the\nlast age, as Tin-dal and Collins are of this. The press sweats with\ncontroversy; and every young churchman militant would try his arms in\nthundering on Hobbes's steel cap.\" This is a modest acknowledgment of\nthe power of Hobbes, from the most turbulent divine of the eighteenth\ncentury.\n\nVictor Comyin gives the following as his view of the philosophy of\nHobbes:--\"There is no other certain evidence than that of the senses.\nThe evidence of the senses attests only the existence of bodies; then\nthere is no existence save that of bodies, and philosophy is only the\nscience of bodies.\n\n\"There are two sorts of bodies: 1st, Natural bodies, which are the\ntheatre of a multitude of regular phenomena, because they take place\nby virtue of fixed laws, as the bodies with which physics are occupied;\n2nd, Moral and political bodies, societies which constantly change and\nare subject to variable laws.\n\n\"Hobbes's system of physics is that of Democritus, the atomistic and\ncorpuscular of the Ionic school.\n\n\"His metaphysics are its corollary; all the phenomena which pass in\nthe consciousness have their source in the organization, of which the\nconsciousness in itself is simply a result. All the ideas come from the\nsenses. To think, is to calculate; and intelligence is nothing else than\nan arithmetic. As we do not calculate with out signs, we do not think\nwithout words; the truth of the thought is in the relation of the words\namong themselves, and metaphysics are reduced to a perfect language.\nHobbes is completely a nominalist. With Hobbes there are no other than\ncontingent ideas; the finite alone can be conceived; the infinite is\nonly a negation of the finite; beyond that it is a mere word invented to\nhonor a being whom faith alone can reach. The idea of good and evil\nhas no other foundation than agreeable or disagreeable sensations; to\nagreeable or disagreeable sensation it is impossible to apply any.\nother law than escape from the one and search after the other; hence\nthe morality of Hobbes, which is the foundation of his politics. Man\nis capable of enjoying and of suffering; his only law is to suffer as\nlittle, and enjoy as much, as possible. Since such is his only law, he\nhas all the rights that this law confers upon him; he may do anything\nfor his preservation and his happiness; he has the right to sacrifice\neverything to himself. Behold? then, men upon this earth, where the\nobjects of desire are not superabundant, all possessing equal rights\nto whatever may be agreeable or useful to them, by virtue of the same\ncapacity for enjoyment and suffering. This is a state of nature, which\nis nothing less than a state of war, the anarchy of the passions, a\ncombat in which every man is arrayed against his neighbor. But this\nstate being opposed to the happiness of the majority of individuals who\nshare it, utility, the offspring of egotism itself, demands its\nexchange for another, to wit, the social state. The social state is the\ninstitution of a public power, stronger than all individuals, capable\nof making peace succeed war, and imposing on all the accomplishment of\nwhatever it shall have judged to be useful, that is, just.\"\n\nBefore we dismiss the father of Freethought from our notice, there\nremains a tribute of respect to be paid to one whom it is our duty\nto associate with the author of the \"Leviathan,\" and who has but\njust passed away--one man amongst the British aristocracy with the\ndisposition of a tribune of the people, coupled with thoughts at once\nelevated and free, and a position which rendered him of essential\nservice to struggling opinion. This man saw the greatness, the profound\ndepth, the attic style, and the immense importance of the works of\nHobbes, along with their systematic depreciation by those whose duty it\nshould be to explain them, especially at a time when those works were\nnot reprinted, and the public were obliged to glean their character\nfrom the refutations (so called) by mangled quotations, and a distorted\nmeaning. Impelled by this thought, and anxious to protect the memory of\na philosopher, his devoted disciple, at a cost of \u00a310,000, translated\nthe Latin, and edited the English works of Hobbes, in a manner worthy\nalike of the genius of the author, and the discernment of his editor.\nFor this kindness, a seat in Parliament was lost by the organization of\nthe clergy in Cornwall. The name of this man was Sir William Molesworth.\nLet Freethinkers cherish the memory of their benefactor.\n\nWe now take our leave of Thomas Hobbes. He had not the chivalry of\nHerbert; the vivacity of Raleigh; the cumulative power of Bacon; or the\nwinning policy of Locke. If his physical deformities prevented him from\nbeing as daring as Vane, he was as bold in thought and expression as\neither Descartes, or his young friend Blount. He gave birth to the\nbrilliant constellation of genius in the time of Queen Anne. He did\nnot live to see his system extensively promulgated; but his principles\nmoulded the character of the men who formed the revolution of 1688,\nequally as much as Hume established the Scotch and German schools of\nphilosophy; and Voltaire laid the train by which the French Revolution\nwas proclaimed. Peace to his memory! It was a stormy struggle during his\nlife; its frowns cannot hurt him now. Could we believe in the idea of\na future life, we should invoke his blessings on our cause. That cause\nwhich for near two hundred years has successfully struggled into birth,\nto youth, and maturity. Striking down in its onward course superstitions\nwhich hath grown with centuries, and where it does not exterminate them,\nit supplies a purer atmosphere, and extracts the upas-sting which has\nlaid low so many, and which must yet be finally exterminated. The day is\nrapidly dawning when our only deities will be the works of genius, and\nour only prayer the remembrance of our most illustrious chiefs.\n\nA.C.\n\n\n\n\nLORD BOLINGBROKE.\n\nHenry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, was born in his family seat at\nBattersea, on the 1st of October 1672, and died there on November 15th,\n1751, in his 79th year. He was educated by a clergyman in an unnatural\nmanner, and speedily developed himself accordingly. When he left Oxford,\nhe was one of the handsomest men of the day--his majestic figure,\nrefined address, dazzling wit, and classic eloquence, made him\nirresistibly the \"first gentleman in Europe.\" Until his twenty-fourth\nyear, he was renowned more for the graces of his person, and the\nfascination of his wild exploits, rather than possessing a due regard\nto his rank and abilities. His conduct, however, was completely changed\nwhen he became a Member of Parliament. The hopes of his friends were\nresuscitated when they discovered the aptitude for business--the ready\neloquence, and the sound reasoning of the once wild St. John. He soon\nbecame the hardest worker and the leader of the House of Commons. The\nexpectations of the nation rose high when night after night he spoke\nwith the vivacity of a poet, and the profundity of a veteran statesman\non public affairs. In 1704, he received the seals as Secretary-of-War,\nand was mainly instrumental in gaining Marlborough's victories, by the\nactivity with which he supplied the English General with munitions of\nwar. On the ascendency of the Whigs, St. John resigned his office, and\nretired into privacy for two years, when the Whig administration was\ndestroyed, and St. John re-appeared as Secretary for Foreign Affairs.\nHis greatest work now was the negotiation of the treaty of Utrecht. This\ntreaty was signed by St. John (then Lord Bolingbroke,) he being sent to\nParis as the British Plenipotentiary, and was hailed by the Parisians\nas a guardian angel. To such an extent was this feeling manifested, that\nwhen he visited the theatres every one _rose_ to welcome him. So long as\nQueen Anne lived, Bolingbroke's influence was paramount, but associated\nwith him was the Earl of Oxford, in opposition to the Whig party, and\nserious differences had arisen between the rivals. Oxford-was dismissed\nfour days before the Queen's death, and Bolingbroke officiated in his\nplace, until Oxford's vacancy was filled, which all expected would be\ngiven to himself. A stormy debate in the Privy Council so agitated the\nQueen, that it shortened her life, and the Council recommended the Earl\nof Shrewsbury as Premier, and with him the Whigs.\n\nWith the accession of George, came the impeachment of Bolingbroke by the\nvictorious Whigs. Knowing that it was their intention to sacrifice\nhim to party revenge, and that his accusers would likewise act as his\njudges, he wisely withdrew himself to France. The Pretender held a\nmimic court at Avignon, and a debating society at Lorraine, entitled\na Parliament. He offered Bolingbroke the office of Secretary of State,\nwhich was accepted by him; and it was only at this time that the\nemanations of the exiled Stuart's cabinet possessed either a solidity\nof aim, or a definite purpose. If Louis XIV. had lived longer, he might\nhave assisted the Pretender, but with his death expired the hopes of\nthat ill-fated dynasty. Bolingbroke strove to husband the means which\nthe Chevalier's friends had collected, but the advice of the Duke of\nOrmond was listened to in preference to Bolingbroke's. The results which\nBolingbroke foretold--proceeding rashly and failing ignominiously--both\noccurred. The insurrection broke out, and failed--no other end could\nhave been anticipated. Intrigues were fast coiling themselves around the\nsecretary; he was openly blamed for the reverses in Scotland--but he was\nalike careless of their wrath or its issue. One morning Ormond waited\nupon him with two slips of paper from the Pretender, informing him\nthat his services were no longer required. After his dismissal he was\nimpeached by the lackeys of the Pretender under seven heads, which were\nwidely distributed throughout Europe. There is this anomaly in the life\nof Bolingbroke, witnessed in no other Englishman: In one year he was the\nmost powerful man in England--Secretary of State--an exile--and then\nin the same year he occupied a similar office to one who aimed at the\nEnglish throne, and was impeached by both parties.\n\nFor several years he occupied himself in France with philosophical\npursuits--until the year 1723--when he received a pardon, which allowed\nhim to return to England, but still his sequestered estates were not\nreturned, and this apology for a pardon was negotiated by a bribe of\n\u00a311,000 to the German Duchess of Kendal--one of the king's mistresses.\n\nAlexander Pope was Bolingbroke's constant correspondent. Pope had\nwon the applause of England by his poems, and was then considered the\narbiter of genius. Voltaire occupied a similar position in France.\nSince Pope first laid the copy of his greatest epic at the feet of\nBolingbroke, and begged of him to correct its errors, he had gradually\nwon himself that renown which prosperity has endorsed. But what a unity\nin divergence did those philosophers present! The calm moralism of Pope,\nhis sweet and polished rhyme, contrasted with the fiery wit and hissing\nsarcasm of the Frenchman, more trenchant than Pope's, yet wanting\nhis sparkling epigrams. The keen discernment of both these men saw in\nBolingbroke a master, and they ranked by his side as twin apostles of\na new and living faith. It was the penetration of true greatness which\ndiscerned in the English peer that sublimity of intellect they possessed\nthemselves, without the egotism of an imbecile rival. Bolingbroke had\ncherished the ethics of one, and restrained the rancor of the other--and\nboth men yielded to him whose system they worshipped; and this trinity\nof Deists affords the noblest example which can be evoked to prove\nthe Harmony of Reason amidst the most varied accomplishments. Although\nPope's name occurs but seldom in the history of Freethought--while that\nof Bolingbroke is emblazoned in all its glory, and Voltaire is enshrined\nas its only Deity--yet we must not forget that what is now known as\nthe only collection of St. John's works (the edition in five volumes\nby Mallet,) were written for the instruction of Pope--sent to him in\nletters--discussed and agreed to by him--so that the great essayist is\nas much implicated in them as the author of the Dictionary. It is\nsaid, \"In his society these two illustrious men felt and acknowledged a\nsuperior genius; and if he had no claim to excellence in poetry--the\nart in which they were so pre-eminent--he surpassed them both in the\nphilosophy they so much admired.\"\n\nFor ten years after this period, he devoted himself to various political\nwritings, which were widely circulated; but we must waive the pleasure\nat present of analyzing those, and confine our attention to the alliance\nbetween Pope and Bolingbroke, in the new school of philosophy.\n\nBolingbroke's principal friends were Pope, Swift, Mallet, Wyndam, and\nAtterbury. The first three were most in his confidence in regard\nto religion: and although Pope was educated a Roman Catholic, and\noccasionally conformed to that hierarchy (and like Voltaire, for peace,\ndied in it,) yet the philosophical letters which passed between Pope and\nSt. John, fully established him as a consistent Deist--an honor to which\nSwift also attained, although being a dignitary of the Church: but\nif doubts arise on the subject, they can easily be dispelled. General\nGrimouard, in his \"Essai sur Bolingbroke,\" says that \"he was intimate\nwith the widow of Mallet, the poet, who was a lady of much talent and\nlearning, and had lived upon terms of friendship with Bolingbroke,\nSwift, Pope, and many other distinguished characters of the day, who\nfrequently met at her house.\" The General adds, that the lady has been\nfrequently heard to declare, that these men were all equally deistical\nin their sentiments (_que c'\u00e9tait une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de purs d\u00e9istes_;) that\nSwift from his clerical character was a little more reserved than the\nothers, but he was evidently of the same sentiments at bottom.\n\nThere is a remarkable passage in one of Pope's letters to Swift, which\nseems rather corroborative of the General's. He is inviting Swift to\ncome and visit him. \"The day is come,\" he says, \"which I have often\nwished, but never thought to see, when every mortal I esteem is of the\nsame sentiments in politics and religion.\" Dr. Warton remarks upon this\nparagraph \"At this time therefore (1733) he (Pope and Bolingbroke were\nof the same sentiment in religion as well as politics);\" * and Pope\nwriting to Swift is proof sufficient that Bolingbroke, Swift, and\nhimself, were united in opinions. Wherever Swift's name is known, it is\nassociated with his spleen on account of his not being elevated to the\nEpiscopal Bench, when he was promised a vacancy, which was reserved for\nhim; but Queen Anne absolutely refused to confer such a dignity upon the\nauthor of \"Gulliver's Travels\"--that profound satire upon society and\nreligion; and this occurring at a time when his energetic services\nwere so much needed in defence of the government he so assisted by\npamphleteering, satire, and wholesale lampoons. Mr. Cooke says, \"The\nEarl of Nottingham, in the debate upon the Dissenters' Bill, chiefly\nfounded his objection to the provision that the Bishops should have the\nonly power of licensing tutors, upon the likelihood there was that a\nman who was in a fair way for becoming a Bishop, was hardly suspected\nof being a Christian.\" This pointed allusion to Swift passed without\ncomment or reply in a public assembly, composed in a great measure of\nhis private friends and associates. This seems to intimate that the\nopinion of his contemporaries was not very strong in favor of Swift's\nreligious principles. This may suffice to prove the unanimity of\nsentiment existing among this brilliant coterie--one a political\nChurchman--another the greatest poet of his age--the third, the most\naccomplished statesman of his country. Although they were united in\nreligious conviction, it would have been certain ruin to any of the\nconfederates if the extent of their thoughts had reached the public ear.\nThe Dean wrote for the present--the poet for his age--and the peer for\nthe immediate benefit of his friends and a record for the future. But\nthey were all agreed that some code of ethics should be promulgated,\nwhich should embody the positive speculations of Bolingbroke, with the\neasy grace of Pope--the elaborate research of the philosopher with\nthe rhetoric of the poet. Swift coalesced in this idea, but was, to a\ncertain extent, ignorant of its subsequent history. It was not thought\nprudent to trust Mallet and others with the secret. For this purpose the\n\"Essay of Man\" was designed on the principles elaborated by Bolingbroke\nin his private letters to Pope. It was Bolingbroke who drew up the\nscheme, mapped out the arguments, and sketched the similes--it was Pope\nwho embellished its beauties, and turned it into rhyme. Doctor Warton,\nthe editor of Pope, also proves this:--\"Lord Bathurst told the Doctor\nthat he had read the whole of the 'Essay on Man' in _the handwriting of\nBolingbroke_, and drawn up in a series of propositions which Pope was\nto amplify, versify, and to illustrate.\" If further proofs are required,\nthat Bolingbroke was not only a co-partner but coadjutor with Pope, it\nis found in the opening of the poem, where the poet uses the plural in\nspeaking of Bolingbroke--\n\n     \"Awake, my St. John, leave all meaner things\n     To low ambition, and the pride of kings.\n     Laugh when we must, be candid when you can,\n     And vindicate the ways of God to man.\"\n\n     * Cook's Life of Bolingbroke, 2nd vol., p. 97..\n\nThis is sufficient to prove the partnership in the poem, and from the\ngenerally acknowledged fact of his connection, we have no hesitation in\ndeclaring that this poem is the grand epic of Deism, and is as much the\noffspring of Bolingbroke, as his own ideas when enunciated by others.\nThere is not a single argument in the Essay but what is much more\nelaborated in the works of Bolingbroke, while every positive argument\nis reduced to a few poetic maxims in the Essay. We may as well look here\nfor Bolingbroke's creed, rather than amongst his prose works. There\nis, however, this difference, that in the Essay there is laid down an\nethical scheme of positivism--_i.e._, of everything in morals which\ncan be duly tested and nothing more: while in the prose writings of\nBolingbroke, the negative side of theology is discussed with an amount\nof erudition which has never been surpassed by any of the great leaders\nof Freethought. The first proposition of the Essay is based on a\npostulate, upon which the whole reasoning is built. Overthrow this\nsubstratum, and the philosophy of the Essay is overturned--admit it, and\nits truth is evident; it is--\n\n\"What can we reason but from what we know?\"\n\nThis is equivalent to saying that we can only reason concerning man as\na finite part of an infinite existence, and we can only predicate\nrespecting what comes under the _category of positive knowledge _; we\nare therefore disabled from speculating in any theories which have for\na basis opposition to the collected experience of mankind. This was a\nposition laid down by Bolingbroke to escape all the historical arguments\nwhich some men deduce from alleged miraculous agency in the past, or\nproblematical prophecy in the future. It _likewise_ shows the untenable\nnature of all analogy, which presumes to trace an hypothetical first\ncause or personal intelligence, to account for a supposed origin of\nprimeval existence, by which nature was caused, or forms of being first\nevolved. Although it may be deemed inconsistent with the philosophy of\nBolingbroke to admit a God in the same argument as the above, we must\nnot forget that in all speculative reasoning there must be an assumption\nof some kind, which ought to be demonstrated by proof, or a suitable\nequivalent in the form of universal consent. Yet in the case of the God\nof the Essay, we look in vain for the attributes with which Theists love\nto clothe their God, and we can but perceive inexorable necessity in the\nshape of rigid and unswerving laws, collected in one focus by Pope, and\ndignified with the name of God; so that the difference betwixt a\nDeist of the old, and an Atheist of the modern school, is one of mere\nwords--they both commence with an assumption, the Atheist only defining\nhis terms more strictly, the subject-matter in both instances being\nthe same. The only difference being, the one deceives himself with a\nmeaningless word, the other is speechless on what he cannot comprehend.\nThe Essay shows a scheme of universal gradation, composed of a series of\nlinks, which are one entwined within the other--every rock being placed\nin its necessitated position--every plant amidst its growth bearing an\nexoteric similitude to itself--every animal, from the lowest quadruped\nto the highest race of man, occupying a range of climate adapted to its\nrequirements. The Essay here is scientifically correct, and agrees with\nthe ablest writers on necessity. A German philosopher renowned alike\nfor rigid analysis and transcendent abilities as a successful theorist,\nobserves, \"When I contemplate all things as a whole, I perceive one\n_nature_ one _force _: when I regard them as individuals, many forces\nwhich develop themselves according to their inward laws, and pass\nthrough all the forms of which they are capable, and all the objects\nin nature are but those forces under certain limitations. Every\nmanifestation of every individual power of nature is determined partly\nby itself, partly by its own preceding manifestations, and partly by the\nmanifestations of all other powers of nature with which it is connected;\nbut it is connected with all, for nature is one connected whole. Its\nmanifestations are, therefore, strictly necessary, and it is absolutely\nimpossible to be other than as it is. In every moment of her duration\nnature is one connected whole, in every moment must every individual be\nwhat it is because all others are what they are, and a single grain of\nsand could not be moved from its place, without, however imperceptibly\nto us, changing something throughout all parts of the immeasurable\nwhole. Every moment of duration is determined by all past moments, and\nwill determine all future movements, and even the position of a grain\nof sand cannot be conceived other than it is, without supposing other\nchanges to an indefinite extent. Let us imagine that grain of sand to be\nlying some few feet further inland than it actually does; then must the\nstorm-wind that drove it in from the sea-shore have been stronger than\nit actually was; then must the preceding state of the atmosphere,\nby which this wind was occasioned, and its degree of strength being\ndetermined, have been different from what it actually was, and the\npreceding changes which gave rise to this particular weather, and so\non. We must suppose a different temperature from that which really\nexisted--a different constitution of bodies which influenced that\ntemperature. How can we know that in such a state of weather we have\nbeen supposing, in order to carry this grain of sand a few yards\nfurther, some ancestors of yours might not have perished from hunger,\ncold, or heat, long before the birth of that son from whom you are\ndescended, and thus you might never have been at all, and all that you\nhave done, and all that you ever hope to do, must have been hindered, in\norder that a grain of sand might lie in a different place.\" * The whole\nof the first book is devoted to the necessitated condition of man\nin relation to the universe. In one portion there is a succession of\nbeautiful similes, portraying the blissful state we are in, instead of\nbeing gifted with finer sensibilities, or a prescience, which would be a\ncurse.\n\n     * Fichte's \"Destination of Man,\" pp. 8, 9\n\nPope, although an ardent disciple of Bolingbroke, did not entirely\nforsake the prejudices of childhood; he still indulged in a bare hope of\na future life, which his master, with more consistency, suppressed. So\nthat when the poet rhymed the propositions of St. John, he pointed them\nwith \"hope\" in an eternal future; for that speculation which was still\n_probability_ in his day, is now nearly silenced by modern science. But\nwe must not confound the ideas of futurity, which some of the Deists\nexpressed, with those of Christianity. They were as different as the\ndreams of Christ and Plato were dissimilar. Pope \"hoped\" for a future\nlife of intellectual enjoyment devoid of evil, but the heaven of the\ngospel is equally as necessary to be counterbalanced by a hell, as\nthe existence of a God requires the balancing support of a devil. We\ntherefore can sympathise with the description of a heaven, the poor\nIndian looked for:--\n\n     \"Some safer world in depths of woods embraced,\n     Some happier island in the watery waste;\n     Where slaves once more their native land behold,\n     Nor fiends torment, nor _Christians thirst for gold.\n     To be_--contents his natural desires,\n     He asks no angels' wings, no seraphs' fires,\n     But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,\n     His faithful dog should bear him company.\"\n\nPope durst not emphatically deny the future-life theory, so he attacked\nit by elaborating a physical instead of a spiritual heaven. So heterodox\na notion of the Indian's future sports, is not to be found in theology,\nespecially as he pictures the Indian's sports with his dog. Here was\na double blow aimed at Christianity by evolving a \"positive\" idea\nof future pleasures, and the promulgation of sentiments\nanti-Christian.--Again he attacks them for unwarrantable speculation in\ntheology, when he says--\n\n     \"In pride, in reasoning pride our error lies.\"\n\nThis is a corollary to the first proposition, \"What can we reason but\nfrom what we know?\" The only predicate we can draw from this is, the\nundoubted fact we have no right to profess to hold opinions of that,\nupon which we cannot have any positive proof. The last line of the\nfirst book has been generally thought open to attack. It relates to\nnecessity--\"Whatever is, is right\"--and is not to be viewed in relation\nto society as at present constituted, but to the physical universe.\n\nThe second book deals with man in relation to himself as an individual;\nthe third as a member of society, and the last in respect to happiness.\nThroughout the whole Essay the distinctions arising from nature and\ninstinct are defined and defended with vigor and acuteness. Both are\nproved to be equally great in degree, in spite of the hints constantly\nthrown out in reference to \"God-like Reason _versus_ Blind Instinct.\" We\nconfess our inability to discern the vaunted superiority of the powers\nof reason over those of its blinder sister. We see in the one matchless\nwisdom--profound decision--unfailing resource--a happy contentment as\nunfeigned as it is natural. On the other hand, we see temerity allied\nwith cowardice--a man seeking wisdom on a watery plank, when every\nfootmark may serve him for a funeral effigy; political duplicity arising\nfrom his confined generalization of facts; a desire to do right, but\nchecked by accident and cunning--everywhere uneasy--always fatal. If\nthe Christians' fables were true, we might say that Adam and Eve were\noriginally in possession of Instinct and Reason, and fell by listening\nto the promptings of volition, instead of the unswerving powers of the\nbrutes, and for a hereditary punishment was cursed with a superabundance\nof reason. For with all our intellectual prerogatives, we have yet\nfailed to arrive at a definite course of action which should influence\nour conduct. The Essay, speaking of Government by Christianity, says:--\n\n     \"Force first made conquest, and that conquest law,\n     Till superstition taught the tyrant awe.\n\n .....\n\n     She taught the weak to bend, the proud to pray,\n     To power unseen, and mightier far than they:\n     She, from the rending earth and bursting skies,\n     Saw Gods descend and fiends infernal rise.\n     Here _fixed_ the dreadful, there the blessed abodes,\n     Here _made her_ devils, and weak hope her Gods.\n     Gods partial, changeful, passionate, _unjust_,\n     Whose _attributes were rage, revenge, or lust_.\n     Such as the souls of cowards might conceive,\n     And formed like tyrants; tyrants would believe.\n     Zeal then, not charity, became the guide,\n     And Hell was _built in spite_, and Heaven in pride.\"\n\nAnd again--\n\n     \"For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight,\n     His can't be wrong whose life is in the right.\"\n\nThe Essay concludes with an invocation to Bolingbroke--whom Pope styles,\n\"my guide, philosopher, and friend.\" Such is the conclusion of the most\nremarkable ethical poem in any language. It is the Iliad of English\nDeism. Not a single allusion to Christ--a future state of existence\ngiven only as a faint probability--the whole artificial state of society\nsatirized--prayer ridiculed, and government of every kind denounced\nwhich does not bring happiness to the people. The first principle laid\ndown is the corner-stone of materialism--\"What can we reason but\nfrom what we know?\"--which is stated, explained, and defended with an\naxiomatic brevity rarely equalled, never surpassed--with a number\nof illustrations comprising the _chef d'oeuvre_ of poetic grace, and\nsynthical melody combined with arguments as cogent as the examples are\nperfect.\n\nIt stands alone in its impregnability--a pile of literary architecture\nlike the \"Novum Organan\" of Bacon, the \"Principia\" of Newton, or the\nEssay of Locke. The facades of its noble colonnades are seen extending\ntheir wings through the whole sweep of history, constituting a pantheon\nof morals, where every nation sends its devotees to admire and worship.\n\nLet us now turn to the philosophical works of Bolingbroke. By the will\nof Bolingbroke he devised this portion of his manuscripts to David\nMallet, the poet, for publication. The noble Lord's choice is open to\ncensure here. He knew the character of Mallet, and could expect little\njustice from him who should have been his biographer. The MSS. were all\nprepared for the press long before Bolingbroke died. In this original\nstate, they were addressed to Pope. When published they appeared as\n\"Letters or Essays addressed to Alexander Pope, Esq.\" The political\nfriends of St. John wished their suppression, fearing that they would\ninjure his reputation by being anti-Christian. A large bribe was\noffered by Lord Cornbur if Mallet would destroy the works. He, no doubt,\nthinking more money could be made by their publication, issued them to\nthe world in 1754, but without giving a biography or notes to the books,\nhis work being simply correcting the errors of the press. True, there\nexisted no stipulation that he should write the Life of Bolingbroke, but\nno one can doubt that such was the intention of the statesman, when he\nbequeathed to him property which realized \u00a310,000 in value. Every one\nknows the huge witticism of Dr. Johnson, who accused Bolingbroke of\ncowardice, under the simile of loading a blunderbuss, and then leaving a\nScotchman half-a-crown to fire it when he was out of the way. When those\nposthumous works appeared, the grand jury of Westminster presented them\nto the judicial authorities as subversive of religion, morality, and\ngovernment. They were burnt by the common hangman.\n\nWith difficulty we give a quotation from Boling-broke's ideas of a\nFuture Life. In vol. IV., p. 348, he says, \"I do not say, that to\nbelieve in a future state is to believe in a vulgar error; but this I\nsay, it cannot be demonstrated by reason: it is not in the nature of it\ncapable of demonstration, and no one ever returned that irremediable way\nto give us an assurance of the fact.\"\n\nAgain, he speaks personally in reference to himself, Pope, and\nWollaston, whom he had been opposing:--\n\n     \"He alone is happy, and he 'is truly so, who can say,\n     Welcome life whatever it brings!\n     Welcome death whatever it is!\n     If the former,--we change our state.\n\n                 .....\n\nThat you, or I, or even Wollaston himself, should return to the earth\nfrom whence we came, to the dirt under our feet, or be mingled with the\nashes of those herbs and plants from which we drew nutrition whilst we\nlived, does not seem any indignity offered to our nature, since it is\ncommon to all the animal kind: and he who complains of it as such, does\nnot seem to have been set, by his reasoning faculties, so far above them\nin life; as to deserve not to be levelled with them at death. We were\nlike them before our birth, that is nothing. So we shall be on this\nhypothesis, like them too after our death, that is nothing. What\nhardship is done us? Unless it be a hardship, that we are not immortal\nbecause we wish to be so, and flatter ourselves with that expectation.\n\n\"If this hypothesis were true, which I am far from assuming, I should\nhave no reason to complain, though having tasted existence, I might\nabhor non-entity. Since, then, the first cannot be demonstrated by\nreason, nor the second be reconciled to my inward sentiment, let me take\nrefuge in resignation at the last, as in every other act of my life: let\nothers be solicitous about their future state, and frighten or flatter\nthemselves as prejudice, imaginative bad health--nay, a lowering day,\nor a clear sunshine shall inspire them to do: let the tranquillity of my\nmind rest on this immovable rock, that my future, as well as my present\nstate, are ordered by an Almighty Creator, and that they are equally\nfoolish, and presumptuous, who make imaginary excursions into futurity,\nand who complain of the present.\"\n\nLord Bolingbroke died in the year 1751, after a long and painful\nillness, occasioned by the ignorance of a quack. While lying on his\ndeath-bed he composed a discourse, entitled \"Considerations on the State\nof the Nation.\" He died in peace--in the knowledge of the truth of the\nprinciples he had advocated, and with that calm serenity of mind, which\nno one can more fully experience than the honest Freethinker. He was\nburied in the church at Battersea. He was a man of the highest rank of\ngenius, far from being immaculate in his youth, brave, sincere, a true\nfriend, possessed of rich learning, a clear and sparkling style, a great\nwit, and the most powerful Freethinker of his age.\n\nA. C.\n\n\n\n\nCONDORCET.\n\nIn the history of the French Revolution, we read of a multitude of\nsections, each ruled by a man, and each man representing a philosophy.\nNot that each man was the contriver of a system, but the effervescence\nof one. As true as Robespierre was the advocate of Rousseau, as Marat\nwas the Wilkes of Paris, as Danton was the Paine, and Mirabeau the\nexpediency-politician of reflex England, so true is it that Condorcet\nwas the type of the philosophic Girondists, the offspring of Voltaire.\n\nThe two great schools of metaphysics fought out the battle on\nthe theatre of the Constituent Assembly, in a spirit as bitterly\nuncompromising as when under different phraseological terms, they met in\nthe arguments of the School-men, or further in the womb of history, on\nthe forum of Athens. It is a fact no less true than singular, that after\neach mental excitement amongst the _savons_, whether in ancient or in\nmodern times, after the literary shock has passed away, the people are\ninnoculated with the strife, and, destitute of the moderation of their\nleaders, fight for that doctrine which they conceive oppresses their\nrights. The French Revolution was one of those struggles. It gave rise\nto epoch-men. Not men who originated a doctrine, but those who attempted\nto carry it out. Condorcet was one of those men. He was the successor\nof Voltaire in the Encyclop\u00e6dic warfare. The philosopher amongst the\norators. Destitute of the amazing versatility of the sage of Ferney, he\nimbibed the prophet's antipathy to superstition, and after a brilliant\ncareer, fell in the wild onslaught of passion. The Revolution was the\narena on which was fought the battle involving the question whether\nEurope was to be ruled for a century by Christianity or Infidelity. The\nirresolution of Robespierre lost to us the victory of the first passage\nof arms, equally as decisive as Lafayette in 1830, and Lamartine in\n1848, being Liberals, lost in each case the social Republic by\ntheir vacillating policy. The true Freethinkers of that age were the\nGirondists. With their heroic death, the last barrier to despotism\ndisappeared; the Consulate became the only logical path for gilded\nchains and empire. With the ostracism of the Republicans by Napoleon the\nLittle, a Parallel is completed between the two eras of French history.\n\nThe family name of Condorcet was Caritat. His father was a scion of an\naristocratic family, and an officer in the army. The son who gave honor\nto the family, was born in the year 1743, at Ribemont, in Picardy. His\nfather dying early, left his son to be educated with his wife, under the\nguardianship of his brother, the Bishop of Lisieux, a celebrated Jesuit.\nThe mother of Condorcet was extremely superstitious, and in one of her\nfanatic ecstasies, offered up her son at the shrine of the Virgin Mary.\nHow this act was performed we cannot relate; but it is a notorious\nfact that until his twelfth year, the embryo philosopher was clothed\nin female attire, and had young ladies for companions, which, M.\nArago says, \"accounts for many peculiarities in the _physique_ and the\n_morale_ of his manhood.\" The abstinence from all rude, boyish sports,\nchecked the proper muscular development of his limbs; the head and trunk\nwere on a large scale, but the legs were so meagre that they seemed\nunfit to carry what was above them; and, in fact, he never could partake\nin any strong exercises, or undergo the bodily fatigues to which healthy\nmen willingly expose themselves. On the other hand, he had imbibed the\ntenderness of a delicate damsel, retaining to the last a deep horror for\naffliction pain on the inferior animals.\n\nIn 1775, he entered the Jesuit Academy at Rheiras. Three years\nafterwards, he was transferred to the College of Navarre, in Paris,\nand soon made himself the most distinguished scholar there. His friends\nwished him to enter the priesthood, not knowing that even in his\nseventeenth year he had embraced the Deism of the age.\n\nAt the age of nineteen he left college, and immediate-ly published a\nseries of mathematical works, which established his fame. Shortly\nafter this, the Academy of Sciences chose Condorcet for their assistant\nsecretary. In the year 1770 he accompanied D'Alembert in a tour through\nItaly, making a call for some weeks at Ferney, where he was delighted\nwith the company of Voltaire, and was duly recognised as one of the\nEncylop\u00e6dists; and, on his return to Paris, became the literary agent of\nhis great leader.\n\nA Quarterly Reviewer, writing on Voltaire and Condercet, says of the\nformer, \"When he himself, in these latter days, was resolved to issue\nanything that he knew and felt to be pregnant with combustion, he\nnever dreamt of Paris--he had agents enough in other quarters: and the\nanonymous or pseudonymous mischief was printed at London, Amsterdam, or\nHamburgh, from a fifth or sixth copy in the handwriting of some Dutch\nor English clerk--thence, by cautious steps, smuggled into France--and\nthen, disavowed and denounced by himself, and, for him, by his\nnumberless agents, with an intrepid assurance which, down to the last,\nconfounded and baffled all official inquisitors, until, in each separate\ncase, the scent had got cold. Therefore, he sympathized not at all with\nany of these, his subalterns, when they, in their own proper matters,\nallowed themselves a less guarded style of movement.\"\n\nOn one occasion, Condorcet's imprudence extorts a whole series of\npassionate remonstrants from him and his probable complaints--but the\nburden is always the same--\"Tolerate the whispers of age! How often\nshall I have to tell you all that no one but a fool will publish such\nthings unless he has 200,000 bayonets at his back? Each Encyclop\u00e6dist\nwas apt to forget that, though he corresponded familiarly with\nFrederick, he was not a King of Prussia; and, by-and-by, not one of them\nmore frequently made this mistake than Condorcet--for that gentleman's\nsaintlike tranquillity of demeanor, though it might indicate a naturally\nlanguid pulse, covered copious elements of vital passion. The slow wheel\ncould not resist the long attrition of controversy; and when it once\nblazed, the flame was all the fiercer for its unseen nursing. 'You\nmistake Condorcet,' said D'Alembert, 'he is a volcano covered with\nsnow.'\"\n\nWhen Turgot became Minister of Marine, he gave Condorcet a post as\nInspector of Canals; from this he was subsequently promoted to the\nInspector of the Mint. When Turgot was replaced by Necker, Condorcet\nresigned his office.\n\nIn 1782 he was elected one of the forty of the Academy of Sciences,\nbeating the Astronomer, Bailly, by _one_ vote. In the next year,\nD'Alembert, his faithful friend, died, leaving him the whole of his\nwealth; his uncle, the bishop, likewise died in the same year, from\nwhom he would receive a fresh accession of property. Shortly after this,\ntime, Condorcet married Madame de Grouchy--also celebrated as a lady of\ngreat beauty, good fortune, and an educated Atheist. The marriage was\na happy one. The only offspring was a girl, who married General Arthur\nO'Connor, uncle to the late Feargus O'Connor, an Irish refugee who was\nconnected with Emmett's rebellion.\n\nDuring the excitement of the American War of Independence, Condorcet\ntook an active part in urging the French Government to bestow assistance\nin arms and money, upon the United States; after the war was concluded,\nhe corresponded with Thomas Paine, who gradually converted him to the\nextreme Republican views the \"illustrious needleman\" himself possessed,\nwhich, in this case, rapidly led to the _denouement_ of 1791, when he\nwas elected a member of the Legislative Assembly by the department of\nParis. In the next year he was raised to the rank of President by a\nmajority of near one hundred votes. While in the Assembly, he brought\nforward and supported the economical doctrines of Adam Smith, proposed\nthe abolition of indirect taxation, and levying a national revenue upon\nderivable wealth in amount according to the individual, passing over all\nwho gained a livelihood by manual labor. He made a motion for the public\nburning of all documents relating to nobility--himself being a Marquis.\nHe took a conspicuous place in the trial of the king; he voted him\nguilty, but refused to vote for his death, as the punishment of death\nwas against his principles. The speech he made on this occasion is fully\nequal to that of Paine's on the same occasion.\n\nWhen the divergence took place between the Jacobins and Girondists,\nCondorcet strove to unite them; but every day brought fresh troubles,\nand the position of the Seneca of the Revolution was too prominent to\nescape the opposition of the more violent taction.\n\nRobespierre triumphed; and in his success could be traced the doom\nof his enemies. An intercepted letter was the means of Condorcet's\nimpeachment. Deprived of the support of Isnard, Brissot, and Vergniaud,\nthe Jacobins proscribed without difficulty the hero whose writings had\nmainly assisted in producing the Revolution. His friends provided means\nfor his escape. They applied to a lodging-house keeper, a Madame\nVernet, if she would conceal him for a time; she asked was he a virtuous\nman--yes, replied his friend, he is the---- stay, you say he is a good\nman, I do not wish to pry into his secrets or his name. Once safe in\nthis asylum, he was unvisited by either wife or friends; morover, such\nwas the hurry of his flight, that he was without money, and nearly\nwithout books.\n\nWhile in this forced confinement, he wrote the \"_Esquisse d'un\nTableau Historique des Progr\u00e8s de l'Esprit Humain_,\" and several other\nfragmentary essays. In this work he lays down a scheme of society\nsimilar to the \"New Moral World,\" of Robert Owen. Opposing the idea of\na God, he shows the dominion of science in education, political economy,\nchemistry, and applies mathematical principles to a series of moral\nproblems. Along with the progress of man he combined the progress of\narts--estimating the sanatory arrangements of our time, he prophecied on\nthe gradual extension of longevity, amongst the human race; and with it,\nenjoyments increased by better discipline in gustatorial duties. He\nhas similar views on the softer sex to M. Proudhomme (his immediate\ndisciple,) and, in the close of the work, Condorcet announced the\npossibility of an universal language, which is daily becoming more\nassimilated to modern ideas.\n\nThe guillotine had not been idle during the few weeks of Condorcet's\nretreat. Fancying that (if discovered) he might be the means of injuring\nhis benefactress, he resolved to escape from the house of Madame Vernet.\nPrevious to doing this, he made his will. M. Arago, describing this\nepoch in his closing days, says:--\n\n\"When he at last paused, and the feverish excitement of authorship was\nat an end, our colleague rested all his thoughts anew on the danger\nincurred by his hostess. He resolved then (I employ his own words) to\nquit the retreat which the boundless devotion of his tutelar angel had\ntransformed into a paradise. He so little deceived himself as to the\nprobable consequences of the step he meditated--the chances of safety\nafter his evasion appeared so feeble--that before he put his plan into\nexecution he made his last dispositions. In the pages then written, I\nbehold everywhere the lively reflection of an elevated mind, a feeling\nheart, and a beautiful soul. I will venture to say, that there exists\nin no language anything better thought, more tender, more touching,\nmore sweetly expressed, than the '_Avis d'un Proscrit a sa Fill_.' Those\nlines, so limpid, so full of unaffected delicacy, were written on that\nvery day when he was about to encounter voluntarily an immense danger.\nThe presentiment of a violent end almost inevitably did not disturb\nhim--his hand traced those terrible words, _Ma mort, ma mort procha\u00eene!_\nwith a firmness which the Stoics of antiquity might have envied.\nSensibility, on the contrary, obtained the mastery when the illustrious\nproscribed was drawn into the anticipation that Madame de Condorcet also\nmight be involved in the bloody catastrophe that threatened him. _Should\nmy daughter be destined to lose all_--this is the most explicit allusion\nthat the husband can insert in his last writing.\"\n\n\"The Testament is short. It was written on the fly-leaf of a 'History of\nSpain.' In it Condorcet directs that his daughter, in case of his wife's\ndeath, shall be brought up by Madame Vernet, whom she is to call her\nsecond mother, and who is to see her so educated as to have means of\nindependent support either from painting or engraving. 'Should it be\nnecessary for my child to quit France, she may count on protection in\nEngland from my Lord Stanhope and my Lord Daer. In America, reliance\nmay be placed on Jefferson and Bache, the grandson of Franklin. She is,\ntherefore, to make the English language her first study.'\"\n\nSuch was the last epistle ever written by Condorcet. Notwithstanding\nthe precautions taken by his friends, he escaped into the streets--from\nthence having appealed in vain to friends for assistance, he visited\nsome quarries. Here he remained from the 5th to the evening of the 7th\nof April, 1794. Hunger drove him to the village of Clamait, when he\napplied at an hostelry for refreshment. He described himself as a\ncarpenter out of employment, and ordered an omelet. This was an age\nof suspicion, and the landlord of the house soon discovered that the\nwanderer's hands were white and undisfigured with labor, while his\nconversation bore no resemblance to that of a common artificer. The\ngood dame of the house inquired how many eggs he would have in his dish.\nTwelve, was the answer. Twelve eggs for a joiner's supper! This was\nheresy against the equality of man. They demanded his passport--he had\nnot got one--the only appearance of anything of the sort was a scrap of\npaper, scrawled over with Latin epigrams. This was conclusive evidence\nto the village Dogberries that he was a traitor and an aristocrat. The\nauthorities signed the warrant for his removal to Paris. Ironed to two\nofficers they started on the march. The first evening they arrived at\nBourg-la-Reine, where they deposited their prisoner in the gaol of\nthat town. In the morning the gaoler found him a corpse. He had taken a\npoison of great force, which he habitually carried in a ring. Thus\nended the life of the great Encyclop\u00e6dist--a man great by his many\nvirtues--who reflected honor on France by his science, his literary\ntriumphs, and his moral heroism. He had not the towering energy\nof Marat, nor the gushing eloquence of Danton, neither had he the\nsuperstitious devotion to abstract ideas which characterized the whole\ncourse of Robespierre's life. The oratory of Danton, like that of Marat,\nonly excited the people to dissatisfaction; they struck down effete\ninstitutions, but they were not the men to inaugurate a new society. It\nis seldom we find the pioneers of civilization the best mechanics. They\nstrike down the forest--they turn the undergrowth--they throw a log over\nthe stream, but they seldom rear factories, or invent tubular bridges.\n\nAmongst the whole of the heroes of the French Revolution, we must admire\nthe Girondists, as being the most daring, and, at the same time, the\nmost constructive of all who met either in the Constituent Assembly or\nthe Convention. The Jacobin faction dealt simply with politics through\nthe abstract notions of Rousseau: but of what use are \"human rights\" if\nwe have to begin _de novo_ to put into operation?--rather let us unite\nthe conservative educationalism of Socialism with the wild democracy of\nignorance. Politics never can be successful unless married to Socialism.\n\nIt was not long after Condorcet's death, before the Committee of Public\nInstruction undertook the charge of publishing the whole of his works.\nFor this they have been censured on many grounds. We consider that it\nwas one of the few good things accomplished by that Committee. There is\nnothing in the works of this writer which have a distinctive peculiarity\nto us; few great writers who direct opinion at the time they write,\nappear to posterity in the same light as they did to a public inflamed\nby passion, and trembling under reiterated wrongs. When we look at the\nworks of D'Holbach, we find a standard treatise, which is a land-mark to\nthe present day; but at the time the \"System of Nature\" was written, it\nhad not one tithe the popularity which it now enjoys; it did not produce\nan effect superior to a new sarcasm of Voltaire, or an epigram of\nDiderot. Condorcet was rather the co-laborer and _literateur_ of the\nparty, than the prophet of the new school. Voltaire was the Christ,\nand Condorcet the St. Paul of the new faith. In political economy, the\ndoctrines of the English and Scotch schools were elaborated to their\nfullest extent. Retrenchment in pensions and salaries, diminution of\narmies, equal taxation, the resumption by the State of all the Church\nlands, the development of the agricultural and mechanical resources,\nthe abolition of the monopolies, total free trade, local government, and\nnational education; such-were the doctrines for which Turgot fought, and\nCondorcet popularized. If they had been taken in time, France would\nhave escaped a revolution, and Europe would have been ruled by peace\nand freedom. It may be asked, who brought about the advocacy of those\ndoctrines, for they were not known before the middle of the eighteenth\ncentury? They were introduced as a novelty, and defended as a paradox.\nFrance had been exhausted by wars, annoyed by _ennui_, brilliant above\nall by her genius, she was struck with lassitude for her licentious\ncrimes. There was an occasion for a new school. Without it, France, like\nCarthage, would have bled to death on the hecatomb of her own lust. Her\nleading men cast their eyes to England; it was then the most progressive\nnation in existence. The leading men of that country were intimate with\nthe rulers of the French; the books of each land were read with avidity\nby their neighbors; a difference was observable between the two: but how\nthat difference was to be reconciled was past the skill of the wisest to\nunravel. England had liberal institutions, and a people with part of the\nsubstance, and many of the forms of Liberalism, along with a degree of\neducation which kept them in comparative ignorance, yet did not offer\nany obstacles to raising themselves in the social sphere. Before France\ncould compete with England, she had to rid herself of the feudal system,\nand obtain a Magna Charta. She was above four centuries behind-hand\nhere. She had to win her spurs through revolutions, like those of\nCromwell's and that of 1688, and the still greater ones of Parliament.\nThe Freethinkers of England prepared the Whig revolution of William, by\nadvocating the only scheme which was at the time practicable, for of the\ntwo--the Protestant and the Catholic religion--the former is far more\nconducive to the liberties of a people than the latter, and at the time,\nand we may also say, nearer the present, the people were not prepared\nfor any organic change. This being the case, it is not to be wondered\nat that the French Revolution was a failure as a constructive effort;\nit was a success as a grand outbreak of power; showing politicians where\n(in the future) to rely for success. The men who undertook to bring\nabout this Revolution are not to be censured for its non-success. They\nwished to copy English institutions, and adapt them to those of the\nFrench; for this purpose, the Continental League was formed, each member\nof which pledged himself to uproot, as far as lay in his power,\nthe Catholic Church in France. A secret name was given to\nit--_L'Infame_--and an organized attack was speedily commenced. The\nmen at the head of the movement, besides Voltaire and Frederick, were\nD'Alembert, Diderot, Grim, St. Lambert, Condillac, Helvetius, Jordan,\nLalande, Montesquieu, and a host of others of less note. Con-dorcet,\nbeing secretary of the Academy, corresponded with, and directed the\nmovements of all, in the absence of his chief. Every new book was\ncriticised--refutations were published to the leading theological works\nof the age; but by far the roost effective progress was made by the\nmeans of poems, essays, romances, epigrams, and scientific papers. The\nsongs of France at this era were written by the philosophers; and this\nspirit was diffused among the people. In a country so volatile and\nexcitable as the French, it is difficult to estimate too highly the\npower of a ballad warfare. The morality of Abbots and Nuns were sung in\nstrains as rhapsodical, and couplets as voluptuous as the vagaries of\nthe Songs of Solomon.\n\nMuch discretion was required, that no separate species of warfare should\nbe overdone, lest a nausea of sentiment should revert upon the authors,\nand thus lead to a reaction more sanguinary than the force of the\nphilosophers could control. In all those cases Condorcet was the prime\nmover and the agent concerned. He communicated with Voltaire on every\nnew theory, and advised him when and how to strike, and when to _rest_.\nIn all those matters Condorcet was obeyed. There was a smaller section\nof the more serious philosophers who sympathized with, yet did not\nlabor simultaneously for the common cause--those men, the extreme\nAtheists--clever but cautious--men who risked nothing--Mirabeau and\nD'Holbach were the types of this class. It is well known that both\nFrederick, Voltaire, and Condorcet opposed those sections, as likely to\nbe aiming at too much for the time.\n\nWhen it was considered prudent to take a more decided step, the\nEncyclop\u00e6dia was formed. Condorcet had a principal part in this\nwork, which shook priestcraft on its throne; it spread consternation\nwhere-ever it appeared, and was one of the main causes of the great\noutbreak. No one can sufficiently praise a work of such magnitude; nor\ncan any one predicate when its effects will cease.\n\nIn the \"Life of Condorcet,\" by Arago, there is a curious extract copied\nfrom a collection of anecdotes, said to be compiled from his note-books,\nand dignified with the title of \"M\u00e9moires de Condorcet.\" It relates to\na conversation between the Abbe Galiana and Diderot, in which it is said\nCondorcet acquiesced. The subject is the fair sex:--\n\nDiderot.--How do you define woman?\n\nGaliana.--An animal naturally feeble and sick.\n\nDiderot.--Feeble? Has she not as much courage as man?\n\nGaliana.--Do you know what courage is? It is the effect of terror. You\nlet your leg be cut off, because you are afraid of dying. Wise people\nare never courageous--they are prudent--that is to say, poltroons.\n\nDiderot.--Why call you woman naturally sick!\n\nGaliana.--Like all animals, she is sick until she attains her perfect\ngrowth. Then she has a peculiar symptom which takes up the fifth part\nof her time. Then come breeding and nursing, two long and troublesome\ncomplaints. In short, they have only intervals of health, until\nthey turn a certain corner, and then _elles ne sont plus de malades\npeut-\u00eatre--elles ne sont que des reilles_.\n\nDiderot.--Observe her at a ball, no vigor, then, M. l'Abbe?\n\nGaliana.--Stop the fiddles! put out the lights! she will scarcely crawl\nto her coach.\n\nDiderot.--See her in love.\n\nGaliana.--It is painful to see anybody in a fever.\n\nDiderot.--M. l'Abbe, have you no faith in education?\n\nGaliana.--Not so much as in instinct. A woman is habitually ill. She is\naffectionate, engaging, irritable, capricious, easily offended, easily\nappeased, a trifle amuses her. The imagination is always in play. Fear,\nhope, joy, despair, and disgust, follow each other more rapidly, are\nmanifested more strongly, effaced more quickly, than with us. They like\na plentiful repose, at intervals company; anything for excitement. Ask\nthe doctor if it is not the same with his patients. But ask yourself,\ndo we not all treat them as we do sick people, lavish attention, soothe,\nflatter, caress, and get tired of them?\n\n\nCondorcet, in a letter, remarking on the above conversation, says:--\"I\ndo not insist upon it as probable that woman will ever be Euler\nor Voltaire; but I am satisfied that she may one day be Pascal or\nRousseau.\" This very qualification, we consider, is sufficient to\nabsolve Condorcet from, the charge of being a \"woman hater.\" His\nopponents, when driven from every other source, have fallen back on\nthis, and alleged that he viewed the sexes as unequal, and that the\nstronger had a right to lord it over the weaker. But which is the\nweaker? Euler and Voltaire were masculine men. A woman to be masculine,\nin the true sense of the word, is an anomaly, to be witnessed with pain.\nShe is not in a normal condition. She is a monster. Women should live in\nsociety fully educated and developed in their physical frame, and then\nthey would be more feminine in proportion as they approach the character\nof Mary Wollstonecraft. They have no right to domineer as tyrants, and\nthen fall into the most abject of slaves. In each of the characters of\nPascal and Rousseau, was an excess of sensibility, which overbalanced\ntheir other qualities, and rendered their otherwise great talents\nwayward, and, to a certain extent, fruitless. The peculiarity of man\nis physical power, and intellectual force; that of woman is an acute\nsensibility. Condorcet, then, was justified in expressing the opinions\nhe avowed upon the subject.\n\nIn a paper, in the year 1766, read before the \"Academy,\" on \"Ought\nPopular Errors to be Eradicated!\" Condorcet says, \"If the people\nare often tempted to commit crimes in order that they may obtain the\nnecessaries of life, it is the fault of the laws; and, as bad laws are\nthe product of errors, it would be more simple to abolish those errors\nthan to add others for the correction of their natural effects. Error,\nno doubt, may do some good; it may prevent some crimes, but it will\noccasion mischiefs greater than these. By putting nonsense into the\nheads of the people, you make them stupid; and from stupidity to\nferocity there is but a step. Consider--if the motives you suggest\nfor being just make but a slight impression on the mind, that will not\ndirect the conduct--if the impressions be lively, they will produce\nenthusiasm, and enthusiasm for error. Now, the ignorant enthusiast is\nno longer a man; he is the most terrible of wild beasts. In fact, the\nnumber of criminals among the men with prejudices (Christians) is in\ngreater proportion to the total number of our population, than the\nnumber of criminals in the class above prejudices (Freethinkers) is to\nthe total of that class. I am not ignorant that, in the actual state of\nEurope, the people are not, perhaps, at all prepared for a true\ndoctrine of morals; but this degraded obtuseness is the work of social\ninstitutions and of superstitions. Men are not born blockheads; they\nbecome such. By speaking reason to the people, even in the little time\nthey give to the cultivation of their intellect, we might easily teach\nthem the little that it is necessary for them to know. Even the idea of\nthe respect that they should have for the property of the rich, is\nonly difficult to be insinuated among them--first, because they look\non riches as a sort of usurpation, of theft perpetrated upon them, and\nunhappily this opinion is in great part true--secondly, because their\nexcessive poverty makes them always consider themselves in the case of\nabsolute necessity--a case in which even very severe moralists have been\nof their mind--thirdly, because they are as much despised and maltreated\nfor being poor, as they would be after they had lowered themselves by\nlarcenies. It is merely, therefore, because institutions are bad, that\nthe people are so commonly a little thievish upon principle.\"\n\nWe should have much liked to have given some extended quotations from\nthe works of Condorcet; but, owing to their general character, we cannot\nextract any philosophic formula which would be generally interesting.\nHis \"Lettres d'un Th\u00e9ologien\" are well deserving of a reprint; they\ncreated an astounding sensation when they appeared, being taken for the\nwork of Voltaire--the light, easy, graceful style, with deeply concealed\nirony, the crushing retort and the fiery sarcasm. They made even priests\nlaugh by their Attic wit and incongruous similes. But it was in the\n\"Academy\" where Condorcet's influence was supreme. He immortalized the\nheroes as they fell, and pushed the cause on by his professional duties.\nHe was always awake to the call of duty, and nobly did he work his\nbattery. He is now in the last grand sleep of man--the flowers of poesy\nare woven in amarynth wreaths over his tomb.\n\nA.C.\n\n\n\n\nSPINOZA.\n\nBaruch Spinoza, or Espinoza, better known under the name of Benedict\nSpinoza (as rendered by himself in the Latin language,) was born at\nAmsterdam, in Holland, on the 24th of November, 1632. There is some\nuncertainty as to this date, as there are several dates fixed by\ndifferent authors, both for his birth and death, but we have adopted the\nbiography given by Dr. C. H. Bruder, in the preface to his edition\nof Spinoza's works. His parents were Jews of the middle, or, perhaps,\nsomewhat humbler class. His father was originally a Spanish merchant,\nwho, to escape persecution, had emigrated to Holland. Although the\nlife of our great philosopher is one full of interesting incidents,\nand deserves to be treated fully, we have but room to give a very brief\nsketch, referring our readers, who may wish to learn more of Spinoza's\nlife, to Lewes's \"Biographical History of Philosophy,\" _Westminster\nReview_, No. 77, and \"Encyclop\u00e6dia Brittannica.\" p. 144. His doctrines\nwe will let speak for themselves in his own words, trusting thereby to\ngive the reader an opportunity of knowing who and what Spinoza really\nwas. One man shrinks with horror from him as an Atheist. Voltaire\nsays, that he was an Atheist, and taught Atheism. Another calls him \"a\nGod-intoxicated man.\" We present him a mighty thinker, a master mind,\na noble, fearless utterer of free and noble thoughts, a hard-working,\nhonest, independent man; as one who, two centuries ago, gave forth to\nthe world a series of thinkings which have crushed, with resistless\nforce, the theological shell in the centre of which the priests hide\nthe kernel \"truth.\"\n\nSpinoza appears in his boyhood to have been an apt scholar, and to have\nrapidly mastered the tasks set him by his teachers. Full of rabbinical\nlore he won the admiration of the Rabbi Moses Mortira, but the pupil\nrose higher than his master, and attempted to solve problems which the\nlearned rabbis were content to reverence as mysteries not capable\nof solution. First they remonstrated, then threatened; still Spinoza\npersevered in his studies, and in making known the result to those\naround him. He was threatened with excommunication, and withdrew himself\nfrom the synagogue. One more effort was made by the rabbis, who offered\nSpinoza a pension of about \u00a3100 a-year if he would attend the\nsynagogue more frequently, and consent to be silent with regard to\nhis philosophical thinkings. This offer he indignantly refused. Reason\nfailing, threats proving futile, and gold being treated with scorn,\none was found sufficiently fanatic to try a further experiment, which\nresulted in an attempt on Spinoza's life; the knife, however, luckily\nmissed its aim, and our hero escaped. At last, in the year 1660,\nSpinoza, being then twenty-eight years of age, was solemnly\nexcommunicated from the synagogue. His friends and relations shut their\ndoors against him. An outcast from the home of his youth, he gained\na humble livelihood by polishing glasses for microscopes, telescopes,\netc., at which he was very expert. While thus acquiring, by his own\nhandiwork, the means of subsistence, he was studying hard, devoting\nevery possible hour to philosophical research. Spinoza became master of\nthe Dutch, Hebrew, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin languages, the\nlatter of which he acquired in the house of one Francis Van den Ende,\nfrom whom it is more than probable he received as much instruction in\nAtheism as in Latin. Spinoza only appears to have once fallen in love,\nand this was with Van den Ende's daughter, who was herself a good\nlinguist, and who gave Spinoza instruction in Latin. She, however,\nalthough willing to be his instructress and companion in a philogical\npath, declined to accept his love, and thus Spinoza was left to\nphilosophy alone. After his excommunication he retired to Rhynsburg,\nnear the City of Leyden, in Holland, and there studied the works of\nDescartes. Three years afterwards he published an abridgment of the\n\"Meditations\" of the great father of philosophy, which created a\nprofound sensation. In an appendix to this abridgment were contained the\ngerms of those thinkings in which the pupil outdid the master, and the\nstudent progressed beyond the philosopher. In the month of June, 1664,\nSpinoza removed to Woorburg, a small village near the Hague, where he\nwas visited by persons from different parts, attracted by his fame as a\nphilosopher; and at last, after many solicitations he came to the\nHague, and resided there altogether. In 1670 he published his \"Tractatus\nTheologico-Politicus.\" This raised him a host of opponents; many writers\nrushed eager for the fray, to tilt with the poor Dutch Jew. His book was\nofficially condemned and forbidden, and a host of refutations (?) were\ncirculated against it. In spite of the condemnation it has outlived the\nrefutations.\n\nSpinoza died on the 21st or 22nd of February, 1677, in his forty-fifth\nyear, and was buried on the 25th of February at the Hague. He was frugal\nin his habits, subsisting independently on the earnings of his own\nhands. Honorable in all things, he refused to accept the chair of\nProfessor of Philosophy, offered to him by the Elector, and this because\nhe did not wish to be circumscribed in his thinking, or in the freedom\nof utterance of his thoughts. He also refused a pension offered to him\nby Louis XIV, saying that he had no intention of dedicating\nanything to that monarch. The following is a list of Spinoza's\nworks:--\"Principiorum Philosophise Renati Descartes;\" \"Tractatus\nTheologico-Politicus;\" \"Ethica;\" \"Tractatus Politi-cus;\" \"De Emandatione\nIntellectus;\" \"Epistol\u00e6;\" \"Grammaticus Hebrac\u00e6,\" etc. There are also\nseveral spurious works ascribed to Spinoza. The \"Tractatus Politicus\"\nhas been translated into English by William Maccall, who seems fully to\nappreciate the greatness of the philosopher, although he will not admit\nthe usefulness of Spinoza's logic. Maccall does not see the utility of\nthat very logic which compelled him to admit Spinoza's truth. We are not\naware of any other translation of Spinoza's works except that of a\nsmall portion of his \"Ethica,\" by Lewes. This work, which was originally\npublished in 1677, commenced with eight definitions, which, together\nwith the following axioms and propositions, were reprinted from the\n_Westminster Review_ in the _Library of Reason_:--\n\n\nDEFINITIONS.\n\nI. By cause of itself I understand that, the essence of which involves\nexistence: or that, the nature of which can only be considered as\nexistent.\n\nII. A thing finite is that which can be limited (terminari potest)\nby another thing of the same nature--_ergo_, body is said to be finite\nbecause it can always be conceived as larger. So thought is limited by\nother thoughts. But body does not limit thought, nor thought limit body.\n\nIII. By substance I understand that which is in itself, and is conceived\n_per se_--that is, the conception of which does not require the\nconception of anything else as antecedent to it.\n\nIV. By attribute I understand that which the mind perceives as\nconstituting the very essence of substance.\n\nV. By modes I understand the accidents (affectiones) of substance; or\nthat which is in something else, through which also it is conceived.\n\nVI. By God I understand the being absolutely infinite; that is, the\nsubstance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses an\ninfinite and eternal essence.\n\n_Explication_, I say absolutely infinite, but not in _suo genere_; for\nto whatever is infinite, but not in _suo genere_, we can deny infinite\nattributes; but that which is absolutely infinite, to its essence\npertains everything which implies essence, and involves no negation.\n\nVII. That thing is said to be free which exists by the sole necessity\nof its nature, and by itself alone is determined to action. But that is\nnecessary, or rather constrained, which owes its existence to another,\nand acts according to certain and determinate causes.\n\nVIII. By eternity I understand existence itself, in as far as it is\nconceived necessarily to follow from the sole definition of an eternal\nthing.\n\n\nAXIOMS.\n\nI. Everything which is, is in itself, or in some other thing.\n\nII. That which cannot be conceived through another, _per aliud_ must be\nconceived, _per se_.\n\nIII. From a given determinate cause the effect necessarily follows, and\n_vice versa_. If no determinate cause be given, no effect can follow.\n\nIV. The knowledge of an effect depends on the knowledge of the cause,\nand includes it.\n\nV. Things that have nothing in common with each other cannot be\nunderstood by means of each other--that is, the conception of one, does\nnot involve the conception of the other.\n\nVI. A true idea must agree with its original in nature.\n\nVII. Whatever can be clearly conceived as non-existent does not, in its\nessence, involve existence.\n\n\nPROPOSITIONS.\n\nI. Substance is prior in nature to its accidents. Demonstration. Per\ndefinitions three and five.\n\nII. Two substances, having different attributes, have nothing in common\nwith each other. Dem. This follows from def. three; for each substance\nmust be conceived in itself and through itself; in other words, the\nconception of one does not involve the conception of the other.\n\nIII. Of things which have nothing in common, one cannot be the cause of\nthe other. Dem. If they have nothing in common, then (per axiom five)\nthey cannot be conceived by means of each other; _ergo_ (per axiom\nfour,) one cannot be the cause of the other.--Q. E. D.\n\nIV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished among themselves,\neither through the diversity of their attributes, or through that of\ntheir modes. Dem. Everything which is, in itself, or in some other thing\n(per ax. one)--that is (per def. three and five,) there is nothing out\nof ourselves (_extra intellectum_, outside the intellect) but substance\nand its modes. There is nothing out of ourselves whereby things can be\ndistinguished amongst one another, except substances, or (which is the\nsame thing, per def. lour) their attributes and modes.\n\nV. It is impossible that there should be two or more substances of the\nsame nature, or of the same attributes. Dem. If there are many different\nsubstances they must be distinguished by the diversity of their\nattributes or of their modes (per prop. 4.) If only by the diversity\nof their attributes, it is thereby conceded that there is, nevertheless,\nonly one substance of the same attribute; but if their diversity of\nmodes, then, substance being prior in order of time to its modes, it\nmust be considered independent of them--that is (per def. three and\nsix,) cannot be conceived as distinguished from another--that is\n(per prop, four,) there cannot be many substances, but only one\nsubstance.--Q. E. D.\n\nVI. One substance cannot be created by another substance. Dem. There\ncannot be two substances with the same attributes (per prop, five)--that\nis (per prop. two,) that hare anything in common with each other; and,\ntherefore (per prop, three,) one cannot be the cause of the other.\n\nCorollary 1. Hence it follows that substance cannot be created by\nanything else. For there is nothing in nature except substance and its\nmodes (per axiom one, and def. three and five.) Now, this substance, not\nbeing produced by another, is self-caused.\n\nCorollary 2. This proposition is more easily to be demonstrated by the\nabsurdity of its contradiction; for if substance can be produced by\nanything else, the conception of it would depend on the conception of\nthe cause (per axiom four,) and hence (per def. three,) it would not be\nsubstance.\n\nVII. It pertains to the nature of substance to exist. Dem. Substance\ncannot be produced by anything else (per coroli. prop, six,) and is\ntherefore the cause of itself--that is (per def. one,) its essence\nnecessarily involves existence; or it pertains to the nature of\nsubstance to exist.--Q. E. D.\n\nVIII. All substance is necessarily infinite. Dem. There exists but one\nsubstance of the same attribute; and it must either exist as infinite or\nfinite. But not finite, for (per def. two) as finite it must be limited\nby another substance of the same nature, and in that case there would be\ntwo substances of the same attributes, which (per prop, five) is absurd.\nSubstance therefore is infinite.--Q. E. D.\n\n\"Scholium I.--I do not doubt but that to all who judge confusedly\nof things, and are not wont to inquire into first causes, it will be\ndifficult to admit the demonstration of prop. 7, because they do not\nsufficiently distinguish between the modifications of substances, and\nsubstances themselves, and are ignorant of the manner in which things\nare produced. Hence it follows, that the commencement which they see\nnatural things have, they attribute to substances; for he who knows not\nthe true cause of things, confounds all things, and feigns that trees\ntalk like men; that men are formed from stones as well as from seeds,\nand that all forms can be changed into all other forms. So, also, those\nwho confound the divine nature with the human, naturally attribute\nhuman affections to God, especially as they are ignorant of how these\naffections are produced in the mind. If men attended to the nature of\nsubstance, they would not, in the least, doubt proposition seven; nay,\nthis proposition would be an axiom to all, and would be numbered among\ncommon notions. For by substance they would understand that which exists\nin itself, and is concerned through itself--_i.e._, the knowledge of\nwhich does not require the knowledge of anything as antecedent to it.\nBut by modification they would understand that which is in another\nthing, the conception of which is formed by the conception of the thing\nin which it is, or to which it belongs. We can have, therefore, correct\nideas of non-existent modifications, because, although out of the\nunderstanding they have no reality, yet their essence is so comprehended\nin that of another, that they can be conceived through this other.\nThe truth of substance (out of the understanding) lies nowhere but in\nitself, because it is conceived _per se_. If therefore any one says\nhe has a clear idea of substance, and yet doubt whether such substance\nexist, this would be as much as to say that he has a true idea, and\nnevertheless doubts whether it be not false (as a little attention\nsufficiently manifests;) or if any man affirms substance to be created,\nhe at the same time affirms that a true idea has become false, than\nwhich nothing can be more absurd. Hence it is necessarily confessed that\nthe existence of substance, as well as its essence, is an eternal truth.\nAnd hence we must conclude that there is only one substance possessing\nthe same attribute, which requires here a fuller development. I note\ntherefore--1. That the correct definition of a thing includes and\nexpresses nothing but the nature of the thing defined. From which\nfollows--2. That no definition includes or expresses a distinct number\nof individuals, because it expresses nothing but the nature of the thing\ndefined; _ergo_, the definition of a triangle expresses no more than the\nnature of a triangle, and not any fixed number of triangles. 3. There\nmust necessarily be a distinct cause for the existence of every existing\nthing. 4. This cause, by reason of which anything exists, must either be\ncontained in the nature and definition of the existing thing (viz., that\nit pertains to its nature to exist,) or else must be beyond it--must be\nsomething different from it.\n\n\"As therefore it pertains to the nature of substance to exist, so must\nits definition include a necessary existence, and consequently from\nits sole definition we must conclude its existence. But as from its\ndefinition, as already shown in notes two and three, it is not possible\nto conclude the existence of many substances--_ergo_, it necessarily\nfollows that only one substance of the same nature can exist.\"\n\nIt will be necessary for the reader to remember that Spinoza commenced\nhis philosophical studies at the same point with Descartes. Both\nrecognized existence as the primal fact, self-evident and indisputable.\n\nBut while Descartes had, in some manner, fashioned a quality--God and\nGod-created substance--Spinoza only found one, substance, the definition\nof which included existence. By his fourth proposition (\"of things which\nhave nothing in common, one cannot be the cause of the other, \") he\ndestroyed the creation theory, because by that theory God is assumed to\nbe a spirit having nothing in common with matter, yet acting on\nmatter; and Lewes speaks of the fourth proposition in the following\nterms:--\"This fallacy has been one of the most influential corrupters\nof philosophical speculation. For many years it was undisputed, and most\nmetaphysicians still adhere to it. The assertion is that only like can\nact upon like; but although it is true that _like_ produces (causes)\n_like_, it is also true that like produces _unlike_; thus fire produces\npain when applied to our bodies; _explosion_ when applied to gunpowder;\n_charcoal_ when applied to wood; all these effects are unlike the\ncause.\" We cannot help thinking that in this instance, the usually\nthoughtful Lewes has either confused substance with its modes, or, for\nthe sake of producing a temporary effect, has descended to mere sophism.\nSpinoza's proposition is, that _substances_ having nothing in common,\ncannot act on one another. Lewes deals with several modes of the same\nsubstance as though they were different substances. Way, more, to\nmake his argument the more plausible, he entirely ignores in it that\n_noumenon_ of which he speaks as underlying all phenomena, and uses each\nphenomenon as a separate existence. In each of the instances mentioned,\nhowever varied may be the modification, the essence is the same. They\nare merely examples of one portion of the whole acting upon another\nportion, and there is that in each mode which is common to the whole,\nand by means of which the action takes place.\n\nMuch has been said of Spinoza's \"God\" and \"Divine Substance,\" and we\nmust refer the reader to Definition Six, in which God is defined as\nbeing \"infinite substance.\" Now, although we should be content to strike\nthe word \"God\" out of our own tablet of philosophical nomenclature, as\nbeing a much misused, misrepresented, and entirely useless word, yet we\nmust be very careful, when we find another man using the word, to get\nhis precise definition, and not to use any-other ourselves while in his\ncompany.\n\nSpinoza, when asked \"What name do you attach to infinite substance?\"\nsays, \"God.\"--If he had said any other word we could not have quarrelled\nwith him so long as he defined the word, and adhered strictly to the\nterms of his definition, although we might regret that he had not either\ncoined a word for himself, or used one less maltreated by the mass.\nSpinoza said, \"I can only take cognizance of one substance (of which\nI am part) having infinite attributes of extension and thought. I\ntake cognizance of substance by its modes, and in my consciousness of\nexistence. Every thing is a mode of the attribute of extension, every\nthought, wish, or feeling, a mode of the attribute of thought. I call\nthis, substance, with infinite attributes, God.\" Spinoza, like all other\nthinkers, found himself overpowered by the illimitable vastness of the\ninfinite when attempting to grasp it by his mental powers, but unlike\nother men he did not endeavor to relieve himself by separating himself\nfrom that infinite; but, knowing he was a part of the whole, not\ndivisible from the remainder, he was content to aim at perfecting his\nknowledge of existence rather than at dogmatising upon an indefinable\nword, which, if it represented anything, professed to represent an\nincomprehensible existence far beyond his reach.\n\nWe ought not to wonder that in many parts of Spinoza's writings we find\nthe word \"God\" treated in a less coherent manner than would be\npossible under the definition given in his \"Ethics,\" and for these\nreasons:--Spinoza, from his cradle upwards, had been surrounded with\nbooks and traditions sanctified by the past, and impressed on his\nwilling mind by his family, his tutors, and the heads of his church; a\nmind like his gathered all that was given, even more quickly than it was\noffered, still craving for more--\"more light\"--\"more light\"--and at last\nlight came bursting on the young thinker like a lightning flash at dark\nmidnight, revealing his mind in chains, which had been cast round him in\nhis nursery, his school, his college, his synagogue. By a mighty\neffort he burst these chains, and walked forth a free man, despite the\nentreaties of his family, the reasonings of the rabbis, the knife of the\nfanatic, the curse of his church, and the edict of the state. But should\nit be a matter of surprise to us that some of the links of those broken\nchains should still hang on the young philosopher, and, seeming to be a\npart of himself, almost imperceptibly incline to old ways of thinking,\nand to old modes of utterance of those thoughts! Wonder not that a few\nlinks bang about him, but rather that he ever succeeded in breaking\nthose chains at all. Spinoza, after his secession from his synagogue,\nbecame logically an Atheist; education and early impressions enlarged\nthis into a less clearly-defined Pantheism; but the logic comes to\nus naked, disrobed of all by which it might have been surrounded in\nSpinoza's mind. If that logic be correct, then all the theologies of\nthe world are false. We have presented it to the reader to judge of\nfor himself. Many men have written against it; of these some have\nmisunderstood, some have misrepresented, some have failed, and few have\nleft us a proof that they had endeavored to deal with Spinoza on his own\nground. Maccall says, \"In the glorious throng of heroic names, there\nare few nobler than Spinoza's. Apart altogether from the estimate we may\nform of his philosophy, there is something unspeakably interesting in\nthe life and the character of the man. In his metaphysical system there\nare two things exceedingly distinct. There is, first, the immense\nand prodigious, but terrible mathematical skeleton, which his subtle\nintellect binds up and throws as calmly into space as we drop a pebble\ninto the water, and whose bones, striking against the wreck of all that\nis sacred in belief, or bold in speculation, rattle a wild response to\nour wildest phantasies, and drive us almost to think in despair that\nthinking is madness; and there is, secondly, the divinest vision of the\ninfinite, and the divinest incense which the intuition of the infinite\never yet poured forth at the altar of creation.\"\n\nThe \"Treatise on Politics\" is not Spinoza's greatest work; it is, in\nall respects, inferior to the \"Ethics,\" and to the \"Theologico-Political\nTreatise.\" But there are in politics certain eternal principles, and it\nis for setting forth and elucidating these that the Treatise of Spinoza\nis so valuable.\n\nIn the second chapter of that Treatise, after defining what he means by\nnature, etc., he, on the sixth section, proceeds as follows:--\"But many\nbelieve that the ignorant disturb more than follow the order of nature,\nand conceive of men in nature as a state within the state. For they\nassert that the human mind has not been produced by any natural causes,\nbut created immediately by God, and thereby rendered so independent of\nother things as to have absolute power of determining itself, and of\nusing reason aright. But experience teaches us more than enough, that it\nis no more in our power to have a sound mind than a sound body. Since,\nmoreover, everything, as far as it is able, strives to conserve its\nbeing, we cannot doubt that if it were equally in our power to live\naccording to the prescripts of reason, as to be led by blind desire,\nall would seek the guidance of reason and live wisely, which is not the\ncase. For every one is the slave of the particular pleasure to which\nhe is most attached. Nor do theologians remove the difficulty when they\nassert that this inability is a vice, or a sin of human nature, which\nderives its origin from the fall of the first parent. For if it was in\nthe power of the first man to stand rather than to fall, and if he was\nsound in faculty, and had perfect control over his own mind, how did it\nhappen that he, the wise and prudent, fell? But they say he was deceived\nand tempted by the devil. But who was it that led astray and tempted\nthe devil himself? Who, I ask, rendered this the most excellent of\nintelligent creatures so mad, that he wished to be greater than God?\nCould he render himself thus mad--he who had a sane mind, and strove as\nmuch as in him lay to conserve his being? How, moreover, could it happen\nthat the first man in possession of his entire mental faculties, and\nmaster of his will, should be both open to temptation, and suffer\nhimself to be robbed of his mind? For if he had the power of using his\nreason aright, he could not be deceived; for as far as in him lay, he\nnecessarily sought to conserve his own being, and the sanity of\nhis mind. But it is supposed he had this in his power, therefore he\nnecessarily conserved his sane mind, neither could he be deceived.\nWhich is evidently false from his history; and, consequently, it must be\ngranted that it was not in the power of the first person to use reason\naright, but that he, like us, was subject to passions.\"\n\nSpinoza is scarcely likely to become a great favorite with the \"Woman's\nRights Convention.\" In his ninth chapter of the same Treatise, he says,\n\"If by nature women were equal to men, and excelled as much as they in\nstrength of mind and in talent, truly amongst nations, so many and\nso different, some would be found where both sexes ruled equally, and\nothers where the men were ruled by the women, and so educated as to\nbe inferior to them in talent; but as this has never happened, we are\njustified in assuming that women, by nature, have not an equal right\nwith men, but that they are necessarily obedient to men, and thus it can\nnever happen that both sexes can equally rule, and still less that men\nbe ruled by women.\"\n\nLewes, in his seventh chapter on Modern Philosophy, thus sums up\nSpinoza's teachings and their result. He says:--\n\n\"The doctrine of Spinoza was of great importance, if for nothing more\nthan having brought about the first crisis in modern philosophy. His\ndoctrine was so clearly stated, and so rigorously deduced from admitted\npremises, that he brought philosophy into this dilemma:--\n\n\"'Either my premises are correct; and we must admit that every clear\nand distinct idea is absolutely true; true not only subjectively, but\nobjectively.\n\n\"'If so, my objection is true;\n\n\"'Or my premises are false; the voice of consciousness is not the voice\nof truth;\n\n\"'And if so, then is my system false, but all philosophy is impossible;\nsince the only ground of certitude--our consciousness--is pronounced\nunstable, our only means of knowing the truth is pronounced\nfallacious.'\"\n\n\"Spinozism or scepticism, choose between them, for you have no other\nchoice.\n\n\"Mankind refused, however, to make a choice. If the principles which\nDescartes had established could have no other result than Spinozism, it\nwas worth while inquiring whether those principles might not themselves\nbe modified.\n\n\"The ground of discussion was shifted, psychology took the place of\nontology. It was Descartes's theory of knowledge which led to Spinozism;\nthat theory must therefore he examined; that theory becomes the great\nsubject of discussion. Before deciding upon the merits of any system\nwhich embraced the great questions of creation, the Deity, immortality,\netc., men saw that it was necessary to decide upon the competency of the\nhuman mind to solve such problems. All knowledge must be obtained either\nthrough experience or independent of experience. Knowledge dependent on\nexperience must necessarily be merely knowledge of _phenomena_. All are\nagreed that experience can only be experience of ourselves as modified\nby objects. All are agreed that to know things _per se--noumena_--we\nmust know them through some other channel then experience. Have we or\nhave we not that other channel? This is the problem.\"\n\n\"Thus, before we can dogmatize upon on to logical subjects, we must\nsettle this question--Can we transcend the sphere of our consciousness,\nand know things _per se_?\"\n\n\"I.\"\n\n\n\n\nANTHONY COLLINS.\n\nFreethought, as developed in the Deistic straggles of the seventeenth\ncentury, had to battle for existence against the Puritanic reaction\nwhich took its second rise from the worn-out licentious age of the last\nof the Stuarts, and that of the no less dangerous (though concealed)\nlibertinism of the Dutch king. A religious rancor also arose which, but\nfor the influence of a new power, would have re-enacted the tragedy of\nreligious persecution. But this rancor became somewhat modified, from\nthe fact that the various parties now were unlike the old schismatics,\nwho were each balanced at the opposite ends of the same pole--extreme\nPapacy on the one hand, and Fifth-monarchists on the other--when\neach oscillation from the Protestant centre deranged the balance of\nenthusiasm, and drove it to the farthest verge of fanaticism, until all\nreligious parties were hurled into one chaos of disunion. Such were the\nfrequent changes of the seventeenth century--but at its close the\npower of Deism had evolved a platform on which was to be fought the\nhostilities of creeds. Here, then, could not exist that commingling of\nsects, which were deducible in all their varied extravagance from the\nBible. Theology had no longer to fight with itself, but with philosophy.\nMetaphysics became the Jehu of opinion, and sought to drive its chariot\nthrough the fables of the saints. The old doctrines had to be re-stated\nto meet new foes. For the Papists, Nonconformists, and Brownists, were\nexcluded to make way for the British Illuminati, who spread as much\nconsternation through England as did the French Encyclop\u00e6dists across\nEurope. The new field of action was only planned, for when Catholicism\nfirst opposed Protestantism, its leaders little thought what a Pandoric\nbox it was opening--nor did the Divines of the latter sect ever\ndoubt the finality of their own doctrines. They wished to replace one\ninfallibility by another. And the same charge can be substantiated\nagainst Deism. When in this Augustan age the Free-thinking leaders,\nfresh from the trammels of Christism, first took the name of Moral\nPhilosophers, they little knew they were paving the way for an Atheism\nthey so much dreaded--a democracy more unbridled than their most\nconstitutional wishes--a political economy to be tried for half a\ncentury, and then to be discarded--a revolutionary fervor which should\nplough up Europe, and then give place to a Communism, which the\nfirst founders of this national agitation would have gazed upon with\namazement, and shrunk from with despair. Such is the progress of change.\nThe rise of the Deistic movement may be defined in a sentence. It was\nthe old struggle of speculative opinion shifting its battle-ground from\ntheology to philosophy, prior to the one being discarded, and the other\ndeveloped into positive science.\n\nAmongst the most distinguished of these reformers, stands the name of\nAnthony Collins.\n\nWho and what he was, we have little opportunity of knowing, save from\nthe scattered notices of contemporaries; but sufficient is left on\nrecord to prove him one of the best of men, and the very Corypheus of\nDeism. The twin questions of Necessity and Prophecy have been examined\nby him perhaps more ably than by any other liberal author. There are\nslight discrepancies in relation to the great events of his life. The\nAbbe Lodivicat says he was born June 21st, 1676, of a rich and noble\nfamily, at Heston, in Middlesex, and was appointed treasurer of the\ncounty; but another account says \"Hounslow,\" which we think was the more\nlikely place. He was educated at Eton and Cambridge. He studied for\nthe bar for sometime, but (being wealthy) ultimately renounced\njurisprudence, while his youthful studies admirably fitted him for\nhis subsequent magisterial duties. He was clever, honest, learned, and\nesteemed by all who knew his character. The elder D'Israeli says, \"that\nhe was a great lover of literature, and a man of fine genius, while his\nmorals were immaculate, and his personal character independent.\"\n\nThe friendship of Locke alone is sufficient to stamp the character of\nCollins with honor, and he was one of the most valued friends of this\ngreat man. In a volume published by P. Des Maizeaux (a writer we shall\nhave occasion to notice) in the year 1720, containing a collection of\nthe posthumous works of Locke, there are several letters addressed to\nCollins which fully substantiate our opinion. Locke was then an old man,\nresiding in the country, and Collins was a young man in London, who took\na pleasure in executing the commissions of his illustrious friend. In\none of them, dated October 29th, 1703, he says--\"If I were now setting\nout in the world, I should think it my greatest happiness to have such a\ncompanion as you, who had a true relish of truth, would in earnest seek\nit with me, from whom I might receive it undisguised, and to whom\nI might communicate what I thought true, freely. Believe it my good\nfriend, to love truth for truth's sake, is the principal part of human\nperfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtue; and,\nif I mistake not, you have as much of it as ever I met with in anybody.\nWhat, then, is there wanting to make you equal to the best--a friend for\nany one to be proud of?\"\n\nDuring the following year the correspondence of Locke appears in a most\ninteresting light--the affectionate inquiries, the kind advice, and the\nmost grateful acknowledgments are made to Collins. On Sept. 11th, Locke\nwrites:--\"He that has anything to do with you, must own that friendship\nis the natural product of your constitution, and your soul, a noble\nsoil, is enriched with the two most valuable qualities of human\nnature--truth and friendship. What a treasure have I then in such a\nfriend with whom I can converse, and be enlightened about the highest\nspeculations!\" On the 1st of October he wrote Collins on his rapid\ndecay, \"But this, I believe, he will assure you, that my infirmities\nprevail so fast on me, that unless you make haste hither, I may lose the\nsatisfaction of ever seeing again a man that I value in the first rank\nof those I leave behind me.\" This was written twenty-seven days before\nhis death. Four days before his decease, he wrote a letter to be given\nto Collins after his death. This document is one of the most important\nin relation to the life of the great Freethinker--it irrefragably proves\nthe falsity of everything that may be alleged against the character of\nCollins:--\n\n\"Oates, August 23, 1704. For Anthony Collins, Esq.\n\n\"Dear Sir--By my will, you will see that I had some kindness for * * *\nAnd I knew no better way to take care of him, than to put him, and what\nI designed for him, into your hands and management. The knowledge I\nhave of your virtues of all kinds, secures the trust, which, by your\npermission, I have placed in you; and the peculiar esteem and love I\nhave observed in the young man for you, will dispose him to be ruled and\ninfluenced by you, so of that I need say nothing. May you live long\nand happy, in the enjoyment of health, freedom, content, and all those\nblessings which Providence has bestowed on, you, and your virtues\nentitle you to. I know you loved me living, and will preserve my memory\nnow I am dead. * * * I leave my best wishes with you.\n\n\"John Locke.\"\n\n\nSuch is the honorable connection which existed between Locke and\nCollins. Collins's first publication was a tract, \"Several of the London\nCases Considered,\" in the year 1700. In 1707, he published an \"Essay\nConcerning the Use of Reason on Propositions, the evidence whereof\ndepends upon Human Testimony;\" \"in which,\" says Dr. Leland, \"there are\nsome good observations, mixed with others of a suspicious nature and\ntendency.\" It principally turned on the Trinitarian controversy then\nraging, and is of little interest now. In this year Collins united\nwith Dodwell in the controversy carried on by Dr. Samuel Clarke. One\nof Clarke's biographers alludes to it thus: \"Dr. Clarke's arguments\nin favor of the immateriality, and consequent immortality of the soul,\ncalled out, however, a far more formidable antagonist than Dodwell,\nin the person of Anthony Collins, an English gentleman of singular\nintellectual acuteness, but, unhappily, of Infidel principles. The\ncontroversy was continued through several short treatises. On the whole,\nthough Clarke, in some instances, laid himself open to the keen and\nsearching dialectics of his gifted antagonist, the victory certainly\nremained with the Divine.\" Of course it is only to be expected that such\nwill be the opinion of an opponent--but it is further proof of Collins's\nability and character. In 1703 appeared his celebrated \"Discourses\nof Freethinking,\" which perhaps created the greatest sensation in the\nreligious world (with the exception of the \"Age of Reason\") of any book\npublished against Christianity. This book is as able a defence of\nthe freedom of the expression of thought without penalty, as was ever\npublished. It is divided into four sections. In the 1st, Freethinking\nis defined--in five arguments. In the 2nd, That it is our duty to\nthink freely on those points of which men are denied the right to think\nfreely: such as of the nature and attributes of God, the truth and\nauthority of Scriptures, and of the meaning of Scriptures, in seven\narguments and eleven instances. The third section is the consideration\nof six objections to Freethinking--from the whole of which he concludes\n(1) That Freethinkers must have more understanding, and that they must\nnecessarily be the most virtuous people. (2) That they have, in fact,\nbeen the most understanding and virtuous people in all ages. Here\nfollows the names of a great number of men whom Collins classified as\nFreethinkers, and of whom we have no reason to be ashamed.\n\nThis book was answered by many divines, but none of them emerged\nfrom the contest with such Christian honors as the famous Dr.\nBentley--considered England's greatest classical scholar. In the same\nyear, the Dr. published his reply under the signature of \"Phileleutheros\nLipsiensis.\" The fame of Bentley was considered equal to Collins's; and\nit has always been represented that this reply completely crushed\nthe Freethinker--nothing could be farther from the truth. Bentley\nprincipally attacked the Greek quotations and denounced Collins for his\nignorance in not putting his (Bentley's) construction on every disputed\nword. For this reply, Bentley received the thanks of the University of\nCambridge. In condition with this work, Collins is also charged with\nwilful deception--which has been reproduced in our own lives by devines\nwho perhaps never read a line of Collins. A French edition of the\n\"Discourse\" was translated under the personal inspection of Collins:\nand it is said that he altered the construction of several sentences\nto evade the charges brought against him by Bentley Dr. Leland is\nparticularly eloquent upon this; and the Rev. Mr. Lorimer, of Glasgow,\ntriumphantly plagiarises the complaint of the men whose defects he can\nonly imitate. There is another charge connected with Bentley and his\nfriends, which it is desirous should be exposed. The elder D'Israeli\nsays:--\"Anthony Collins wrote several well-known works, without\nprefixing his name; but having pushed too far his curious and polemical\npoints, he incurred the odium of a Freethinker--a term which then began\nto be in vogue, and which the French adopted by translating it, in\ntheir way--'a strong thinker,' or _esprit fort_. Whatever tendency\nto 'liberalise' the mind from the dogmas and creeds prevails in these\nworks, the talents and learning of Collins were of the first class. His\nmorals were immaculate, and his personal character independent; but the\n_odium theologicum_ of those days combined every means to stab in the\ndark, till the taste became hereditary with some. I may mention a fact\nof this cruel bigotry which occurred within my own observation, on one\nof the most polished men of the age. The late Mr. Cumberland, in the\nromance entitled his 'Life' gave this extraordinary fact. He said that\nDr. Bentley, who so ably replied to Collins's 'Discourse,' when many\nyears after he discovered him fallen into great distress, conceiving\nthat by having ruined Collins's character as a writer for ever, he had\nbeen the occasion of his personal misery, he liberally contributed to\nhis maintenance. In vain I mentioned to that elegant writer, who was\nnot curious about facts, that this person could never have been Anthony\nCollins, who had always a plentiful fortune; and when it was suggested\nto him that this 'A. Collins' as he printed it, must have been Arthur\nCollins, the historic compiler, who was often in pecuniary difficulties,\nstill he persisted in sending the lie down to posterity, without\nalteration, in his second edition, observing to a friend of mine, that\n'the story, while it told well, might serve as a striking instance of\nhis great relative's generosity; and that it should stand because it\ncould do no harm to any but to Anthony Collins, whom he considered as\nlittle short of an Atheist.'\" Such is a specimen of Christian honor and\njustice.\n\nIn 1715, appeared his \"Philosophical inquiry into Human Liberty.\" Dr.\nClarke was again his opponent. The publication of this work marked an\nepoch in metaphysics. Dugald Stewart, in criticising the discussion on\nMoral Liberty between Clarke and Leibnitz, says, \"But soon after this\ncontroversy was brought to a conclusion by the death of his antagonist,\nhe (Clarke) had to renew the same argument, in reply to his countryman,\nAnthony Collins, who, following the footsteps of Hobbes, with logical\ntalents not inferior to his master (and with a weight of personal\ncharacter in his favor to which his master had no pretensions,) gave to\nthe cause which he so warmly espoused, a degree of credit amongst\nsober and inquiring politicians, which it had never before possessed\nin England.\" The following are the principal arguments of Collins in\nreference to Liberty and Necessity:--\n\nFirst. Though I deny Liberty in a certain meaning of that word, yet I\ncontend for Liberty, as it signifies _a power in man to do as he wills\nor pleases_.\n\nSecondly. When I affirm _Necessity_ I contend only for _moral\nnecessity_; meaning thereby that man, who is an intelligent and sensible\nbeing, is determined by his reason and senses; and I deny any man to\nbe subject to such necessity as is in clocks, watches, and such other\nbeings, which, for want of intelligence and sensation, are subject to an\nabsolute, physical or mechanical necessity.\n\nThirdly, I have undertaken to show, that the notions I advance are so\nfar from being inconsistent with, that they are the sole foundation of\nmorality and laws, and of rewards and punishments in society, and that\nthe notions I explode are subversive of them.\n\nFrom the above premises, Collins sought to show that man is a necessary\nagent. (1) From our experience (through consciousness.) (2) From the\nimpossibility of liberty. (3) From the consideration of the divine\nprescience. (4) From the nature and use of rewards and punishments. (5)\nFrom the nature of morality. Such were the principles on which the great\nquestion of Necessity has ever been advocated--from Hobbes to Collins,\nJonathan Ed wards to Mackintosh and Spencer. In the year 1704 Toland\ndedicated to him a new translation of \u00c6sop's Fables. There are many\nanecdotes respecting Collins inserted in religious magazines, most of\nwhich are false, and all without proof. One of them, related in a most\ncircumstantial manner, appears to be the favorite. It depicts Collins\nwalking out in the country on a Sunday morning, when he meets a\ncountryman returning from Church.\n\n\"Well, Hodge,\" says Collins, \"so you have been enjoying the fresh\nbreezes of nature, this fine morning.\"\n\nThe clown replied that \"he had been worshipping nature's God,\" and\nproved it by repeating the substance of the Athanasian creed. Upon which\nCollins questions him as to the residence of his God: and for a reply is\ntold that his God is so large, that he fills the universe; and so small\nthat he dwells in his breast. This sublime fact, we are told, had more\neffect upon Collins's mind than all the books written against him by the\nclergy. When will sensible men reject such charlatanism?\n\nThe next great work of Collins was his \"Discourse on the Grounds and\nReasons of the Christian Religion,\" in two parts. The first containing\nsome considerations on the quotations made from the Old in the New\nTestament, and particularly on the prophecies cited from the former, and\nsaid to be fulfilled in the latter. The second containing an examination\nof the scheme advanced by Mr. Whiston, in his essay towards restoring\nthe true text of the Old Testament, and for vindicating the citations\nthence made in the New Testament, to which is prefixed an apology for\nfree debate and liberty of writing. This book took the religious world\nby storm; it is even thought it struck more dismay amongst divines\nthan his former essay on Freethink-ing. The book proceeds to show that\nChristianity is not proved by prophecy. That the Apostles relied on the\npredictions in the Old Testament, and their fulfilment in Jesus as\nthe only sure proof of the truth of their religion; if therefore, the\nprophecies are not thoroughly literal, and fulfilled distinctly,\nthere can be no proof in Christianity. He then examines the principal\nprophecies, and dismisses them, as allegorical fables too vague to be of\nany credit. In less than two years no less than thirty-five books\nwere published in reply to this work, written by the ablest and most\ninfluential theologians in England. In 1727 Collins published another\nlarge work, \"The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered,\" in which he\nstill further defends his view principally against the sophistical\nreasoning of Whiston, and finally vanquished the whole of his opponents.\n\nPerhaps no Freethinker, with the single exception of Hobbes, was so\nattacked during his life as Collins. Toland and Woolston were persecuted\nand driven into prison and poverty; but Collins, with his profusion of\nwealth, could oppose Christianity with applause--mingle in the gaiety of\nthe Court--occupy a seat on the magisterial bench--be the welcome guest\nof the most liberal of the aristocracy, contemporary with others who\neven languished in prison for the propagation of similar sentiments.\nSince his day the clergy have grown wiser; then the most trivial\npamphlet on the Deistic side created a consternation amongst the saints,\nand they strove who should be the first to answer it--indeed, it\nwas considered a test of honor amongst the clergy to be eager in the\nexposure of Deism: but this style of warfare was discontinued after the\nlapse of a few years. The most discerning observers discovered that in\nproportion to the answers published against liberal works, the influence\nof the most powerful side decreased. Force, then, gradually interfered,\nand acts of Parliament were considered the only logical refutation of a\nphilosophical heresy. The anomaly of our laws interfered again. Collins\nwas rich, and so must escape the fangs of the law. Thomas Woolston was\npoor, so his vitals were pierced by laws which Collins escaped--yet both\ncommitted the same offence. In later times Gibbon traced the rise of\nChristianity, and about the same time Paine accomplished another portion\nof the same risk--and the Government which prosecuted the plebeian,\nflattered the patrician. But Collins's time was rapidly drawing nigh. On\nthe 13th of December, 1729, he expired, aged fifty-three years; and to\nshow the esteem in which his character was held, the following notice\nwas inserted in the newspapers of the day--all hostile to his views,\nyet striving to make it appear that he was, after all, not so great an\nInfidel as his reputation honored him with:--\"On Saturday last, died at\nhis house in Harley Square, Anthony Collins, Esq. He was a remarkably\nactive, up right, and impartial magistrate, the tender husband the kind\nparent, the good master, and the true friend He was a great promoter of\nliterature in all its branch es; and an immoveable asserter of universal\nliberty in all civil and religious matters. Whatever his sentiments\nwere on certain points, this is what he declared at the time of his\ndeath--viz., that he had always endeavored, to the best of his ability,\nto serve God, his king, and his country, so he was persuaded he was\ngoing to that place which God hath prepared for them that serve him, and\npresently afterwards he said, the Catholic religion is to serve God and\nroan. He was an eminent example of temperance and sobriety, and one that\nhad the true art of living. His worst enemies could never charge him\nwith any vice or immorality.\" With this character the Freethinkers have\nno right to be dissatisfied. The Abbe Lodivicat says, \"His library was\ncurious and valuable; always open to the learned, even to his opponents,\nwhom he furnished with pleasure, both with books and arguments, which\nwere employed in confuting him.\" Mr. D'Israeli says he has seen\na catalogue of Collins's library, elaborately drawn up in his own\nhandwriting, and it must have contained a splendid selection of books.\nThis is proved by the correspondence with Locke, and the extensive\nnumber of quotations spread throughout his published works.\n\nBy the death of Collins, and the defalcation of one who abused the name\nof a Deist, the cause of Free-thought was impeded at the time when it\nmost needed assistance. Collins had written a great number of tracts\nand larger works, intending them to be published after his death: one\ncollection of eight octavo volumes of manuscript containing the attacks\nupon Christianity, by which he intended his name to be transmitted to\nposterity, were all arranged ready for publication as his posthumous\nworks. To ensure their credit-able appearance, and to reward a man\nwhom he had thought worthy of confidence, and one who professed to be a\ndisciple of Collins, he bequeathed them to Des Maizeaux, then a popular\nauthor and editor. He had edited the correspondence of Locke and\nCollins, written the lite of Bayle, and subsequently edited Toland. The\nidea of Collins was to give his work to Des Maizeaux for a recompense\nfor the trouble of publishing them, while he would derive the whole\nprofits of their sale, which no doubt would be very large. It appears\nthat the widow of Collins was much younger than himself--in league with\nthe Church of England; and was in rather a suspicious friendship with\nmore than one clerical antagonist of her late husband. Des Maizeaux\nbeing worked upon conjointly by Mrs. Collins and a person named\nTomlinson, was induced to accept a present of fifty guineas, and\nrelinquished the possession of the manuscripts. It was not long,\nhowever, before his conscience accused him of the great wrong done to\nthe memory of his benefactor, and to the Free-thinking cause. His regret\nwas turned into the most profound compunction for his crime; and in this\nstate of mind he wrote a long letter to one who had been a mutual friend\nto Collins and himself, acknowledging that he had done \"a most wicked\nthing,\" saying--\"I am convinced that I have acted contrary to the will\nand intention of my dear deceased friend; showed a disregard to the\nparticular mark of esteem he gave me on that occasion; in short, that\nI have forfeited what is dearer to me than my own life--honor and\nreputation.... I send you the fifty guineas I received, which I do now\nlook upon as the wages of iniquity, and I desire you to return them to\nMrs. Collins, who, as I hope it of her justice, equity, and regard to\nMr. Collinses intentions, will be pleased to cancel my paper.\"\n\nThis appeal (which proved that Des Maizeaux, if he was weak-minded, was\nnot absolutely dishonest) had no effect on Mrs. Collins. The manuscripts\nwere never returned. What their contents were, no one now can inform us.\nWe are justified, however, in supposing that as those eight volumes were\nthe crowning efforts of a mind which in its youth was brilliant in no\ncommon degree, must have been even superior to those books which roused\nEngland from its dreamy lethargy, and brought about a revolution\nin controversy. Whether they touched upon miracles, or the external\nevidences, or the morals of Christism, is unknown. The curtain was\ndrawn over the scene of demolition. Seven years after this time the\ncontroversy was reopened by Mrs. Collins, in the year 1737, on account\nof a report being current that Mrs. C. had permitted transcripts of\nthose manuscripts to get abroad. The widow wrote some very sharp letters\nto Des Maizeaux, and he replied in a tone which speaks faithfully of the\naffection he still bore to Collins's memory. He concludes thus:--\"Mr.\nCollins loved me and esteemed me for my integrity and sincerity, of\nwhich he had several proofs. How I have been drawn in to injure him,\nto forfeit the good opinion he had of me, and which, were he now alive,\nwould deservedly expose me to his utmost contempt, is a grief which I\nshall carry to the grave. It would be a sort of comfort to me if those\nwho have consented I should be drawn in, were in some measure sensible\nof the guilt towards so good, kind, generous a man.\"\n\nSuch is an epitome of the secret history of the MSS. of Anthony Collins.\nIf we look at the fate of the MSS. of other Deists, we shall have good\nreasons for believing that some of the ablest writings, meant to give a\nposthumous reputation to their authors, have disappeared into the hands\nof either ignorant or designing persons. Five volumes, at least, of\nToland's works, meant for publication, were, by his death, irretrievably\nlost. Blount's MSS. never appeared. Two volumes of Tindall's were seized\nby the Bishop of London, and destroyed. Woolston's MSS. met with no\nbetter fate. Chubb carefully prepared his works, and published them in\nhis lifetime. Bolingbroke made Mallet his confidant, as Collins did by\nDes Maizeaux. The name of St. John produced \u00a310,000 to Mallet; but those\nworks were left with the tacit acknowledge ment that the Scotch poet\nshould write a suitable life of the peer. The letter of Mallet to\nLord Cornbury can only be compared to an invitation for a bid for the\nsuppression of the \"Philosophical Works\" of St. John; and if this was\nnot sufficient, we need only instance the apparent solicitation with\nwhich he stopped a well-known influential dignitary of the church on the\nday when the works were to appear, by pulling out his watch, and saying,\n\"My Lord, Christianity will tremble at a quarter to twelve.\" We may\nbe thankful to the pecuniary poverty of our opponents even for the\npossession of the first philosophy. Some of Hume's and Gibbon's works\nhave not yet appeared. The MSS. of most of the minor Freethinkers\ndisappeared with their authors. There is no doubt but what Robert Taylor\nleft some valuable writings which cannot be recovered. Such is the\nfeeble chance of great men's writings being published when they are no\nlonger alive.\n\nWith regard to the literary claims of Collins. His works are logically\ncomposed and explicitly worded. He invariably commences by stating the\ngroundwork of his opponent's theories, and from them deduces a great\nnumber of facts and axioms of a contrary character, and upon those\nbuilds his whole chain of argument. He is seldom witty--never uses the\nflowers of rhetoric, combining a most rigid analysis with a synthetic\nscheme, admitting but of one unswerving end. He was characteristically\ngreat in purpose. He avoided carrying forward his arguments beyond\nthe basis of his facts. Whether in treating the tangled intricacies\nof necessity, or the theological quagmires of prophecy, he invariably\nexplained without confusing, and refuted without involving other\nsubjects than those legitimately belonging to the controversy. His style\nof writing was serious, plain, and without an undue levity, yet withal\nperfectly readable. Men studied Collins who shrunk from contact with\nthe lion-hearted Woolston, whose brusque pen too often shocked those\nit failed to convince. There was a timidity in many of the letters of\nBlount, and a craving wish to rely more on the witticisms of Brown, than\nwas to be found in the free and manly spirit of our hero. To the general\npublic, the abstruse speculations of the persecuted Toland were a\nbarrier which his many classical allusions only heightened; and the\nmusical syllables of Shaftesbury, with his style, at once so elevated,\nso pompous, and so quaint; or the political economic doctrines of\nMandeville, all tended to exalt the name of Collins above those of his\ncontemporaries and immediate successors; and posterity cannot fail to\nplace his bust in that historic niche betwixt Hobbes--his master on one\nhand--and Bolingbroke, his successor on the other. From the great\nSt. John has descended in the true apostolical descent the mantle of\nFree-thought upon Hume, Gibbon, Paine, Godwin, Carlile, Taylor, and\nOwen. And amongst this brilliant galaxy of genius, no name is more\ndeserving of respect than that of Anthony Collins.\n\nA. C.\n\n\n\n\nDES CARTES.\n\nRene des Cartes Duperron, better known as Des Cartes, the father of\nmodern philosophy, was born at La Haye, in Touraine, of Breton parents,\nnear the close of the sixteenth century, at a time when Bacon was like\nthe morning sun, rising to shed new rays of bright light over the then\ndark world of philosophy. The mother of Des Cartes died while he was but\na few days old, and himself a sickly child, he began to take part in\nthe battle of life with but little appearance of ever possessing the\ncapability for action on the minds of his fellows, which he afterwards\nso fully exercised. Debarred, however, by his physical weakness from\nmany boyish pursuits, he devoted himself to study in his earliest years,\nand during his youth gained the title of the young philosopher, from\nhis eagerness to learn, and from his earnest endeavors by inquiry\nand experiment to solve every problem presented to his notice. He was\neducated in the Jesuits' College of La Fl\u00e8che; and the monument erected\nto him at Stockholm informs us, \"That having mastered all the learning\nof the schools, which proved short of his expectations, he betook\nhimself to the army in Germany and Hungary, and there spent his vacant\nwinter hours in comparing the mysteries and phenomena of nature with the\nlaws of mathematics, daring to hope that the one might serve as a key\nto the other. Quitting, therefore, all other pursuits, he retired to a\nlittle village near Egmont, in Holland, where spending twenty-five years\nin continual reading and meditation, he effected his design.\"\n\nIn his celebrated \"Discourse on Method,\" he says,--\"As soon as my age\npermitted me to leave my preceptors, I entirely gave up the study of\nletters; and, resolving to seek no other science than that which I could\nfind in myself, or else in the great book of the world, I employed\nthe remainder of my youth in travel--in seeing courts and camps--in\nfrequenting people of diverse humors and conditions--in collecting\nvarious experiences; and, above all, in endeavoring to draw some\nprofitable reflection from what I saw. For it seemed to me that I should\nmeet with more truth in the reasonings which each man makes in his own\naffairs, and which, if wrong, would be speedily punished by failure,\nthan in those reasonings which the philosopher makes in his study upon\nspeculations which produce no effect, and which are of no consequence\nto him, except perhaps that he will be the more vain of them, the more\nremote they are from common sense, because he would then have been\nforced to employ more ingenuity and subtlety to render them plausible.\"\n\nAt the age of thirty-three Des Cartes retired from the world for a\nperiod of eight years, and his seclusion was so effectual during that\ntime, that his place of residence was unknown to his friends. He there\nprepared the \"Meditations,\" and \"Discourse on Method,\" which have since\ncaused so much pen-and-ink warfare amongst those who have aspired to\nbe ranked as philosophical thinkers. He became European in fame; and,\ninvited by Christina of Sweden, he visited her kingdom, but the rudeness\nof the climate proved too much for his delicate frame, and he died\nat Stockholm in the year 1650, from inflammation of the lungs, being\nfifty-four years of age at the time of his death.\n\nDes Cartes was perhaps the most original thinker that France had up\nto that date produced; and, contemporary with Bacon, he exercised a\npowerful influence or the progress of thought in Europe; but although a\ngreat thinker, he was not a brave man, and the fear of giving offence\nto the church and government, has certainly prevented him from making\npublic some of his writings, and perhaps has toned down some of these\nthoughts which, when first uttered, took a higher flight, and struck\nfull home to the truth itself.\n\nThe father and founder of the deductive method, Des Cartes still proudly\nreigns to the present day, although some of his conclusions have\nbeen over-turned, and others of his thinkings have been carried to\nconclusions which he never dared to dream of. He gave a strong aid to\nthe tendency of advancing civilization, to separate philosophy from\ntheology, thereby striking a blow, slow in its effect, and effectual in\nits destructive operation, on all priestcraft. In his dedication ol the\n\"Meditations,\" he says,--\"I have always thought that the two questions\nof the existence of God and the nature of the soul, were the chief\nof those which ought to be demonstrated rather by philosophy than by\ntheology; for although it is sufficient for us, the faithful, to believe\nin God, and that the soul does not perish with the body, it does not\nseem possible ever to persuade the Infidels to any religion, unless we\nfirst prove to them these two things by natural reason.\"\n\nHaving relinquished faith, he found that he must choose an entirely new\nfaith in which to march with reason; the old ways were so cumbered with\npriests and Bibles, that progression would have been impossible. This\ngave us his method. He wanted a starting point from which to reason,\nsome indisputable fact upon which to found future thinkings.\n\n\"He has given us the detailed history of his doubts. He has told us how\nhe found that he could, plausibly enough, doubt of everything except\nhis own existence. He pushed his scepticism to the verge of\nself-annihilation. There he stopped: there in self, there in his\nconsciousness, he found at last an irresistible fact, an irreversible\ncertainty. Firm ground was discovered. He could doubt the existence\nof the external world, and treat it as a phantasm. He could doubt the\nexistence of God, and treat the belief as a superstition. But of the\nexistence of his own thinking, doubting mind, no sort of doubt was\npossible. He, the doubter, existed if nothing else existed. The\nexistence that was revealed to him in his own consciousness, was the\nprimary fact, the first indubitable certainty. Hence his famous _Cogito\nergo Sum_: I think, therefore I am.\" (_Lewes's Bio. Hist. Phil._)\n\nProceeding from the certainty of his existence, Des Cartes endeavors\nto rind other equally certain tacts, and for that purpose presents\nthe following doctrine and rules for our guidance:--The basis of all\ncertitude is consciousness, consciousness is the sole foundation of\nabsolute certainty, whatever it distinctly proclaims must be true.\nThe process is, therefore, rendered clear and simple: examine your\nconsciousness--each distinct reply will be a fact.\n\nHe tells us further that all clear ideas are true--that whatever is\nclearly and distinctly conceived is true--and in these lie the vitality\nof his system, the cause of the truth or error of his thinkings.\n\nThe following are the rules he gave us for the detection and separation\nof true ideas from false, (_i.e._, imperfect or complex):--\n\n\"1. Never to accept anything as true but what is evidently so; to admit\nnothing but what so clearly and distinctly presents itself as true, that\nthere can be no reason to doubt it.\n\n\"2. To divide every question into as many separate parts as possible,\nthat each part being more easily conceived, the whole may be more\nintelligible.\n\n\"3. To conduct the examination with order, beginning by that of objects\nthe most simple, and therefore the easiest to be known, and ascending\nlittle by little up to knowledge of the most complex.\n\n\"4. To make such exact calculations, and such circumspections as to be\nconfident that nothing essential has been omitted. Consciousness being\nthe basis of all certitude, everything of which you are clearly and\ndistinctly conscious must be true: everything which you clearly and\ndistinctly conceive, exists, if the idea of it involve existence.\"\n\nIn these four rules we have the essential part of one half of Des\nCartes's system, the other, which is equally important, is the attempt\nto solve metaphysical problems by mathematical aid. To mathematics he\nhad devoted much of his time. He it was who, at the age of twenty three,\nmade the grand discovery of the applicability of algebra to geometry.\nWhile deeply engaged in mathematical studies and investigations, he\ncame to the conclusion that mathematics were capable of a still further\nsimplification, and of much more extended application. Impressed with\nthe certainty of the conclusions arrived at by the aid of mathematical\nreasoning, he began to apply mathematics to metaphysics.\n\nHis ambition was to found a system which should be solid and\nconvincing. Having searched for certitude, he had found _its basis_ in\nconsciousness; he next wanted a _method_, and hoped he had found it in\nmathematics.\n\nHe tells us that \"those long chains of reasoning, all simple and\neasy, by which geometers used to arrive at their most difficult\ndemonstrations, suggested to him that all things which came within human\nknowledge, must follow each other in a similar chain; and that provided\nwe abstain from admitting anything as true which is not so, and that\nwe always preserve in them the order necessary to deduce one from the\nother, there can be none so remote to which we cannot finally attain,\nnor so obscure but that we may discover them.\"\n\nActing out this, he dealt with metaphysics as we should with a problem\nfrom Euclid, and expected by rigorous reasoning to discover the truth.\nHe, like Archimedes, had wished for a standing place from which to use\nthe lever, that should overturn the world; but, having a sure standing\nplace in the indubitable fact of his own existence, he did not possess\nsufficient courage to put forth the mighty power--it was left for one\nwho came after him to fairly attempt the over-throw of the world of error\nso long existent.\n\nCartesianism was sufficiently obnoxious to the divines to provoke\ntheir wrath; and yet, from some of its peculiarities, it has found many\nopponents amongst the philosophical party. The Cartesian philosophy\nis founded on two great principles, the one metaphysical, the other\nphysical. The metaphysical is Des Cartes's foundation-stone--the \"I\nthink, therefore I am.\" This has been warmly attacked as not being\nlogical. Des Cartes said his existence was a fact--a fact above and\nbeyond all logic; logic could neither prove nor disprove it. The _Cogito\nergo Sum_ was not new itself, but it was the first stone of a new\nbuilding--the first step in a new road: from this fact Des Cartes tried\nto reach another, and from that others.\n\nThe physical principle is that nothing exists but substance, which\nhe makes of two kinds--the one a substance that thinks, the other a\nsubstance extended. Actual thought and actual extension are the essence\nof substance, so that the thinking substance cannot be without some\nactual thought, nor can anything be retrenched from the extension of a\nthing, without taking away so much of its actual substance.\n\nIn his physical speculations, Des Cartes has allowed his imagination\nto run very wild. His famous theory of vortices is an example of\nthis. Assuming extension to be the essence of substance, he denied the\npossibility of a vacuum by that assumption; for if extension be the\nessence of substance, wherever extension is, there substance must be.\nThis substance he assumes to have originally been divided into equal\nangular particles, each endowed with an equal degree of motion; several\nsystems or collections of these particles he holds to have a motion\nabout certain equidistant points, or centres, and that the particles\nmoving round these composed so many vortices. These angular particles,\nby their intestine motions, he supposes to become, as it were, ground\ninto a spherical form; the parts rubbed off are called matter of the\nfirst element, while the spherical globules he calls matter of the\nsecond element; and since there would be a large quantity of this\nelement, he supposes it to be driven towards the centre of each vortex\nby the circular motion of the globules, and that there it forms a large\nspherical body such as the suu. This sun being thus formed, and\nmoving about its own axis with the common matter of the vortex, would\nnecessarily throw out some parts of its matter, through the vacuities\nof the globules of the second element constituting the vortex; and this\nespecially at such places as are farthest from its poles: receiving, at\nthe same time in, by these poles, as much as it loses in its equatorial\nparts. And, by these means, it would be able to carry round with it\nthose globules that are nearest, with the greater velocity; and the\nremoter, with less. And, further: those globules which are nearest the\ncentre of the sun, must be smallest; because, were they greater,\nor equal, they would, by reason of their velocity, have a greater\ncentrifugal force, and recede from the centre. If it should happen that\nany of these sun-like bodies, in the centres of the several vortices,\nshould be so in-crusted and weakened, as to be carried about in the\nvortex of the true sun: if it were of less solidity, or had less motion\nthan the globules towards the extremity of the solar vortex, it would\ndescend towards the sun, till it met with globules of the same solidity,\nand susceptible of the same degree of motion with itself* and thus,\nbeing fixed there, it would be for ever after carried about by the\nmotion of the vortex, without either approaching any nearer to, or\nreceding from the sun, and so become a planet. Supposing, then, all\nthis, we are next to imagine that our system was at first divided into\nseveral vortices, in the centre of each of which was a lucid spherical\nbody; and that some of these being gradually incrustated, were swallowed\nup by others which were larger, and more powerful, till at last they\nwere all destroyed and swallowed up by the biggest solar vortex,\nexcept some few which were thrown off in right lines from one vortex to\nanother, and so became comets. It should also be added, that in addition\nto the two elements mentioned above, those particles which may yet\nexist, and be only in the course of reduction to their globular form an\nit still retain their angular proportions, form a third element.\n\nThis theory has found many opponents; but in this state of our work\nwe conceive our duty to be that of giving a simple narrative of the\nphilosopher's ideas, rather than a history of the various criticisms\nupon those ideas, the more especially as our pages scarcely afford room\nfor such a mode of treatment.\n\nHaving formed his method, Des Cartes proceeded to apply it. The basis\nof certitude being consciousness, he interrogated his consciousness, and\nfound that he had an idea of a substance infinite, eternal, immutable,\nindependent, omniscient, omnipotent. This he called an idea of God:\nhe said, \"I exist as a miserably imperfect finite being, subject to\nchange--ignorant, incapable of creating anything--I find by my finitude\nthat I am not the infinite; by my liability to change that I am not the\nimmutable; by my ignorance that I am not the omniscient: in short, by\nmy imperfection, that I am not the perfect. Yet an infinite,\nimmutable, omniscient, and perfect being must exist, because infinity,\nimmutability, omniscience, and perfection are applied as correlatives in\nmy ideas of finitude, change, etc. God therefore exists: his existence\nis clearly proclaimed in my consciousness, and therefore ceases to be\na matter of doubt any more than the fact of my own existence. The\nconception of an infinite being proved his real existence, for if there\nis not really such a being I must have made the conception; but if\nI could make it I can also unmake it, which evidently is not true;\ntherefore there must be externally to myself, an archetype from which\nthe conception was derived.\".... \"All that we clearly and distinctly\nconceive as contained in anything is true of that thing.\"\n\n\"Now, we conceive clearly and distinctly that the existence of God is\ncontained in the idea we have of him: ergo--God exists.\"--(_Lewes's Bio.\nHist. Phil._)\n\nDes Cartes was of opinion that his demonstrations of the existence of\nGod \"equal or even surpass in certitude the demonstrations of geometry.\"\nIn this opinion we must confess we cannot share. He has already told\nus that the basis of all certitude is consciousness--that whatever\nis clearly and distinctly conceived, must be true--that imperfect and\ncomplex conceptions are false ones. The first proposition, all must\nadmit, is applicable to themselves. I conceive a fact clearly and\ndistinctly, and, despite all resistance, am compelled to accept that\nfact; and if that fact be accepted beyond doubt, no higher degree of\ncertainty can be attained, That two and two are four--that I exist--are\nfacts which I never doubt. The _Cogito ergo Sum_ is irresistible,\nbecause indubitable; but _Cogito ergo Deus est_ is a sentence requiring\nmuch consideration, and upon the face of it is no syllogism, but, on the\ncontrary, is illogical. If Des Cartes meant \"I\" am conscious that I am\nnot the whole of existence, he would be indisputable; but if he meant\nthat \"I\" can be conscious of an existence entirely distinct, apart from,\nand external to, that very consciousness, then his whole reasoning from\nthat point appears fallacious.\n\nWe use the word \"I\" as given by Des Cartes. Mill, in his \"System of\nLogic,\" says, \"The ambiguity in this case is in the pronoun I, by which\nin one place is to be understood _my will_: in another _the laws of\nmy nature_. If the conception, existing as it does in my mind, had no\noriginal without, the conclusion would unquestionably follow that '1'\nhad made it--that is, that the laws of my nature had spontaneously\nevolved it; but that my _will_ made it would not follow. Now, when Des\nCartes afterwards adds that I cannot unmake the conception, he means\nthat I cannot get rid of it by an act of my will, which is true; but is\nnot the proposition required. That what some of the laws of my nature\nhave produced, other laws, or those same laws in other circumstances,\nmight not subsequently efface, he would have found it difficult to\nestablish.\"\n\nTreating the existence of God as demonstrated from the _a priori_ idea\nof perfection and infinity, and by the clearness of his idea of God's\nexistence, Des Cartes then proceeds to deal with the distinction between\nbody and soul. To prove this distinction was to him an easy matter.\nThe fundamental and essential attribute of substance must be extension,\nbecause we can denude substance of every quality but that of extension;\nthis we cannot touch without at the same time affecting the substance..\nThe fundamental attribute of mind is thought; it is in the act of\nthinking that the consciousness of existence is revealed; to be without\nthought would be to be without consciousness.\n\nDes Cartes has given us, among others, the axiom \"That two substances\nare really distinct when their ideas are complete, and no way imply each\nother. The idea of extension is complete and distinct from the idea of\nthought, which latter is also clear and distinct by itself. It follows,\ntherefore, that substance and mind are distinct in essence.\"\n\nDes Cartes has, from the vagueness of some of his statements, subjected\nhimself to the charge of asserting the existence of innate ideas,\nand the following quotations will speak for themselves on the\nsubject:--\"When I said that the idea of God is innate in us, I never\nmeant more than this, that Nature has endowed us with a faculty by which\nwe may know God; but I have never either said or thought that such ideas\nhad an actual existence, or even that they were a species distinct from\nthe faculty of thinking.... Although the idea of God is so imprinted on\nour minds, that every person has within him the faculty of knowing him,\nit does not follow that there may not have been various individuals who\nhave passed through life without ever making this idea a distinct object\nof apprehension; and, in truth, they who think they have an idea of a\nplurality of Gods, have no idea of God whatever.\" This seems explicit\nas negativing the charge of holding the doctrine of innate ideas; but in\nthe _Edinburgh Review_ several passages are given, amongst which is\nthe following:--\"By the word idea I understand all that can be in our\nthoughts; and I distinguish three sorts of ideas--adventitious, like\nthe common idea of the sun, framed by the mind, such as that which\nastronomical reasoning gives of the sun; and innate, as the idea of God,\nmind, body, a triangle, and generally all those which represent true,\nimmutable, and eternal essences.\" With regard to these rather opposite\nstatements, Lewes says, \"If Des Cartes, when pressed by objections, gave\ndifferent explanations, we must only set it down to a want of a steady\nconception of the vital importance of innate ideas to his system. The\nfact remains that innate ideas form the necessary groundwork of the\nCartesian doctrine.... The radical error of all ontological speculation\nlies in the assumption that we have ideas independent of experience;\nbecause experience can only tell us of ourselves or of phenomena; of\nnoumena it can tell us nothing.... The fundamental question, then, of\nmodern philosophy is this--Have we any ideas independent of experience?\"\n\nDes Cartes's disciples are of two classes, the \"mathematical cultivators\nof physic,\" and the \"deductive cultivators of philosophy.\" The first\nclass of disciples are far in advance of their chief, and can only be\nconsidered as having received an impulse in a true direction. The\nsecond class unhesitatingly accepted his principles, and continued his\nthinking, although they developed his system in a different manner, and\narrived at stronger conclusions than Des Cartes's courage would have\nsupported. Some of the physical speculations of Des Cartes have been\nmuch ridiculed by subsequent writers; but many reasons may be urged, not\nonly against that ridicule, but also against the more moderate censure\nwhich several able critics have dealt out against the intellectual\ncharacter of Des Cartes. It should be remembered that the theories of\nall his predecessors were mere conjectural speculations respecting the\nplaces and paths of celestial bodies, etc. Innumerable hypotheses had\nbeen formed and found useless; and we ought rather to look to what Des\nCartes did accomplish under the many difficulties of his position,\nin respect to the then, state of scientific knowledge, than to judge\nharshly of those speculations, which, though attended with no beneficial\nresult to humanity at large, were doubtless well intended by their\nauthor. He was the first man who brought optical science under the\ncommand of mathematics, by the discovery of the law of refraction of the\nordinary ray through diaphanous bodies; and probably there is scarcely\na name on record, the bearer of which has given a greater impulse to\nmathematical and philosophical inquiry than Des Cartes. Although, as a\nmathematician, he published but little, yet in every subject which he\nhas treated he has opened, not only a new field lor investigation, but\nalso a new road for the investigators to proceed by. His discovery of\nthe simple application of the notation of indices to algebraical powers,\nhas totally remodelled the whole science of algebra. His conception of\nexpressing the fundamental property of curve lines and curve surfaces\nby equations between the co-ordinates has led to an almost total\nsupersedence of the geometry of the ancients. Contemporary with Galileo,\nand with a knowledge of the persecution to which that father of physics\nwas being subjected by the Church, we are tempted to express our\nsurprise that Des Cartes did not extend the right hand of fellowship,\nhelp, and sympathy to his brother philosopher; but it is, nevertheless,\nthe fact, that either jealous of the fame of Galileo (as some have\nalleged.) or from a fear of being involved in the same persecutions, Des\nCartes abstained from visiting the astronomer, although travelling for\nsome time near his place of abode in Italy. Lewes, in his \"Life of Des\nCartes,\" says, \"Des Cartes was a great thinker; but having said this\nwe have almost exhausted the praise we can bestow on him as a man. In\ndisposition he was timid to servility. While promulgating the proofs\nof the existence of the Deity, he was in evident alarm lest the Church\nshould see something objectionable in them. He had also written an\nastronomical treatise; but hearing of the fate of Galileo he refrained\nfrom publishing, and always used some chicanery in speaking of\nthe world's movement. He was not a brave man; he was also not an\naffectionate one. There was in him a deficiency of all finer feelings.\nBut he was even-tempered, and studious of not giving offence.\"\n\nWe are tempted, after a careful perusal of the life and writings of Des\nCartes and his contemporaries, to be of opinion that he was a man who\nwished to be considered the chief thinker of his day, and who shunned\nand rejected the offers of friendship from other philosophers, lest\nthey, by being associated with him, should jointly wear laurels which\nhe was cultivating solely to form a crown for himself. Despite all, his\nbrow still bears a crown, and his fame has a freshness that we might all\nbe justly proud of, if appertaining to ourselves.\n\nWe trust that in these few pages we have succeeded in presenting Des\nCartes, to such of our readers who were unacquainted with his writings,\nsufficiently well to enable them to appreciate him, and to induce\nthem to search further; and at the same time we hope that those better\nacquainted with him will not blame as for the omission of much which\nthey may consider more important than the matter which appears in this\nlittle tract. We have endeavored to picture Des Cartes as the founder\nof the deductive method, as having the foundation-stone of all his\nreasoning in his consciousness.\n\n\"I\"\n\n\n\n\nM. DE VOLTAIRE.\n\nFran\u00e7ois Marie Arouet, better known by the name of Voltaire, was born\nat Chatenay, on the 20th of February, 1694. By assuming the name of\nVoltaire, young Arouet followed the custom, at that time generally\npracticed by the rich citizens and younger sons, who, leaving the family\nname to the heir, assumed that of a fief, or perhaps of a country house.\nThe father of M. de Voltaire was treasurer to the Chamber of Accounts,\nand his mother, Margaret d'Aumart, was of a noble family of Poitou. The\nfortune which the father enjoyed, enabled him to bestow a first-class\neducation upon the young Arouet, who was sent to the Jesuits' College,\nwhere the sons of the nobility received their education. While at\nschool, Voltaire began to write poetry, and gave signs of a remarkable\ngenius. His tutors, Fathers Poree and Jay, from the boldness and\nindependence of his mind predicted that he would become the apostle of\nDeism in France. This prediction he fulfilled. \"Voltaire was,\" says Lord\nBrougham, \"through his whole life, a sincere believer in the existence\nand attributes of the Deity. He was a firm and decided, and an openly\ndeclared unbeliever in Christianity; but he was, without any hesitation\nor any intermission, a Theist.\" His open declaration of disbelief in\nthe inspiration of the Bible, and his total rejection of the dogmas\nof Christianity, laid him open to the malignant attacks and\nmisrepresentations of the priesthood and the bigots of Europe; and\nso strong were they, that his life was continually in danger.\nLord Brougham, in his \"Men of Letters of the Time of George III..\"\nsays:--\"Voltaire's name is so intimately connected in the minds of all\nmen with Infidelity, in the minds of most men with irreligion, and, in\nthe minds of all who are not well-informed, with these qualities alone,\nthat whoever undertakes to write his life and examine his claims to the\nvast reputation which all the hostile feelings excited by him against\nhimself have never been able to destroy, or even materially to impair,\nhas to labor under a great load of prejudice, and can hardly expect, by\nany detail of particulars, to obtain for his subject even common justice\nat the hands of the general reader.\"\n\nVoltaire was born in a corrupt age, and in a capital where it was\nfashionable to be immoral. When he left College, he was introduced by\nhis own godfather, the Abbe de Chateauneuf, to the notorious Ninon de\nl'Enclos, who, at her death, left him by will two thousand livres\nto purchase books. In estimating the character of Voltaire, a due\nconsideration must be had for the period in which he lived, and of the\nnature of the society amidst which he was reared. He lived twenty, years\nunder the reign of Louis XIV., and during the whole of the reign of the\ninfamous Louis XV., when kings, courtiers, and priests set the example\nof the grossest immorality. It was then, as Voltaire said, \"that to make\nthe smallest fortune, it was better to say four words to the mistress of\na king, than to write a hundred volumes.\"\n\nVoltaire's life, from his youth upwards, was a stormy one. After he left\nCollege, his father, finding him persist in writing poetry, and living\nat large, forbade him his house. He insisted upon his son binding\nhimself to an attorney. But his restless disposition quite unfitted him\nfor regular employment, and he soon quitted the profession. He early made\nthe acquaintance of the most celebrated men of his time, but his genius,\nhis wit, and his sarcasm, soon raised up numerous enemies. At the age of\ntwenty-two, he was accused of having written a satire upon Louis XIV.,\nwho was just dead, and was thrown into the Bastile. But he was not cast\ndown. It was here that he sketched his poem of the \"League,\" corrected\nhis tragedy of \"Oedipus,\" and wrote some merry verses on the\nmisfortune, of being a prisoner. The Regent, Duke of Orleans, being\ninformed of his innocence, restored him to freedom, and granted him a\nrecompense. \"I thank your royal highness,\" said Voltaire, \"for having\nprovided me with food; but I hope you will not hereafter trouble\nyourself concerning my lodging.\"\n\nVoltaire, with his activity of mind, and living to so great an age,\nmust necessarily produce many works. They are voluminous, consisting of\nhistory, poetry, and philosophy. His dramatic pieces are numerous, many\nof which are considered second only to Shakespeare's. \"Oedipus,\" \"Zadig,\"\n\"Ing\u00e9nu,\" \"Zaire,\" \"Henri-ade,\" \"Irene,\" \"Tancred,\" \"Mahomet,\"\n\"Merope,\" \"Saul,\" \"Alzire,\" \"Le Fanatisme,\" \"Mariamne,\" \"Gaston de\nFoix,\" \"Enfant Prodigue,\" \"Pucelle d'Orl\u00e9ans,\" an essay on \"Fire,\" the\n\"Elements,\" \"History of Charles XII.,\" \"Lectures on Man,\" \"Letters on\nEngland,\" \"Memoirs,\" \"Voyage of Sacramentado,\" \"Micromegas,\" \"Maid of\nOrleans,\" \"Brutus,\" \"Adelaide,\" \"Death of C\u00e6sar,\" \"Temple of Taste,\"\n\"Essay on the Manners and Spirit of Nations,\" \"An Examination of the Holy\nScriptures,\" and the \"Philosophical Dictionary,\" are works that emanated\nfrom the active brain of this wit, poet, satirist, and philosopher.\n\nIn 1722, while at Brussels, Voltaire met Jean Baptiste Rousseau, whose\nmisfortunes he deplored, and whose poetic talents he esteemed. Voltaire\nread some of his poems to Rousseau, and he in return read to Voltaire\nhis \"Ode addressed to Posterity,\" which Voltaire, it is asserted, told\nhim would never arrive at the place to which it was addressed. The two\npoets parted irreconcileable foes.\n\nIn 1725, Voltaire was again shut up in the Bastile, through attempting\nto revenge an insult inflicted upon him by a courtier. At the end of six\nmonths he was released, but ordered to quit Paris. He sought refuge in\nEngland, in 1726. He was the guest in that country of a Mr. Falconer,\nof Wandsworth, whose hospitality he remembered with affection so long as\nlife lasted. Voltaire was known to most of the wits and Freethinkers of\nthat day in England. At this early age he was at war with Christianity.\n\"His visit to England,\" says Lamartine, \"gave assurance and gravity to\nhis incredulity; for in France he had only known libertines--in\nEngland he knew philosophers.\" He went to visit Congreve, who had the\naffectation to tell him that he (Congreve) valued himself, not on his\nauthorship, but as a man of the world. To which Voltaire administered\na just rebuke by saying, \"I should never have come so far to see a\ngentleman!\"\n\nVoltaire soon acquired an ample fortune, much of which was expended\nin aiding men of letters, and in encouraging such youth as he thought\ndiscovered the seeds of genius. The use he made of riches might prevail\non envy itself to pardon him their acquirement. His pen and his purse\nwere ever at the service of the oppressed. Calas, an infirm old man,\nliving at Toulouse, was accused of having hung his son, to prevent his\nbecoming a Catholic. The Catholic population became inflamed, and the\nyoung man was declared to be a martyr. The father was condemned to the\ntorture and the wheel, and died protesting his innocence. The family\nof Calas was ruined and disgraced. Voltaire, assuring himself of the\ninnocence of the old man, determined to obtain justice for the family.\nTo this end he labored incessantly for three years. In all this time, he\nsaid, a smile did not escape him for which he did not reproach himself\nas for a crime. His efforts were successful. Nor was this the only cause\nin which he was engaged on the side of the weak and the wronged against\nthe powerful and the persecuting. His whole life, though maligned as an\nInfidel and a-scoffer, was one long act of benevolence. On learning that\na young niece of Corneille languished in a condition unworthy of his\nname, Voltaire, in the most delicate manner, invited her to his house,\nand she there received an education suitable to the rank that her birth\nhad marked lor her in society. \"It is the duty of a soldier,\" he said,\n\"to succor the niece of his general.\"\n\nVoltaire lived for a time at the Court of Frederick the Great of\nPrussia, and for many years carried on a correspondence with that\nmonarch. He quarrelled with the king, and left the court in a passion.\nAn emissary was despatched to him to request an apology, who said he was\nto carry back to the king his answer _verbatim_. Voltaire told him that\n\"the king might go to the devil!\" On being asked if that was the message\nhe meant to be delivered! \"Yes,\" he answered, \"and add to it that I told\nyou that you might go there with him.\" In his \"Memoirs,\" he has drawn\na most amusing picture of his Prussian Majesty. He, also says, \"Priests\nnever entered the palace; and, in a word, Frederick lived without\nreligion, without a council, and without a court.\"\n\nWearied with his rambling and unsettled mode of living, Voltaire bought\nan estate at Ferney, in the Pays des Gex, where he spent the last twenty\nyears of his life. He rebuilt the house, laid out gardens, kept a good\ntable, and had crowds of visitors from all parts, of Europe. Removed\nfrom whatever could excite momentary or personal passion, he yielded to\nhis zeal for the destruction of prejudice, which was the most powerful\nand active of all the sensations he felt. This peaceful life, seldom\ndisturbed except by the threats of persecution rather than persecution\nitself, was adorned by those acts of enlightened and bold benevolence,\nwhich, while they relieve the sufferings of certain individuals, are of\nany service to the whole human race. He was known to Europe as the\n\"Sage of Ferney.\" After an absence of more than twenty-seven years, he\nre-visited Paris in the beginning of 1778. He had just finished his\nplay of \"Irene,\" and was anxious to see it performed. His visit was an\novation. He had outlived all his enemies. After having been the object\nof unrelenting persecution by the priests and corrupt courtiers of\nFrance for a period of more than fifty years, he yet lived to see the\nday when \"all that was most eminent in station or most distinguished in\ntalents--all that most shone in society, or most ruled in court, seemed\nto bend before him.\" At this period he, for the first time, saw Benjamin\nFranklin. They embraced each other in the midst of public acclamations,\nand it was said to be Solon who embraced Sophocles.\n\nVoltaire did not survive his triumph long. His unwearied activity\ninduced him, at his great age, to commence a \"Dictionary\" upon a novel\nplan, which he prevailed upon the French Academy to take up. These\nlabors brought on spitting of blood, followed by sleeplessness, to\nobviate which he took opium in considerable quantities. Condorcet says\nthat the servant mistook one of the doses, which threw him into a state\nof lethargy, from which he never rallied. He lingered for some time, but\nat length expired on the 30th of May, 1778, in his eighty-fifth year.\n\nIt was the custom in those days, and prevails to a considerable extent\neven in our own time, for the religious world to fabricate \"horrible\ndeath-beds\" of all Freethinkers. Voltaire's last moments were distorted\nby his enemies after the approved fashion; and notwithstanding the\nmost unqualified denial on the part of Dr. Burard and others, who were\npresent at his death, there are many who believe these falsehoods at\nthis moment. Voltaire died in peace, with the exception of the petty\nannoyances to which he was subjected by the priests. The philosophers,\ntoo, who wished that no public stigma should be cast upon him by the\nrefusal of Christian burial, persuaded him to undergo confession and\nabsolution. This, to oblige his friends, he submitted to; but when the\ncure one day drew him from his lethargy by shouting into his ear, \"Do\nyou believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?\" Voltaire exclaimed, \"In the\nname of God, Sir, speak to me no more of that man, but let me die in\npeace!\" This put to flight all doubts of the pious, and the certificate\nof burial was refused. But the prohibition of the Bishop of Troyes\ncame too late. Voltaire was buried at the monastery of Scellieres, in\nChampagne, of which his nephew was abbot. Afterwards, during the first\nFrench Revolution, the body, at the request of the citizens, was removed\nto Paris, and buried in the Pantheon. Lamartine, in his \"History of the\nGirondists,\" p. 149, speaking of the ceremony, says:--\n\n\"On the 11th of July, the departmental and municipal authorities went\nin state to the barrier of Charenton, to receive the mortal remains of\nVoltaire, which were placed on the ancient site of the Bastile, like a\nconqueror on his trophies; his coffin was exposed to public gaze, and a\npedestal was formed for it of stones torn from the foundations of this\nancient stronghold of tyranny; and thus Voltaire when dead triumphed\nover those stones which had triumphed over and confined him when living.\nOn one of the blocks was the inscription, '_Receive on this spot,\nwhere despotism once fettered thee, the Honors decreed to thee by thy\ncountry_'.... The coffin of Voltaire was deposited between those of\nDescartes and Mirabeau--the spot predestined for this intermediary\ngenius between philosophy and policy, between the design and the\nexecution.\"\n\nThe aim of Voltaire's life was the destruction of prejudice and the\nestablishment of Reason. \"Deists,\" said W. J. Fox in 1819, \"have done\nmuch for toleration and religious liberty. It may be doubted if there\nbe a country in Europe, where that cause has not been advanced by the\nwritings of Voltaire.\" In the Preface and Conclusion to the \"Examination\nof the Scriptures,\" Voltaire says:--\n\n\"The ambition of domineering over the mind, is one of the strongest\npassions. A theologian, a missionary, or a partisan of any description,\nis always for conquering like a prince, and there are many more sects\nthan there are sovereigns in the world. To whose guidance shall I\nsubmit my mind? Must I be a Christian, be-cause I happened to be born\nin London, or in Madrid? Must I be a Mussulman, because I was born in\nTurkey? As it is myself alone that I ought to consult, the choice of a\nreligion is my greatest interest. One man adores God by Mahomet, another\nby the Grand Lama, and another by the Pope. Weak and foolish men! adore\nGod by your own reason.... I have learnt that a French Vicar, of\nthe name of John Meslier, who died a short time since, prayed on his\ndeath-bed that God would forgive him for having taught Christianity. I\nhave seen a Vicar in Dorsetshire relinquish a living of \u00a3200 a year, and\nconfess to his parishioners that his conscience would not permit him to\npreach the shocking absurdities of the Christians. But neither the will\nnor the testament of John Meslier, nor the declaration of this worthy\nVicar, are what I consider decisive proofs. Uriel Acosta, a Jew,\npublicly renounced the Old Testament in Amsterdam; however, I pay no\nmore attention to the Jew Acosta than to Parson Meslier. I will read\nthe arguments on both sides of the trial, with careful attention, not\nsuffering the lawyers to tamper with me; but will weigh, before God,\nthe reasons of both parties, and decide according to my conscience. I\ncommence by being my-own instructor.... I conclude, that every sensible\nman, every honest man, ought to hold Christianity in abhorrence. 'The\ngreat name of Theist, which we can never sufficiently revere,' is the\nonly name we ought to adopt. The only gospel we should read is the grand\nbook of nature, written with God's own hand, and stamped with his own\nseal. The only religion we ought to profess is, 'to adore God, and act\nlike honest men.' It would be as impossible for this simple and eternal\nreligion to produce evil, as it would be impossible for Christian\nfanaticism not to produce it.... But what shall we substitute in its\nplace? say you. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the blood of my\nrelatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast, and you ask me\nwhat you shall put in its place! Is it you that put this question to me?\nThen you are a hundred times more odious than the Pagan Pontiffs, who\npermitted themselves to enjoy tranquillity among their ceremonies and\nsacrifices, who did not attempt to enslave the mind by dogmas, who never\ndisputed the powers of the magistrates, and who introduced no discord\namong mankind. You have the face to ask what you must substitute in the\nplace of your fables!\"\n\nAs will be seen by his exclamation on his death-bed, Voltaire was no\nbeliever in the _divinity_ of Christ. He disbelieved the Bible _in\ntoto_. The accounts of the doings of the Jewish kings, as represented in\nthe Old Testament, he has unsparingly ridiculed in the drama of \"Saul.\"\nThe quiet irony of the following will be easily appreciated:--\n\nDivinity of Jesus.--The Socinians, who are regarded as blasphemers, do\nnot recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ. They dare to pretend, with\nthe philosophers of antiquity, with the Jews, the Mahometans, and\nmost other nations, that the idea of a god-man is monstrous; that the\ndistance from God to man is infinite; and that it is impossible for\na perishable body to be infinite, immense, or eternal. They have the\nconfidence to quote Eusebius, Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, in their favor, who,\nin his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" book i., chap. 9, declares that it is\nabsurd to imagine the uncreated and unchangeable nature of Almighty God\ntaking the form of a man. They cite the fathers of the church, Justin\nand Tertullian, who have said the same thing: Justin in his \"Dialogue\nwith Triphonius;\" and Tertullian, in his \"Discourse against Praxeas.\"\nThey quote St. Paul, who never calls Jesus Christ, God, and who calls\nhim man very often. They carry their audacity so far as to affirm,\nthat the Christians passed three entire ages in forming by degrees the\napotheosis of Jesus; and that they only raised this astonishing edifice\nby the example of the Pagans, who had deified mortals. At first,\naccording to them, Jesus was only regarded as a man inspired by God,\nand then as a creature more perfect than others. They gave him some time\nafter, a place above the angels, as St. Paul tells us. Every day added\nto his greatness. He in time became an emanation, proceeding from God.\nThis was not enough; he was even born before time. At last he was God\nconsubstantial with God. Crellius, Voquelsius, Natalis, Alexander,\nand Hornbeck, have supported all these blasphemies by arguments, which\nastonish the wise and mislead the weak. Above all, Faustus Socinus\nspread the seeds of this doctrine in Europe; and at the end of the\nsixteenth century, a new species of Christianity was established. There\nwere already more than three hundred.--[Philosophical Dictionary, vol.\ni. p. 405.]\n\nThough a firm and consistent believer in the being of a God, Voltaire\nwas no bigot. The calm reasoning of the following passage does honor to\nits author:--\n\nFaith.--Divine faith, about which so much has been written, is evidently\nnothing more than incredulity brought under subjection; for we certainly\nhave no other faculty than the understanding by which we can believe;\nand the objects of faith are not those of the understanding. We can\nbelieve only what appears to be true; and nothing can appear true but in\none of the three following ways--by intuition or feeling, as I exist,\nI see the sun; or by an accumulation of probability amounting to\ncertainty, as there is a city called Constantinople; or by positive\ndemonstration, as triangles of the same base and height are equal.\nFaith, therefore, being nothing at all of this description, can no\nmore be a belief, a persuasion, than it can be yellow or red. It can be\nnothing but the annihilation of reason, a silence of adoration at the\ncontemplation of things absolutely incomprehensible. Thus, speaking\nphilosophically, no person believes the Trinity; no person believes that\nthe same body can be in a thousand places at once; and he who says, I\nbelieve these mysteries, will see, beyond the possibility of a doubt,\nif he reflects for a moment on what passes in his mind, that these words\nmean no more than, I respect thee, mysteries; I submit myself to those\nwho announce them. For they agree with me, that my real reason, their\nown reason, believe them not; but it is clear if my _reason_ is not\npersuaded, I am not persuaded, and my reason cannot possibly be two\ndifferent beings. It is an absolute contradiction that I should receive\nthat as true which my understanding rejects as false. Faith, therefore,\nis nothing but submissive or deferential incredulity. But why should\nthis submission be exercised when my understanding invincibly recoils?\nThe reason, we well know, is, that my understanding has been persuaded\nthat the mysteries of my faith are laid down by God himself. All, then,\nthat I can do, as a reasonable being, is to be silent and adore. That is\nwhat divines call external faith; and this faith neither is, nor can be,\nanything more than respect for things incomprehensible, in consequence\nof the reliance I place on those who teach them; If God himself were\nto say to me, \"Thought is of an olive colour;\" \"the square of a certain\nnumber is bitter;\" I should certainly understand nothing at all from\nthese words. I could not adopt them either as true or false. But I will\nrepeat them, if he commands me to do it; and I will make others repeat\nthem at the risk of my life. This is faith; it is nothing more than\nobedience. In order to obtain a foundation then for this obedience,\nit is merely necessary to examine the books which require it. Our\nunderstanding, therefore, should investigate the books of the Old and\nNew Testament, just as it would Plutarch or Livy; and if it finds in\nthem incontestable and decisive evidences--evidences obvious to all\nminds, and such as would be admitted by men of all nations--that God\nhimself is their author, then it is our incumbent duty to subject our\nunderstanding to the yoke of faith.--[Ibid, p. 474.]\n\nPrayer.--We know of no religion without prayers; even the Jews had them,\nalthough there was no public form of prayer among them before the time\nwhen they sang their canticles in their synagogues, which did not take\nplace until a late period. The people of all nations, whether actuated\nby desires or fears, have summoned the assistance of the Divinity.\nPhilosophers, however, more respectful to the Supreme Being, and rising\nmore above human weakness, have been habituated to substitute, for\nprayer, resignation. This, in fact, is all that appears proper and\nsuitable between creature and Creator. But philosophy is not adapted\nto the great mass of mankind; it soars too highly above the vulgar; it\nspeaks a language they are unable to comprehend. To propose philosophy\nto them, would be just as weak as to propose the study of conic sections\nto peasants or fish-women. Among philosophers themselves, I know of\nno one besides Maximus Tyrius who has treated of this subject. The\nfollowing is the substance of his ideas upon it:--The designs of God\nexist from all eternity. If the object prayed for be conformable to his\nimmutable will, it must be perfectly useless to request of him the very\nthing which he has determined to do. If he is prayed to for the reverse\nof what he has determined to do, he is prayed to be weak, fickle,\nand inconstant; such a prayer implies that this is thought to be his\ncharacter, and is nothing better than ridicule or mockery of him. You\neither request of him what is just and right, in which case he ought to\ndo it, and it will be actually done without any solicitation, which in\nfact, shows distrust of his rectitude; or what you request is unjust,\nand then you insult him. You are either worthy or unworthy of the favour\nyou implore; if worthy, he knows it better than you do yourself; if\nunworthy, you commit an additional crime in requesting that which you\ndo not merit. In a word, we offer up prayers to God only because we have\nmade him after our own image. We treat him like a pacha, or a sultan,\nwho is capable of being exasperated and appeased. In short, all nations\npray to God; the sage is resigned, and obeys him. Let us pray with the\npeople, and let us be resigned to him with the sage. We have already\nspoken of the public prayer of many nations, and of those of the\nJews.--That people have had one from time immemorial, which deserves\nall our attention, from its resemblance to the prayer taught us by Jesus\nChrist himself. This Jewish prayer is called the Kadish, and begins with\nthese words:--\"Oh! God! let thy name be magnified and sanctified; make\nthy kingdom to prevail; let redemption flourish, and the Messiah come\nquickly!\" As this Radish is recited in Chaldee, it has induced the\nbelief, that it is as ancient as the captivity, and that it was at\nthat period that the Jews began to hope for a Messiah, a Liberator,\nor Redeemer, whom they have since prayed for in ihe seasons of their\ncalamities.--[Ibid, vol. ii., p. 350.]\n\nVoltaire's contempt for the Bible led him to use the language of \"holy\nwrit\" in the coarsest jokes; though, perhaps, with such material, the\njokes could not well be otherwise than _coarse_. The following letter\nhe addressed to M. B\u00e2illon, Intendant of Lyons, on account of a poor Jew\ntaken up for uttering contraband goods. This kind of writing obtained\nfor Voltaire the title of \"scoffer:\"--\n\n\"Blessings on the Old Testament, which gives me this opportunity of\ntelling you, that amongst all those who adore the New, there is not one\nmore devoted to your service than myself, a certain descendant of Jacob,\na pedlar, as all these gentlemen are, whilst he is waiting for the\nMessiah, waits also for your protection, which at present he has the\nmost need of. Some honest men of the first trade of St. Matthew, who\ngather together the Jews and Christians at the gates of your city,\nhave seized something in the breeches pocket of an Israelitish page,\nbelonging to the poor circumcised, who has the honour to tender you this\nbillet, with all proper submission and humility. I beg leave to join my\nAmen to his at a venture. I but just saw you at Paris as Moses saw the\nDeity, and should be very happy in seeing you face to face. If the word\nface can any ways be applied to me, preserve some remembrance of your\nold eternal humble servant, who loves you with that chaste and tender\naffection, which the religious Solomon had for his three hundred\nShuhamites.\"\n\nVoltaire's prodigious wit and sarcasm were so exuberant, that he\nexpended them upon all people and all subjects--even _himself_, when\noccasion admitted of it, In one of his letters,-addressed to the Elector\nPalatine, Sept. 9, 1761, he gives this excuse for not attending at the\ncourt:--\n\n\"I should really make an excellent figure amidst the rejoicings of your\nelectoral highness. It was only, I think, in the Egypt of antiquity\nthat _skeletons_ were admitted to a place in their festivals. To say the\ntruth, my lord, it is all over with me. I laugh indeed sometimes; but am\nforced to acknowledge that pain is an evil. It is a comfort to me that\nyour highness is well; but I am fitter for an extreme unction than a\nbaptism. May the peace serve for an era to mark the prince's birth; and\nmay his august father preserve his regard for, and accept the profound\nrespects of his little Swiss, Voltaire.\"\n\nIn politics, Voltaire was not very far advanced. He seems to have had no\nidea of a nation without a _king_. A monarch who should not commit any\nvery flagrant acts of tyranny, was as much as he appeared to desire. He\nevidently did not foresee the great revolution that was so soon to burst\nforth in France, but that he mainly contributed by his writings to bring\nit about, there can be no doubt. His influence upon the men of his\ntime, both in France and Europe, is ably depicted by such writers as\nLamartine, Quinet, and Brougham. Voltaire's was the one great mind of\nhis day, whose thoughts engrossed the attention of all men. He was great\nby his learning, his genius, and his benevolence--and this man was the\nchampion of Reason, the enemy of superstition, and an \"Infidel.\" Quinet,\nin his lectures on the Romish Church, says:--\"I watch, for forty years,\nthe reign of one man who is in himself the spiritual director, not of\nhis country, but of his age. From the corner of his chamber, he governs\nthe kingdom of spirits; intellects are every day regulated by his; one\nword written by his hand traverses Europe. Princes love, and kings fear\nhim; they think they are not sure of their kingdom if he be not with\nthem. Whole nations, on their side, adopt without discussion, and\nemulously repeat, every syllable that falls from his pen. Who exercises\nthis incredible power, which had been nowhere seen since the middle\nages? Is he another Gregory II.? Is he a Pope? No--Voltaire.\"\n\nWe conclude our sketch with the eloquent words of Lamartine, who\ndescribes, in a few sentences, the inestimable services rendered to\nFreethought and intellectual progression by the Sage of Ferney:--\n\n\"If we judge of men by what they have _done_, then Voltaire is\nincontestably the greatest writer of modern Europe. No one has caused,\nthrough the powerful influence of his genius alone, and the perseverance\nof his will, so great a commotion in the minds of men; his pen aroused\na world, and has shaken a far mightier empire than that of Charlemagne,\nthe European empire of a theocracy. His genius was not _force_ but\n_light_. Heaven had destined him not to destroy but to illuminate, and\nwherever he trod, light followed him, for Reason (which is _light_) had\ndestined him to be first her poet, then her apostle, and lastly her\nidol.\"\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n\n\nJOHN TOLAND.\n\nIn the Augustan age of Freethought, no British writer achieved more\nrenown, or performed greater services to Biblical criticism, than John\nToland. His life would fill a volume, while his works would stock a\nlibrary. True to his convictions, he spoke like a man, and died as a\nhero. His books are strewn with classical illustrations, and deal so\nwith abstract (and to us) uninteresting arguments, that we shall simply\ngive a brief sketch of the life of this extraordinary man. He gave his\nthoughts to the scholars at the same time that Woolston addressed the\npeople; conjointly they revolutionized opinion in our favor.\n\nToland was born on November 30, 1670, at Londonderry, in Ireland. It\nis said his registered name was \"James Junius,\" another account says\n\"Julius C\u00e6sar;\" but we have been unable to find any authentic date\nfor either supposition, and whatever his name was registered, we have\nindisputable evidence that he was always called John Toland. We have\nless proof as to his parentage; some writers allege that he was the\nnatural son of a Catholic priest; while others contend that he was born\nof a family once affluent, but at the time of his birth in very reduced\ncircumstances. Whether this was the case or the reverse, young Toland\nreceived a liberal education. He was early taught the classics, studied\nin the Glasgow College; and on leaving Glasgow he was presented with\nletters of credit from the city magistrates, highly flattering to him as\na man and a scholar. He received the diploma of A.M. at Edinburgh, the\nday previous to the Battle of the Boyne. He finished his studies at the\nUniversity of Leyden.\n\nThe first work of importance which Toland published, was a \"Life of\nJohn Milton, containing besides the History of his Works, several\nextraordinary Characters of Men and Books, Sects, Parties, and\nOpinions.\" This work being violently opposed, was speedily followed\nby \"Amyntor,\" or a defence of Milton's life, containing--1. A general\napology for all writings of that kind. 2. A catalogue of books,\nattributed in the primitive times to Jesus Christ, his apostles, and\nother eminent persons, with several important remarks relating to the\ncanon of Scripture. 3. A complete history of the Book, entitled \"Icon\nBasilike, proving Dr. Gauden, and not King Charles I., to be the author\nof it,\" etc. Those works established the fame of Toland, as well as\nformed the groundwork for persecution, which hunted him even on his\ndeath-bed. In the year 1699 Toland collected, edited, and published,\nfrom the original MSS., the whole of the works of James Harrington,\nprefixed by a memoir of this extraordinary theorist. In his preface he\nsays that he composed this work \"in his beloved retirement at Cannon,\nnear Bansted, in Surrey.\" From this, along with other excerpts scattered\nthrough his works, we cannot but infer that at the outset of his\ncareer he possessed a moderate competence of worldly wealth and social\nposition. He says his idea was \"to transmit to posterity the worthy\nmemory of James Harrington, a bright ornament to useful learning, a\nhearty lover of his native country, and a generous benefactor to the\nwhole world; a person who obscured the false lustre of our modern\npoliticians, and equalled (if not exceeded) all the ancient\nlegislators.\" This to us is an interesting fact, for it shows the early\nunanimity which existed between the earlier reformers in politics and\nthose of theology. The supervision of the \"Oceana\" by Toland, bears the\nsame inferential analogy, as if Mr. Holyoake were the biographer and\npublisher of the \"New Moral World\" and its author. In 1700, he published\n\"Anglia Libera; or, the Limitation and Succession of the Crown of\nEngland, explained and Asserted,\" etc. This book is concluded by the\nfollowing apothegm, assuring the people \"that no king can ever be so\ngood as one of their own making, as there is no title equal to their\napprobation, which is the only divine right of all magistracy, for the\nvoice of the people is the voice of God.\" In 1702, Toland spent some\ntime in Germany, publish-ing a series of Letters to a friend in\nHolland, entitled \"Some Remarks on the King of Prussia's Country, on\nhis Government, his Court, and his numerous Palaces.\" About this time\nappeared \"The Art of Governing by Parties;\" this was always a favorite\nsubject of the old Freethinkers, and is still further elucidated by\nBolingbroke.\n\nIn 1707 he published a large treatise in English and Latin, as \"A\nPhilippic Oration, to incite the English against the French,\" a work I\nhave never seen. We now return to an earlier date, and shall trace the\nuse of his theological works. The first of note (1696) was \"Christianity\nnot Mysterious\"--showing that there is nothing in the gospel contrary\nto reason, nor above it; and that no Christian doctrine can be properly\ncalled a mystery. As soon as this book was issued from the press, it\nwas attacked with unmanly virulence. One man (Peter Brown) who was more\ndisgustingly opposed to Toland than the rest, was made a bishop; and by\nfar the greatest majority amongst the Anglican clergy, who attacked him,\nwere all rewarded by honors and preferment. The author was accused of\nmaking himself a new Heresiarch; that there was a tradition amongst\nthe Irish that he was to be a second Cromwell, and that Toland himself\nboasted that before he was forty years old, he would be governor over a\ngreater country than Cromwell; and that he would be the head over a new\nreligion before he was thirty. One of his opponents publicly stigmatises\nhim as saying that he (Toland) himself designed to be as great an\nimpostor as Mahomet, and more powerful than the Pope; while the Puritans\ndenounced him as a disguised Jesuit, and the Papists as a rancorous\nNonconformist. To complete the comedy, the Irish Parliament condemned\nhis book to be publicly burnt, some ecclesiastics loudly murmuring that,\nthe author should be burned with it; others, more moderate, were anxious\nthat Toland should burn it himself, while at last they came to an\nunanimous resolution to burn it in front of the threshold of his door,\nso that when the author appeared, he would be obliged to step oyer the\nashes of his own book, which was accordingly done amid the brutal cheers\nof an ignorant and infuriated populace.\n\nAs a proof of the high esteem in which Toland was held by the _few_ able\nand liberal men of the day, we extract the following account from the\ncorrespondence of John Locke and Mr. Molyneux. * The latter gentleman,\nwriting to the former, says:--\"I am told the author of 'Christianity not\nMysterious' is of this country, and that his name is Toland, but he is\na stranger in these parts, I believe. If he belongs to this kingdom,\nhe has been a good while out of it, or I have not heard of any such\n_remarkable_ man amongst us.\" In another letter, the same writer\nsays:--\"In my last to you, there was a passage, relating to the author\nof 'Christianity not Mysterious.' I did not then think he was so near\nme as within the bounds of this city; but I find since that he has\ncome over hither, and have had the favor of a visit from him. I now\nunderstand that he was born in this country, but that he has been a\ngreat while abroad, and his education was for some time under the great\nLe Clerc. But that for which I can never honor him too much, is his\nacquaintance and friendship to you, and the respect which upon all\noccasions he expresses for you. I propose a great deal of satisfaction\nin his conversation. I take him to be a candid Freethinker, and a good\nscholar. But there is a violent sort of spirit which reigns here, which\nbegins already to show itself against him, and I believe will increase\ndaily, for I find the clergy alarmed to a mighty degree against him.\nAnd last Sunday he had his welcome to this city, by hearing himself\nharangued against out of the pulpit, by a prelate of this country.\"\n\n     * Locke's posthumous works.   Edited by Die Maizeaus.\n\nMr. Locke, in return, says:--\"For the man I wish very well, and could\ngive you, if it needed, proofs that I do so. And therefore I desire you\nto be kind to him: but I must leave it to your prudence in what way\nand how far. For it will be his fault alone, if he proves not a very\nvaluable man, and have not you for his friend.\" To this, Mr. Molyneux\nwrites to Mr. Locke--\"I look upon Mr. Toland as a very ingenuous man,\nand I should be very glad of any opportunity of doing him service, to\nwhich I think myself indispensably bound by your recommendation.\" Soon\nafter this, Mr. Molyneux describes the treatment Toland underwent in\nIreland. In another letter to Locke--\"He has had his opposers here,\nas you will find by a book which I have sent to you. The author (Peter\nBrown) is my acquaintance, but two things I shall never forgive in his\nbook: the one is the foul language and opprobrious names he gives Mr.\nToland; the other is upon several occasions, calling in the aid of the\ncivil magistrate, and delivering up Mr. Toland to secular punishment.\nThis, indeed, is a killing argument, but some will be apt to say, that\nwhere, the strength of his reason failed him, then he flies to the\nstrength of his sword; and this reminds me of a business that was very\nsurprising to many, the presentment of some pernicious books and their\nauthors by the grand jury of Middlesex. This is looked upon as a matter\nof dangerous consequence, to make our civil courts judges of religious\ndoctrines; and no one knows upon a change of affairs whose turn it\nmay be next to be condemned. But the example has been followed in this\ncountry, and Mr. Toland and his book have been presented here by a grand\njury, not one of whom I am persuaded ever read one leaf in 'Christianity\nnot Mysterious.'\n\n\"Let the Sorbonne forever now be silent; a learned grand jury, directed\nby as learned a judge, does the business much better. The Dissenters\nhere were the chief promoters of this matter, but, when I asked one\nof them 'What if a violent Church of England jury should present Mr.\nBaxter's books as pernicious, and condemn them to the flames by the\ncommon executioner,' he was sensible of the error, and said he wished\nit had never been done.\" Mr. Locke, in his reply, coincides with his\nfriend, and says, \"The Dissenters had best _consider_; but they are a\nsort of men which will always be the same.\" A remark which 150 years has\nnot failed in its truthfulness. Mr. Molyneux concludes his remarks in\nreference to Toland, as follows:--\"Mr. Toland is at length driven out\nof our kingdom; the poor gentleman at last wanted a meal's meat, and\nthe universal outcry of the clergy ran so strong against him, that none\ndurst admit him to their tables. The little stock of money which he had\nwas soon exhausted, he fell to borrowing, and to complete his hardships,\nthe Parliament fell on his book, voted it to be burnt by the common\nhangman, and ordered the author to be taken into custody by the\nSerjeant-at-Arms, and to be prosecuted by the Attorney General. Hereupon\nhe is fled out of this kingdom, and none here knows where he has\ndirected his course.\" From this correspondence we glean the following\nfacts:--\n\n1. That John Locke and Mr. Molyneux were favorable to Freethought.\n\n2. That (on Locke's authority) Toland possessed abilities of no common\norder.\n\n3. That Toland was unjustly persecuted, and he met with the sympathy of\nthe Liberals.\n\nToland, having received a foretaste of his country's vengeance, retired\nfor two years to Germany, where he was welcomed by the first scholars of\nthe age. Hearing that the House of Convocation, in London, was about to\ndenounce two of his works as heretical (\"Christianity not Mysterious,\"\nand \"Amyntor,\") he hastened to England, and published two letters to the\nProlucutor, which were never laid before Convocation. He insisted that\nhe should be heard in his own defence before sentence was passed on\nhis works; but as usual this wish was denied him. A legal difficulty\nprevented the bishops from prosecuting the works, and Toland gave the\nworld a full account in his \"Vindicius Liberius.\"\n\nThe \"Letters to Serena,\" written in a bold, honest, unflinching manner,\nwere the next performances of Toland. The first letter is on \"The Origin\nand Force of Prejudices.\" It is founded on a reflection of Cicero, that\nall prejudices spring from moral, and not physical sources, and while\nall admit the power of the senses to be infallible, all strive to\ncorrupt the judgment, by false metaphor and unjust premises. Toland\ntraces the progress of superstition from the hands of a midwife to those\nof a priest, and shows how the nurse, parent, schoolmaster, professor,\nphilosopher, and politician, all combine to warp the mind of man by\nfallacies from his progress in childhood, at school, at college, and\nin the world. How the child is blinded with an idea, and the man with\na word. The second letter is \"A History of the Soul's Immortality Among\nthe Heathens.\" A lady had been reading Platers \"Ph\u00e6do,\" and remarked\nas to how Cato could derive any consolation from the slippery and vague\nsuppositions of that verbiant dialogue. Toland, therefore, for her\nedification, drew up a list of the specifications of the ancients on the\nsubject, analysing (in its progress) the varying phases of the fables of\nthe Elysian fields, the Charons, the Styx, etc., deriving them all from\nthe ancient Egyptians. Toland thought the idea had arisen among the\npeople, like our witches, ghosts, and fairy stories, and subsequently\ndefended by the philosophers, who sought to rule their passions by\nfinding arguments for their superstitions, and thus the rise of their\nexoteric and esoteric doctrines were the first foundations of the belief\nin the immortality of the soul. The third letter is on \"The Origin of\nIdolatry,\" or, as it might rather be called, a history of the follies\nof mankind. He traces the causes, the origin, and the science of\nsuperstition--its phenomena and its devotees, proving that all the\nsacrifices, prayers, and customs of idolatry are the same in all ages,\nthey only differ in language and adaptability of climate, and that with\nthe fall of judicial astrology, idolatry received its greatest blow,\nfor while men thought that priests could control destiny, they feared\nthem--but this idea destroyed, it removed the terror which so long\nhad existed as an immediate object betwixt the man and this sacerdotal\ntyrant.\n\nIn letter fourth, addressed \"To a Gentleman in Holland, showing\nSpinoza's System of Philosophy to be without any principle or\nfoundation,\" and in the concluding article, Toland argues that \"motion\nis essential to matter, in answer to some remarks by a noble friend\non the above.\" In the fifteenth section of this argument, Toland thus\nrebuts the allegation that were motion indissolubly connected with\nmatter, there must be extension without surface for motion or matter\nto exert their respective powers upon. It is often used as an argument,\nthat if a vase was filled with any commodity to the utmost extent, where\nwould be the space for motion? We know that in a kettle of water, if\nthere is no outlet for the steam (which is the motion of the water,)\nthe kettle will burst. Toland says, \"'You own most bodies are in actual\nmotion, which can be no argument that they have been always so, or that\nthere are not others in actual repose.' I grant that such a consequence\ndoes not necessarily follow, though the thing may itself be true. But,\nhowever, it may not be amiss to consider how far this actual motion\nreaches, and is allowed, before we come to treat of rest. Though the\nmatter of the universe be everywhere the same, yet according to its\nvarious modifications it is conceived to be divided into numberless\nparticular systems, vortices or whirlpools of matter; and these again\nare subdivided into other systems greater or less, which depend oh one\nanother, as every one on the whole, in their centres, textures, frame,\nand coherence. Our sun is the centre of one of the larger systems, which\ncontains a great many small ones within the sphere of its activity,\nas all the planets which move about it; and these are subdivided into\nlesser systems that depend on them, as his satelites wait upon\nJupiter, and the moon on the earth; the earth again is divided into the\natmosphere, ground, water, and other principal parts; these again into\nthe vegetable, animal, and mineral kingdoms. Now, as all these depend\nin a link on one another, so their matter is mutually resolved into each\nother, for earth, air, fire, and water are not only closely blended\nand united, but likewise interchangeable, transformed in a perpetual\nrevolution: earth becoming water, water air, air ether, and so back\nagain in mixtures without end or number. The animals we destroy\ncontribute to preserve us, till we are destroyed to preserve other\nthings, and become parts of grass, or plants, or water, or air, or\nsomething else that helps to make other animals, and they one another,\nor other men, and these again into stone, or wood, or metals, or\nminerals, or animals again, or become parts of all these and of a great\nmany other things, animals, or vegetables, daily consuming and devouring\neach other--so true it is that everything lives by the destruction of\nanother. All the parts of the universe are in this constant motion of\ndestroying and begetting, of begetting and destroying, and the greater\nsystems are acknowledged to have their ceaseless movements as well\nas the smallest particles, the very central globes of the vortices\nrevolving on their own axis, and every particle in the vortex\ngravitating towards the centre. Our bodies, however we may flatter\nourselves, do not differ from those of other creatures, but like them\nreceive increase or diminution by nutrition or evacuation, by accretion,\ntranspiration, and other ways, giving some parts of ours to other\nbodies, and receiving again of theirs, not altogether the same yesterday\nas to-day, nor to continue the same to-morrow, being alive in a\nperpetual flux like a river, and in the total dissolution of our system\nat death to become parts of a thousand other things at once, our bodies\npartly mixing with the dust and the water of the earth, partly exhaled\nand evaporated into the air, flying to so many different places, mixing\nand incorporating with numerous things.\n\n\"No parts of matter are bound to any one figure or form, losing and\nchanging their figures and forms continually, that is being in perpetual\nmotion, dipt, or worn, or ground to pieces, or dissolved by other parts,\nacquiring their figures, and these theirs, and so on incessantly: earth,\nair, fire, and water, iron, wood, and marble, plants and animals, being\nrarefied, condensed, liquified, congealed, dissolved, coagulated, or\nany other way resolved into one another. The whole face of the earth\nexhibits those mutations every moment to our eyes, nothing continuing\none hour numerically the same; and these changes being but several kinds\nof motion, are therefore the incontestable effects of universal action.\nBut the changes in the parts make no change in the universe; for it is\nmanifest that the continual alterations, successions, revolutions, and\ntransmutations of matter, cause no accession or diminution therein, no\nmore than any letter is added or lost in the alphabet by the endless\ncombinations and transpositions thereof into so many different words and\nlanguages, for a thing no sooner quits one form than it puts on another,\nleaving as it were the theatre in a certain dress, and appearing again\nin a new one, which produces a perpetual youthfulness and vigor, without\nany decay or decrepitness of the world, as some have falsely imagined,\ncontrary to reason and experience; the world, with all the parts and\nkinds thereof, continuing at all times in the same condition.\"\n\n*****\n\n\"But the species still continue by propagation, notwithstanding the decay\nof the individuals, and the death of our bodies is but matter going\nto be dressed in some new form; the impressions may vary, but the wax\ncontinues still the same, and indeed death is in effect the very same\nthins with our birth; for as to die is only to cease to be what we\nformerly were, so to be born is to begin to be something which we were\nnot before. Considering the numberless successive generations that have\ninhabited this globe, returning at death into the common mass of\nthe same, mixing with all the other parts thereof, and to this, the\nincessant river-like flowing and transpiration of matter every\nmoment from the bodies of men while they live, as well as their daily\nnourishment, inspiration of air, and other additions of matter to their\nbulk; it seems probable that there is no particle of matter on the whole\nearth which has not been a part of man. Nor is this reasoning confined\nto our own species, but remains as true of every order of animals or\nplants, or any other beings, since they have been all resolved into one\nanother by ceaseless revolutions, so that nothing is more certain than\nthat every material Thing is all Things, and that all Things are but\nmanifestations of one.\"\n\nIn his reply to Wotton, who attacks those \"Letters to Serena,\" Toland\nsays they were addressed \"to a lady, the most accomplished then in the\nworld.\" The name of the lady will probably, remain forever a mystery.\n\nIn 1718, he published the celebrated work \"Nazarenus, or Jewish,\nGentile, and Mahometan Christianity,\" which caused an immense sensation\nat the time it appeared, and led to his \"Mangonentes\" (1720,) a work\nsingularly profound and effective. In the same year he gave the world\n\"Tetradymus,\" containing \"Hodegus, or the Pillar of Cloud and Fire,\"\nthat guided the Israelites in the Wilderness, _not miraculous_, but a\nthing equally practiced by other nations; and \"Clidophorus, or of\nthe Exoteric and Esoteric Philosophy;\" and \"Hypatia.\" There is a long\npreface to those books, \"from under an elm in Bensbury (or Chebem's\ncamp,) on the 'warren at the south end of Wimbledon Common (1720.\")\nAbout this time \"Pantheisticon\" appeared, written as a caricature\non Church Liturgies, which Archdeacon Hare denounced as \"downright\nAtheism.\"\n\nAlong with the above, Toland wrote a multitude of small pamphlets; he\ntranslated the fables of \u00c6sop, and published a poem, entitled \"Clito,\"\nwhich caused much excitement at the time; and, as it represented\nToland's ideal character, we reprinted it in the London Investigator.\nHis earlier political works were esteemed so valuable in the defence of\nthe Protestant succession, and advancing the interests of the Elector,\nsubsequently King of England, that in one of his visits paid to that\nCourt, he was presented by the Electress with miniature portraits of\nherself and family.\n\nThe following is a catalogue of the works of Toland, which have never\nyet been published, and the works in which they are mentioned:--\n\n1. The History of Socrates (in the Life of Harrington.)\n\n2. Systems of Divinity Exploded. An Epistolary Dissertation.\n(Christianity not Mysterious.)\n\n3. The History of the Canon of the New Testament. (Nazarenus.)\n\n4. Repubiica Mosaica. (Nazarenus.)\n\n5. A Treatise Concerning Tradition. (Tetradymus.)\n\nThere were several other works, part of them written, which passed into\nthe hands of Lord Molesworth (we believe,) part of which were published\n(the \"History of the Druid\" and also \"Giordano Bruno;\") but whether\nthey exist at the present time or not, we are unable to say.\n\nThere is also great difficulty in deciding as to the manner of Toland's\nlife; of this, however, we are certain, that he caused great opposition\nin his own day, and he was patronised by able man. He edited an edition\nof Lord Shaftesbury's Letters, and published a work of that noble Lord's\nsurreptitiously; he mingled amongst the German Courts, and appeared\non terms of equality with the _elite_ of the philosophers and the\naristocracy. The brief memoir prefaced to one of his works is an\nepistolary document addressed to a noble Lord. His acquaintance with\nLocke, Shaftesbury, Collins, Molesworth, and Molyneux, must have\nproceed-. ed from other causes than his genius, or why was Toland\nexalted when Mandeville, Chubb, and the brave Woolston are never so much\nas alluded to? We consider that there is a strong probability that\nhe was wealthy--or at least possessed of a moderate competence. His\nabilities were of a curious order. He seemed to be one of a school which\nrose about his time to advocate Freethought, but shackled by a\ndogma. His collegiate education gave him an early liking for the dead\nlanguages, and he carried out the notion of the ancients, that the\nexoteric or esoteric methods were still in force. From a careful\nperusal of the works of the \"Fathers,\" and the contemporary books of the\nheathens, he fancied that all the superstitions in the world differed\nbut in degree--that religion was but the organic cause of superstition,\nthe arguments made for it by the philosophers to propitiate the vulgar.\nThis idea (in the main) was agreed to by Woolston, although his violent\n\"Discourses,\" which were addressed to the unlearned, contained within\nthem the germ of their intrinsic popularity. Yet even Woolston's works,\nnotwithstanding their bluff exterior, had something more within them\nthan what the people could appreciate, or even the present race of\nFreethinkers can always understand; for underneath that unrivalled\nvein of sarcasm, there was in every instance an esoteric view, which\ncomprehended the meaning by which the earlier Christians understood\nthe gospels, and rendered them on the same scale as the works of the\nancients. The renowned William Whiston was another who interpreted\nScripture in a similar manner. All those writers would have been\nSwedenborgians if there had been no Freethought, while Whiston would\nhave been an Atheist had there been no representative of that school.\nWe do not consider Toland, then, as an absolute Deist. At that time the\nage was not so far progressed as to admit a Biblical scholar into\nthe extreme advanced list; and when a man has spent the whole of his\nchildhood in a sectarian family, and his youth and early manhood in\na University, it is an impossibility to throw off at one struggle the\nwhole of his past ideas; he may be unfettered in thought, and valiant in\nspeech, still there is the encyclop\u00e6dia of years hanging upon him as\na drag to that extreme development which he wishes, but cannot bring his\npassions to follow. Not that we would by any means observe that Toland\nwas comparatively behind his age, but that even in his more daring works\nhe still had a vague idea of Scripture being partly inspired, although\noverlaid with a mass of ecclesiastical verbiage.\n\nIt also seems a mystery how the works of Woolston could be condemned,\nhis person seized, while in the case of Toland we hear of nothing\nbut his works being burnt. Why was Convocation so idle? Why make idle\nthreats, and let their victim ramble at large! Was it because the one\nhad powerful friends and the other had none? or was it that in\nthe earlier portion of the career of Toland, the invisible hand of\nBolingbroke stayed the grasp of persecution? Or was Shaftesbury's memory\nso esteemed, that hid friend was untouched! Those particulars we cannot\nlearn, but they will take rank with other parallel cases, as when the\nsame government prosecuted Paine, and gave Gibbon a sinecure, or nearer\nour own times when a series of men were imprisoned for Atheism, and Sir\nWilliam Moles worth published similar sentiments without hindrance.\n\nIn the \"History of the Soul's Immortality,\" Toland thus gives\nthe explanation respecting the exoteric and esoteric doctrines of\nPythagoras:--\"Pythagoras himself did not believe the transmigration\nwhich has made his name so famous to posterity; for in the internal or\nsecret doctrine he meant no more than the eternal revolution of forms\nin matter, those ceaseless vicissitudes and alterations which turn\neverything into all things, and all things into anything; as vegetables\nand animals become part of us, we become part of them, and both become\nparts of a thousand other things in the universe, each turning into\nwater, water into air, etc., and so back again in mixtures without end\nor number. But in the external or popular doctrine he imposed on the\nmob by an equivocal expression that they should become various kinds\nof beasts after death, thereby to deter them the more effectually\nfrom wickedness.... Though the poets embellished their pieces with the\nopinion of the soul's immortality, yet a great number of them utterly\nrejected it for Seneca was not single in saying:--\n\n     'Naught's after death, and death itself is naught,\n     Of a quick race, only the utmost goal;\n     Then may the saints lose all their hope of heaven,\n     And sinners quit their racky fears of hell.'\"\n\nWe now dismiss John Toland from our view. He was one of the most honest,\nbrave, truthful, and scholastic of the old Deists. His memory will be\nborne on the wings of centuries, and if ever a true millennium does\narise, the name of this sterling Freethinker will occupy one of the\nbrightest niches in its Pantheon of Worthies.\n\nA. C.\n\n\n\n\nCOMPTE DE VOLNEY.\n\nConstantine Francis Chasshboeuf, de Volney, was born on February 3rd,\n1757, at Craon, in Anjou. His father, a distinguished advocate, not\nwishing his son to bear the name of _Chasseboeuf_, resolved that he\nshould assume that of _Boisgirais_. With this name Constantine Francis\nwas first known in the world, studying at the College of Ancenis and\nAngers. He afterwards commenced his Oriental travels, changing his name\nto Volney.\n\nAt the age of seventeen, finding himself his own master, and possessed\nof \u00a350 a-year, inherited from his mother, he went to Paris, in order\nto study the sciences, preferring the study of medicine and physiology,\nalthough giving great attention to history and the ancient languages.\nOn inheriting a legacy of \u00a3240, he visited Egypt and Syria, starting on\nfoot, a knapsack on his back, a gun on his shoulder, and his \u00a3240, in\ngold, concealed in a belt. When he arrived in Egypt, he shut himself up\nfor eight months in a Coptic monastery, in order to learn Arabic; after\nwhich he commenced his travels through Egypt and Syria, returning to\nFrance after an absence of four years, and publishing his \"Voyage en\nEgypte et en Syrie,\" which was acknowledged by the French army, on their\nconquering Egypt, to be the only book \"that had never deceived them.\"\nThe French Government named him Director of Commerce and Agriculture in\nCorsica, but being elected a deputy of the tiers-etat of the Senechausse\nof Anjou, he resigned the government appointment, holding the maxim,\nthat a national deputy ought not in any way to be a pensioner. He\nopposed all secret deliberations, and wished to admit the constituents\nand the citizens. He was made secretary on the 23rd of November, 1790,\nand in the debates, which arose upon the power of the king to determine\npeace and war, Volney proposed and carried the resolution that \"The\nFrench nation renounces from this moment the undertaking any war tending\nto increase their territory.\" In 1792, he accompanied Pozzo di Borgo\nto Corsica, in compliance with invitations from many influential\ninhabitants, who sought his information. In Corsica he became acquainted\nwith Napoleon Buonaparte, who was then an artillery officer; and some\nyears after, hearing that Buonaparte had obtained the command of the\narmy of Italy, Volney exclaimed, \"If circumstances favor him, we shall\nsee the head of a C\u00e6esar upon the shoulders of an Alexander.\" When\nVolney returned to Paris, he published an \"Account of the State of\nCorsica.\" He was afterwards appointed Professor of History, attracting\nlarge audiences; but the Normal School being suppressed, he embarked for\nthe United States of America, in 1795. He was received by Washington,\nwho bestowed publicly on him marks of honor and friendship. In 1798,\nVolney returned to France, and gave up to his mother-in-law the property\nwhich he was entitled to from the death of his father, which had\njust occurred. During his absence, he had been chosen a member of the\nInstitute. Buonaparte also, on Volney's return, tried to win his esteem\nand assistance, soliciting him as colleague in the consulship. But\nhe refused the co-operation, as also the office of Minister of the\nInterior.\n\nSeldom do men find so many inducements to \"accept office\" as was offered\nto Volney; and seldom do men appear who are disinterested enough to\nreject the inducements then held out to him. Although he refused to work\n_with_ the ruling powers of that day, he ever ceased to work _for_ the\n_people!_ He occupied himself till the last year of his life in giving\nto the world that literature which will never be forgotten.\n\nIt would be impossible to notice all the works written by such an\nindefatigable thinker as the \"_heretic_\" of our sketch. We ought to\nmention, however, that subsequently to his being made Peer of France,\nby Louis XVIII.; and when there existed an intention of crowning\nLouis, Volney published \"The History of Samuel, the inventor of Royal\nCoronations.\" This book represents Samuel as an impostor, Saul as the\nblind instrument of sacerdotal cunning, and David as an ambitious youth.\nIn September, 1791, Volney presented to the Assembly \"The Ruins,\nor Meditations on the Revolutions of Empires,\" a book which will\nimmortalize him in the memory of Freethinkers. The originality of style,\nand the eloquence of expression, cannot fail to interest all who read\nit. We give the following extracts, from the above work, but as it\ncontains so much that ought to be read, we must return to the subject in\nanother number:--\n\n\"Legislators, friends of evidence and of truth!\n\n\"That the subject of which we treat should be involved in so many\nclouds, is by no means astonishing, since, beside the difficulties\nthat are peculiar to it, thought itself has, till this moment, ever had\nshackles imposed upon it, and free inquiry, by the intolerance of\nevery religious system, been interdicted. But now that thought is\nunrestrained, and may develope all its powers, we will expose in the\nface of day, and submit to the common judgment of assembled nations,\nsuch rational truths as unprejudiced minds have by long and laborious\nstudy discovered: and this, not with the design of imposing them as a\ncreed, but from a desire of provoking new lights, and obtaining better\ninformation.\n\n\"Chiefs and instructors of the people! you are not ignorant of the\nprofound obscurity in which the nature, origin, and history of the\ndogmas you teach are enveloped. Imposed by force and authority,\ninculcated by education, maintained by the influence of example, they\nwere perpetuated from age to age, and habit and inattention strengthened\ntheir empire. But if man, enlightened by experience and reflection,\nsummon to the bar of mature examination the prejudices of his infancy,\nhe presently discovers a multitude of incongruities and contradictions,\nwhich awaken his sagacity, and call forth the exertion of his reasoning\npowers.\n\n\"At first, remarking the various and opposite creeds into which nations\nare divided, we are led boldly to reject the infallibility claimed\nby each; and arming ourselves alternately with their reciprocal\npretensions, to conceive that the senses and the understanding,\nemanating directly from God, are a law not less sacred, and a guide not\nless sure, than the indirect and contradictory codes of the prophets.\n\n\"If we proceed to examine the texture of the codes themselves, we shall\nobserve that their pretended divine laws, that is to say, laws immutable\nand eternal, have risen from the complexion of times, of places, and\nof persons; that these codes issue one from another in a kind of\ngenealogical order, mutually borrowing a common and similar fund of\nideas, which _every_ institutor modifies agreeably to his fancy.\n\n\"If we ascend to the source of those ideas, we shall find that it is\nlost in the night of time, in the infancy of nations, in the very origin\nof the world, to which they claim alliance: and there, immersed in\nthe obscurity of chaos, and the fabulous empire of tradition, they are\nattended with so many prodigies as to be seemingly inaccessible to the\nhuman understanding. But this prodigious state of things gives birth to\na ray of reasoning, that resolves the difficulty; for if the miracles\nheld out in systems of religion have actually existed; if, for instance,\nmetamorphoses, apparitions and the conversations of one or more Gods,\nrecorded in the sacred books of the Hindoos, the Hebrews, and the\nParses, are indeed events in real history, it follows that nature in\nthose times was perfectly unlike the nature that we are acquainted with\nnow; that men of the present age are totally different from the men that\nformerly existed; but, consequently, that we ought not to trouble our\nheads about them.\n\n\"On the contrary, if those miraculous facts have had no real existence\nin the physical order of things, they must be regarded solely as\nproductions of the human intellect: and the nature of man, at this\nday, capable of making the most fantastic combinations, explains the\nphenomenon of those monsters in history. The only difficulty is to\nascertain how and for what purpose the imagination invented them. If we\nexamine with attention the subjects that are exhibited by them, if\nwe analyze the ideas which they combine and associate, and weigh with\naccuracy all their concomitant circumstances, we shall find a solution\nperfectly conformable to the laws of nature. Those fabulous stories have\na figurative sense different from their apparent one; they are founded\non simple and physical facts; but these facts being ill-conceived and\nerroneously represented, have been disfigured and changed from their\noriginal nature by accidental causes dependent on the human mind, by the\nconfusion of signs made use of in the representation of objects, by the\nequivocation of words, the defect of language, and the imperfection of\nwriting. These Gods, for example, who act such singular parts in every\nsystem, are no other than the physical powers of nature, the elements,\nthe winds, the meteors, the stars, all which have been personified by\nthe necessary mechanism of language, and the manner in which objects\nare conceived by the understanding. Their life, their manners, their\nactions, are only the operation of the same powers, and the whole of\ntheir pretended history no more than a description of their various\nphenomena, traced by the first naturalist that observed them, but taken\nin a contrary sense by the vulgar, who did not understand it, or by\nsucceeding generations, who forgot it. In a word, all the theological\ndogmas respecting the origin of the world, the nature of God, the\nrevelation of his laws, the manifestation of his person, are but\nrecitals of astronomical facts, figurative and emblematical narratives\nof the motion and influence of the heavenly bodies. The very idea\nitself of the divinity, which is at present so obscure, abstracted, and\nmetaphysical, was in its origin merely a composite of the powers of the\nmaterial universe, considered sometimes analytically, as they appear\nin their agents and their phenomena, and sometimes synthetically, as\nforming one whole, and exhibiting an harmonious revelation in all its\nparts. Thus the name of God has been bestowed sometimes upon the wind,\nupon fire, water, and the elements; sometimes upon the sun, the stars,\nthe planets, and their influences; sometimes upon the universe at large,\nand the matter of which the world is composed; sometimes upon abstract\nand metaphysical properties, such as space, duration, motion, and\nintelligence; but in every instance, the idea of a Deity has not flowed\nfrom the miraculous revelation of an invisible world, but has been\nthe natural result of human reflection, has followed the progress and\nundergone the changes of the successive improvement of intellect, and\nhas had for its subject the visible universe and its different agents.\n\n\"It is then in vain that nations refer the origin of their religion\nto heavenly inspiration; it is in vain that they pretend to describe a\nsupernatural state of things as first in order of events; the original\nbarbarous state of mankind, attested by their own monuments, belies all\ntheir assertions. These assertions are still more victoriously refuted\nby considering this great principle, _that man receives no ideas but\nthrough the medium of his senses_: for from hence it appears that every\nsystem which ascribes human wisdom to any other source than experience\nand sensation, includes in it a ysteron vroteron, and represents the\nlast results of understanding as earliest in the order of time. If\nwe examine the different religious systems which have been formed\nrespecting the actions of the Gods, and the origin of the world, we\nshall discover at every turn an anticipation in the order of narrating\nthings, which could only be suggested by subsequent reflection. Reason,\nthen, emboldened by these contradictions, hesitates not to reject\nwhatever does not accord with the nature of things, and accepts nothing\nfor historical truth that is not capable of being established by\nargument and ratiocination. Its ideas and suggestions are as follows:--\n\n\"Before any nation received from a neighbor nation dogmas already\ninvented; before one generation inherited the ideas of another, none of\nthese complicated systems had existence. The first men, the children of\nnature, whose consciousness was anterior to experience, and who brought\nno preconceived knowledge into the world with them, were born without\nany idea of those articles of faith which are the result of learned\ncontention; of those religious rites which had relation to arts and\npractices not yet in existence; of those precepts which suppose the\npassions already developed; of those laws which have reference to a\nlanguage and a social order hereafter to be produced; of that God, whose\nattributes are abstractions of the knowledge of nature, and the idea of\nwhose conduct is suggested by the experience of a despotic government;\nin fine, of that soul and those spiritual existences which are said not\nto be the object of the senses, but which, however, we must forever have\nremained unacquainted with, if our senses had not introduced them to\nus. Previously to arriving at these notions, an immense catalogue of\nexisting facts must have been observed. Man, originally savage, must\nhave learned from repeated trials the use of his organs. Successive\ngenerations must have invented and refined upon the means of\nsubsistence; and the understanding, at liberty to disengage itself from\nthe wants of nature, must have risen to the complicated art of comparing\nideas, digesting reasonings, and seizing upon abstract similitudes.\n\n\"It was not till after having surmounted those obstacles, and run a long\ncareer in the night of history, that man, reflecting on his state, began\nto perceive his subjection to forces superior to his own and independent\nof his will. The sun gave him light and warmth; fire burned, thunder\nterrified, the winds buffeted, water overwhelmed him; all the various\nnatural existences acted upon him in a manner not to be resisted. For a\nlong time an automaton, he remained passive, without inquiring into the\ncause of this action; but the very moment he was desirous of accounting\nto himself for it, astonishment seized his mind; and passing from the\nsurprise of a first thought to the reverie of curiosity, he formed a\nchain of reasoning.\n\n\"At first, considering only the action of the elements upon him, he\ninferred relatively to himself, an idea of weakness, of subjection, and\nrelatively to them, an idea of power, of domination; and this idea\nwas the primitive and fundamental type of all his conceptions of the\ndivinity.\n\n\"The action of the natural existences, in the second place, excited in\nhim sensations of pleasure or pain, of good or evil; by virtue of his\norganization, he conceived love or aversion for them, he desired or\ndreaded their presence: and fear or hope was the principle of every idea\nof religion.\n\n\"Afterwards, judging everything by comparison, and remarking in those\nbeings a motion spontaneous like his own, he supposed there to be a\nwill, an intelligence inherent in that motion, of a nature similar to\nwhat existed in himself; and hence, by way of inference, he started\na fresh argument. Having experienced that certain modes of behavior\ntowards his fellow-creatures wrought a change in their affections and\ngoverned their conduct, he applied those practices to the powerful\nbeings of the universe. 'When my fellow-creature of superior strength,'\nsaid he to himself, 'is disposed to injure me, I humble myself before\nhim, and my prayer has the art of appeasing him. I will pray to the\npowerful beings that strike me. I will supplicate the faculties of the\nplanets, the waters, and they will hear me. I will conjure them to\navert the calamities, and to grant me the blessings which are at their\ndisposal. My tears will move, my offerings propitiate them, and I shall\nenjoy complete felicity.'\n\n\"And, simple in the infancy of his reason, man spoke to the sun and\nthe moon; he animated with his understanding and his passions the great\nagents of nature; he thought by vain sounds and useless practices to\nchange their inflexible laws. Fatal error! He desired that the water\nshould ascend, the mountains be removed, the stone mount in the air;\nand substituting a fantastic to a real world, he constituted for himself\nbeings of opinion, to the terror of his mind and the torment of his\nrace.\n\n\"Thus the ideas of God and religion sprung, like all others, from\nphysical objects, and were in the understanding of man, the products\nof his sensations, his wants, the circumstances of his life, and the\nprogressive state of his knowledge.\n\n\"As these ideas had natural beings for their first models, it resulted\nfrom hence that the divinity was originally as various and manifold\nas the forms under which he seemed to act: each being was a power, a\ngenius, and the first men found the universe crowded with innumerable\nGods.\n\n\"In like manner the ideas of the divinity having had for motors the\naffections of the human heart, they underwent an order of division\ncalculated from the sensations of pain: and pleasure, of love and\nhatred: the powers of nature, the Gods, the genii, were classed into\nbenign and maleficent, into good and evil ones: and this constitutes the\nuniversality of these two ideas in every system of religion.\n\n\"These ideas, analogous to the condition of their inventors, were for\na long time confused and cross. Wandering in woods, beset with wants,\ndestitute of resources, men in their savage state had no leisure to make\ncomparisons and draw conclusions. Suffering more ills than they tasted\nenjoyments, their most habitual sentiment was fear, their theology\nterror, their worship was confined to certain modes of salutation,\nof offerings which they presented to beings whom they supposed to be\nferocious and greedy like themselves. In their state of equality and\nindependence, no one took upon him the office of mediator with Gods\nas insubordinate and poor as himself. No one having any superfluity\nto dispose of, there existed no parasite under the name of priest, nor\ntribute under the name of victim, nor empire under the name of\naltar; their dogmas and morality, jumbled together, were only\nself-preservation; and their religion, an arbitrary idea without\ninfluence on the mutual relations existing between men, was but a vain\nhomage paid to the visible powers of nature.\n\n\"Such was the first and necessary origin of every idea of the\ndivinity....\"\n\n\"In reality, when the vulgar heard others talk of a new heaven and\nanother world, they gave a body to these fictions; they erected on it\na solid stage and real scenes; and their notions of geography and\nastronomy served to strengthen, if they did not give rise to the delusion.\n\n\"On the one hand, the Phoenician navigators, those who passed the\npillars of Hercules to fetch the pewter of Thule and the amber of the\nBaltic, related that at the extremity of the world, the boundaries of\nthe ocean (the Mediterranean,) where the sun sets to the countries of\nAsia, there were Fortunate Islands, the abode of an everlasting spring;\nand at a farther distance, hyperborean regions, placed under the earth\n(relatively to the tropics,) where reigned an eternal night. From\nthose stories, badly understood, and no doubt confusedly related, the\nimagination of the people composed the Elysian Fields, delightful spots\nin a world below, having their heaven, their sun, and their stars; and\nTartarus, a place of darkness, humidity, mire, and chilling frost.\nNow, inasmuch as mankind, inquisitive about all that of which they are\nignorant, and desirous of a protracted existence, had already exerted\ntheir faculties respecting what was to become of them after death;\ninasmuch, as they had early reasoned upon that principle of life which\nanimates the body, and which quits it without changing the form of the\nbody, and had conceived to themselves airy substances, phantoms\nand shades, they loved to believe that they should resume in the\nsubterranean world that life which it was so painful to lose; and this\nabode appeared commodious for the reception of those beloved objects\nwhich they could not prevail on themselves to renounce.\n\n\"On the other hand, the astrological and philosophical priests told such\nstories of their heavens as perfectly quadrated with these fictions.\nHaving, in their metaphorical language, denominated the equinoxes and\nsolstices the gates of heaven, or the entrance of the seasons, they\nexplained the terrestrial phenomena by saying, that through the gate of\nhorn (first the bull, afterwards the ram,) vivifying fires descended,\nwhich, in spring, gave life to vegetation, and aquatic spirits, which\ncaused, at the solstice, the overflowing of the Nile: that through the\ngate of ivory (originally the bowman, or Sagittarius, then the balance,)\nand through that of Capricorn, or the urn, the emanations or influences\nof the heavens returned to their source and re-ascended to their origin;\nand the Milky Way which passed through the doors of the solstices,\nseemed to them to have been placed there on purpose to be their road\nand vehicle. The celestial scene farther presented, according to their\nAtlas, a river (the Nile, designated by the windings of the Hydra;)\ntogether with a barge (the vessel Argo,) and the dog Sirius, both\nbearing relation to that river, of which they foreboded the overflowing.\nThese circumstances, added to the preceding ones, increased the\nprobability of the fiction; and thus to arrive at Tartarus or Elysium,\nsouls were obliged to cross the rivers Styx and Acheron, in the boat of\nCharon the ferryman, and to pass through the doors of horn and ivory,\nwhich were guarded by the mastiff Cerberus. At length a civil usage was\njoined to all these inventions, and gave them consistency.\n\n\"The inhabitants of Egypt having remarked that the putrefaction of dead\nbodies became in their burning climate the source of pestilence and\ndiseases, the custom was introduced in a great number of States, of\nburying the dead at a distance from the inhabited districts, in the\ndesert which lies at the West. To arrive there it was necessary to cross\nthe canals of the river in a boat, and to pay a toll to the ferryman,\notherwise the body remaining unburied, would have been left a prey\nto wild beasts. This custom suggested to her civil and religious\nlegislators, a powerful means of affecting the manners of her\ninhabitants, and addressing savage and uncultivated men with the motives\nof filial piety and reverence for the dead; they introduced, as a\nnecessary condition, the undergoing that previous trial which should\ndecide whether the deceased deserved to be admitted upon the footing of\nhis family honors into the _black city_. Such an idea too well accorded\nwith the rest of the business not to be incorporated with it; it\naccordingly entered for an article into religious creeds, and hell had\nits Minos and its Radamanthus, with the wand, the chair, the guards, and\nthe urn, after the exact model of this civil transaction. The divinity\nthen, for the first time, became a subject of moral and political\nconsideration, a legislator, by so much the more formidable as,\nwhile his judgment was final and his decrees without appeal, he was\nunapproachable to his subjects. This mythological and fabulous creation,\ncomposed as it was of scattered and discordant parts, then became a\nsource of future punishments and rewards, in which divine justice was\nsupposed to correct the vices and errors of this transitory state. A\nspiritual and mystical system, such as I have mentioned, acquired so\nmuch the more credit as it applied itself to the mind by every argument\nsuited to it. The oppressed looked thither for an indemnification, and\nentertained the consoling hope of vengeance; the oppressor expected by\nthe costliness of his offerings to secure to himself impunity, and\nat the same time employed this principle to inspire the vulgar with\ntimidity; kings and priests, the heads of the people, saw in it a\nnew source of power, as they reserved to themselves the privilege of\nawarding the favors or the censure of the great Judge of all, accord-ing\nto the opinion they, should inculcate of the odiousness of crimes and\nthe meritoriousness of virtue.\n\n\"Thus, then, an invisible and imaginary world entered into competition\nwith that which was real. Such, O Persians! was the origin of your\nrenovated earth, your city of resurrection, placed under the equator,\nand distinguished from all other cities by this singular attribute,\nthat the bodies of its inhabitants cast no shade. Such, O Jews and\nChristians! disciples of the Persians, was the source of your New\nJerusalem, your paradise and your heaven, modelled upon the astrological\nheaven of Hermes. Meanwhile your hell, O ye Musselmans! a subterraneous\npit surmounted by a bridge, your balance of souls and good works,\nyour judgment pronounced by the angels Monkir and Nekir, derives its\nattributes from the mysterious ceremonies of the cave of Mithra; and\nyour heaven is exactly coincident with that of Osiris, Ormuzd, and\nBrama.\"....\n\n\"It is evident, that it is not truth for which you contend; that it is\nnot her cause you are jealous of maintaining, but the cause of your own\npassions and prejudices; that it is not the object as it really exists\nthat you wish to verify, but the object as it appears to you; that it is\nnot the evidence of the thing that you are anxious should prevail, but\nyour personal opinion, your mode of seeing and judging. There is a power\nthat you want to exercise, an interest that you want to maintain, a\nprerogative that you want to assume: in short, the whole is a struggle\nof vanity. And as every individual, when he compares himself with every\nother, finds himself to be his equal and fellow, he resists by a similar\nfeeling of right; and from this right, which you all deny to each\nother, and from the inherent consciousness of your equality, spring your\ndisputes, your combats, and your intolerance.\n\n\"Now the only way of restoring unanimity is by returning to nature, and\ntaking the order of things which she has established for your director\nand guide, and this farther truth will then appear from your uniformity\nof sentiment.\n\n\"If we would arrive at uniformity of opinion, we must previously\nestablish certainty, and verify the resemblance which our ideas have\nto their models. Now, this cannot be obtained, except so far as the\nobjects of our inquiry can be referred to the testimony, and subjected\nto the examination of our senses. Whatever cannot be brought to this\ntrial is beyond the limits of our understanding: we have neither rule to\ntry it by, nor measure by which to institute a comparison, nor source of\ndemonstration and knowledge concerning it.\n\n\"Whence it is obvious that, in order to live in peace and harmony,\nwe must consent not to pronounce upon such objects, nor annex to them\nimportance; we must draw a line of demarcation between such as can be\nverified and such as cannot, and separate, by an inviolable barrier, the\nworld of fantastic beings from the world of realities: that is to say,\nall civil effect must be taken away from theological and religious\nopinions.\n\n\"This, O nations! is the end that a great people, freed from their\nfetters and prejudices, have proposed to themselves; this is the work\nin which, by their command, and under their immediate auspices, we were\nengaged, when your kings and your priests came to interrupt our\nlabors.... Kings and priests! you may yet for awhile suspend the solemn\npublication of the laws of nature; but it is no longer in your power to\nannihilate or to subvert them.\"\n\nWe conclude with the following:--\"Investigate the laws which nature,\nfor our direction, has implanted in our breasts, and form from thence\nan authentic and immutable code. Nor let this code be calculated for one\nfamily, or one nation only, but for the whole with-out exception. Be\nthe legislators of the human race, as ye are the interpreters of their\ncommon nature. Show us the line that separates the world of chimeras\nfrom that of realities: and teach us, after so many religions of error\nand delusion, the religion of evidence and truth.\"\n\nOur space prohibits further quotation in this number; but when we return\nto the subject, we shall notice chapter xxi., \"Problem of Religious\nContradictions,\" and also \"The Law of Nature; or Principles of\nMorality.\" Few men wrote more on various topics than Volney; and few\nhave been more respected while living, and esteemed when dead, by those\nwhose respect and esteem it is always an honor to possess. At the age\nof fifty-three, after much travel and great study, Volney consoled his\nlatter days by marrying his cousin--the hope of his youth--Mdlle. de\nChassebouf. A disorder of the bladder, contracted when traversing the\nArabian deserts, caused his death at the age of sixty-three. He was\nburied in the cemetery of Pere Lachaise, when Laya, Director of the\nFrench Academy, pronounced a noble panegyric over his grave; and months\nafter his death he was spoken highly of by some of the most illustrious\nmen of France. Thus ended the days of one of the Freethinkers of the\npast whose works, despite all suppression, will never die.\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n\n\nCHARLES BLOUNT.\n\nLook with me through the dark vista of 150 years of clouded history.\nThrow your mind across the bridge of time, for we are about to visit\na tragic scene--a scene which might be depicted by a poet--so much of\nbeauty, of truth, and of goodness, all blasted by the perjuries of the\npriest. Yonder, in the dim library of an ancestral mansion, embowered\namid the woods of the south, close by the gurgling waters which beat an\necho to the stormy breezes--those breezes which will never more fan\nhis cheek--that water where he has often bathed his limbs will be his\nrippling monument. The shady moonlight of an August evening is gilding\nthe rich pastures of Hertfordshire; the gorse bushes have not yet lost\ntheir beauty, the pheasants are playing in the woods--woods that so\nlately resounded with laughter--laughter ringing like a bell--the music\nof a merry heart. Withdraw those curtains which hide the heart-struck\nand the dead. Above you is the exquisite picture of Eleanora, gazing\ninto the very bed at that form which lay shrouded in nothingness. You\nsee the broad manly brow--even now the brown hair rises in graceful\ncurls over that damp forehead. The lips are locked in an eternal smile,\nas if to mock the closed eyes and the recumbent form. Is it true that\npictures of those we love are endowed with a clairvoyant power of gazing\nat those who have caressed them in life? If it is, then on that August\nnight the wife of Charles Blount was watching over his bier.\n\nBut who is that pale form, with dishevelled hair and weeping eyes,\nwith an alabaster skin stained with the blue spots of grief? The rapid\nupheaving swells of that fair bosom tell of affection withered, not by\nremorse, but by superstition? See her how she nervously grasps that\ndead man's hand, how she imprints kisses on his lips! Her hair, which\nyesterday was glossy as the raven's, is now as bleached as the driven\nsnow; to-day she utters her plaintive cries, to-morrow she hastens to\njoin her lover in the tomb. This is a sad history. It should be written\nwith the juice of hemlock, as a warning to Genius of impatient love.\n\nWhile the fair girl watches by the couch of the suicide, while from the\npainted canvass Eleanora gleams on the living and the dead, while the\nclouds of night gather silently over that ancestral hall, around the\ndrooping corn on the bold sloping park, and the clear blue river--all so\nquiet and gentle--let us gather up the events of the past, and learn the\ncause of a death so tragic, a grief so piercing.\n\nIn the year 1672, at the age of nineteen years, a young man (the son of\na baronet) led to the altar the lovely daughter of Sir Timothy Tyrrel.\nFlowers strewed the path of the wedded pair, and for years their life\nwas one scene of bliss. At last, struck down by disease, Charles Blount\nstood by the side of his dying wife--in his arms _his_ Eleanora yielded\nher last sigh. He buried her by the willow-tree in the old churchyard.\nThe lily blended with the white rose, and the myrtle overshadowed the\ngrave. It was here where the widower rested in the evening--here where\nhe taught his children the virtues of their dead mother. Sometimes he\ngazed at the azure skies, and strange fancies beguiled the mind of the\nmourner. When he saw the sun sink to the west, gilding the world with\nits glorious rays, he mused on the creeds of many lands. He fancied he\nsaw a heaven and a God, and traced in the lines of light the\npatriarchal worshippers of the world. He looked at the sun and its\nworshippers--those who sought the origin of purity by worshipping that\nwhich is the origin of all good. He looked at the fables of Greece, and\nfound delight in the thought of Sappho uttering her diapason of joy in\nlyrics which told of love and beauty; at Egypt, where the priests, in\ntheir esoteric cunning, searched in vain for that which gives life, and\nmotion, and joy; and then he glanced at the Christian heaven, but here\nall was dark--dark as the Plutonian caverns of Homer's hell. He\nwished to meet his Eleanora--not in Pagan dreams--not in Christian\nparables--but in the world of realities. He looked with eager eyes upon\nthe world around him, in society, at Court, and, in the homes of his\ncountry. But wherever he went, there was but one thought--one feeling.\nHe wished a mother for his children--a mother like the sainted dead.\nThere was but one who answered the ideal--like in features, in passion,\nand in beauty--to the lost Eleanora. Born of the same parents, loved by\nthe same brother, educated by the same teachers, imbued with the same\nthoughts, she was the model of her dead sister; with a sisterly love\nfor her brother, she was already both mother and aunt to her sister's\nchildren.\n\nWith deliberate thoughts, with convulsive passion, the love of Charles\nBlount passed the bounds of that of a brother; longing to make her his\nwife, he adored her with the passion he had lavished on the dead. It\nseemed as if the shade of Eleanora was perpetually prompting him to\nbestow all his affection on the young and beautiful Eliza. She caressed\nhis children with the pride of an aunt, she traced the image of her\nsister in the laughing eyes of the merry babes--still she was not happy.\nHow could she be happy? She loved him as a man--as a brother. She was\na Christian--he an Infidel. She was bound by creeds--he by conduct. She\nwas doing the duty she owed to the dead. He sought to do it by uniting\nhimself to the living. Eliza was anxious to marry, but there existed\nsomething which, to her mind, was greater than human duties, and it\noften outraged them. God and the Church demanded her first attention,\nand then her lover and his children. The Church, in cruel mockery of\nhuman rights, stepped between her judgment and her affections. It denied\nthe power of a woman to occupy the married home of her deceased sister.\nShe was willing to pledge her love to Charles Blount at the altar, but\nthe priest mocked her prayers and denounced her affections. The occasion\nwas too good to be lost. Episcopalism sought revenge on its opponent,\nand it triumphed. Eliza felt the force of Blount's arguments. She\nwandered with him through the green fields, but her sorrow was too\ngreat to pluck the wild roses. The luscious fruits of summer were\npassed untasted. A heart sick and in trouble, a mind wandering from her\nsister's grave to her children, and then at the anathema of the Church,\nmade her a widowed maid. To overcome her scruples, her lover wrote a\nbook (inviting the clergy to refute it,) defending the marriage with a\ndeceased wife's sister. But ever as he spoke there was a film before her\neyes. There was a gaunt priest, with canonical robes, stood before the\ngates of heaven. Before him and through him was the way to an eternal\nhappiness, below him was a fiery hell; and he shouted with hoarse voice,\n_Incest, incest, incest!_--And ever as he shouted, he pointed with his\nfinger of scorn at this Christian hell, and she conjured up in her mind\nthe old stories of this priest, until she saw the livid flames rising up\nhigher till they encircled her form, and then the priest screamed with\nfury, _Anathema maranatha, incest, incest!_ And in terror she stood,\nwith the big drops of sweat dripping from her brow, with her heart\nbeating, with her mind distracted, but her affections unclouded.\n\nThis priest was the Church of England, and those fancies were driven\ninto her imagination by her creed, her litanies, and her sermons. Eliza\nTyrrel was miserable; she was placed between her love, her duty, and her\nreligion. If she had been a woman of a strong mind, she would have\ntorn her creed into shreds, she would have dared the anathema of the\npriest--the ostracism of its dupes--and would have clung to the man she\nloved so truly, in defiance of that which was, at the best, but a faint\npossibility.\n\nThe arguments in that pamphlet of Blount's were conclusive, but she\ndistrusted reason. The plainest dictates of common logic were referred\nto the promptings of the Devil. How could it be otherwise? Can the\nteachings of a lifetime be overthrown by the courtship of a few months?\nEliza Tyrrel, true to Blount, loved him; true to her religion, she durst\nnot marry him without the sanction of the Church. So Blount, as a last\nresolve, laid the matter before the Lord's Vicegerent at Canterbury,\nand many of the most learned divines of England; and from those\necclesiastical leeches there was a Shylock cry of _incest, incest,\nincest!_ And those terrible words came greeting the ears of Charles\nBlount, making his home like a charnel-house, and they nearly sent his\nbeautiful Eliza to a maniac's grave. Still she lingered on. Denied the\npower of a wife, she would not relinquish her duties as a mother to her\nsister's babes. There was a calm heroism here which few can imitate.\nThe passions of Blount could not brook further insults. The last kick\nof bigotry against the broken-hearted Freethinker was given. He could\nno longer rise with the lark, and roam over the hills of his ancestral\nhome. To him the birds, as they warbled, spoke of joys never to return.\nThe broad river told him of the days when the little skiff floated\non its waters with Eleanora; and even his friends only too bitterly\nreminded him of the tournaments of wit where Hobbes, Brown, and Gildon,\njousted each other in the presence of his wife. His life was one scene\nof misery. He saw no chance of amendment. In a fit of despair, he\nloaded his pistol with due deliberation, placed it to his head, and shot\nhimself. He lingered for sometime, and then died on the breast of Eliza.\n\nThis was a strange suicide. Blount's memory bears its weight of obloquy.\nIt is hard to draw the line when and where a man has a right to take\naway his life. Common sense tells us that so long as our families are\ndependent upon us, we have no right to end our lives; and if we have no\ndependents, no friends, then our country has a claim upon us. But, at\nthe same time, the one sole end of existence is to be happy. If a man\ncannot find happiness in life, if there is a great coalition against\nhim, he is justified in taking up arms against them; but, at the same\ntime, it proves a greater amount of courage \"to bear up against the ills\nof life\" than to madly leave it, and thus weaken the force of those who\nwish to stem its injustice.\n\nCharles Blount died, and with him expired much of the chivalry of\nFreethought. His friend, Charles Gil-don, writing of him to a lady,\nsays, \"You know Astrea (Eliza,) and have an exact friendship with\nher. You can attest her beauty, wit, honor, virtue, good humor, and\ndiscretion. You have been acquainted with the charms of her conversation\nand conduct, and condemn her, only adhering to a national custom to the\nloss of so generous a friend, and so faithful a lover. But custom and\nobedience meeting the more easily, betrayed her virtue into a crime. I\nknow my friend loved her to his last breath; and I know, therefore, that\nall who love his memory must, for her sake, love and value her, as being\na lady of that merit, that engaged the reason of Philander (C. Blount)\nto so violent a passion for her.\"\n\nThe same writer says, \"His father was Sir Henry Blount, the Socrates\nof the age, for his aversions to the reigning sophisms and hypocrisies,\neminent in all capacities: the best husband, father, and master,\nextremely agreeably in conversation, and just in all his dealings.\nFrom such a father our hero derived him self; to such a master owed\nhis generous education, unmixed with the nauseous methods and profane\nopinions of the schools. Nature gave him parts capable of the noblest\nsciences, and his industrious studies bore a proportion to his\ncapacities. He was a generous and constant friend, an indulgent parent,\nand a kind master. His temper was open and free; his conversation\npleasant; his reflections just and modest; his repartees close--not\nscurrilous; he had a great deal of wit, and no malice. His mind was\nlarge and noble--above the little designs of most men; an enemy to\ndissimulation, and never feared to own his thoughts. He was a true\nEnglishman, and lover of the liberties of his country, and declared it\nin the worst of times. He was an enemy to nothing but error, and none\nwere his enemies that knew him, but those who sacrificed more to mammon\nthan reason.\"\n\nThis was the man who died, because a dominant priesthood insisted on\na dogma which interfered with a purely Secular rite, which blasted two\nhearts in a vain attempt to perpetuate a system, which dashes its rude\nfingers, and tears out the heart of human felicity to sprinkle the altar\nof superstition with the gore of offended innocence. Charles Blount\nwas a Deist; as such, he believed in a God; which he described in his\naccount of a Deist's religion. Let us examine his thoughts, and see if\nthey bear the interpretation which Christianity has always placed upon\nthem. Blount gives the Deist's opinion of God. He says, \"Whatever is\nadorable, amiable, and imitable by mankind, is in one Supreme, perfect\nBeing.\" An Atheist cannot object to this. He speaks in the manner\nin which God is to be worshipped. He says, not by sacrifice, or by a\nMediator, but by a steady adherence to all that is great and good and\nimitable in nature. This is the brief religious creed of Charles Blount.\nHe never seeks to find out fabled attributes of Deity. He knows what is\nof value to mankind, and sedulously practices whatever is beneficial to\nsociety.\n\nIn his \"Anima Mundi, or, History of the Opinions of the Heathens on the\nImmortality of the Soul,\" (p. 97,) Blount says:--\n\n\"The heathen philosophers were much divided concerning the soul's\nfuture state; some held it mortal, others immortal. Of those who held\nthe mortality of the soul, the Epicureans were the chief sect, who,\nnotwithstanding their doctrines, led virtuous lives.\" Cardan had so\ngreat a value for their moral actions, that he appeared in justification\nof them. It appears (says he) \"by the writings of Cicero, Diogenes,\nand Laertius, that the Epicureans did more religiously observe laws,\npiety, and fidelity among men than either the Stoics or the Platonists;\nand I suppose the cause thereof was, that a man is either good or evil\nby custom, but none confideth in those that do not possess sanctity of\nlife. Wherefore they were compelled to use greater fidelity, thereby\nthe better to justify their profession, from which reason it likewise\nproceeds, that at this day few do equal the fidelity of usurers,\nnotwithstanding they are most base in the rest of their life. Also among\nthe Jews, whilst the Pharisees, that confessed the resurrection and the\nimmortality of the soul, frequently persecuted Christ, the Sadducees,\nwho denied the resurrection, angels, and spirits, meddled not with him\nabove once or twice, and that very gently. Thus, if you compare the\nlives of Pliny and Seneca (not their writings,) you shall find Pliny,\nwith his mortality of the soul, did as far exceed Seneca in honesty of\nmanners, as Seneca excels him in religious discourse. The Epicureans\nobserved honesty above others, and in their conversation were usually\nfound inoffensive and virtuous, and for that reason were often employed\nby the Romans when they could persuade them to accept of great employs,\nfor their fault was not any want of ability or honesty, but their\ngeneral desire of leading a private life of ease, and free from trouble,\nalthough inglorious. For when immortality is not owned, there can be no\nambition of posthumous glory.\n\n\"The Epicureans, instead of those bloody scenes of gallantry (which\ntyrants applaud,) undertook to manage carefully the inheritance of\norphans; bringing up, at their own charge, the children of their\ndeceased friends, and were counted good men, unless it were in front of\nreligious worship; for they constantly affirmed that there were no Gods,\nor, at least, such as concerned themselves with human affairs, according\nto the poets. Neither doth the hope of immortality conduce to fortitude,\nas some vainly suggest, for Brutus was not more valiant than Cassius;\nand if we will confess the truth, the deeds of Brutus were more cruel\nthan those of Cassius; for he used the Rhodians, who were his enemies,\nfar more kindly than Brutus did those amicable cities which he governed.\nIn a word, though they both, had a hand in C\u00e6sar's murder, yet Brutus\nwas the only parricide. So that the Stoics, which believed a Providence,\nlived as if there were none; whereas the Epicureans, who denied it,\nlived as if there were.... The next sect to the Epicureans, in point\nof incredulity, concerning the soul, I conceive to be the Sceptics, who\nwere by some esteemed, not only the modestest, but the most perspicuous\nof all sects. They neither affirmed nor denied anything, but doubted\nof all things. They thought all our knowledge seemed rather like truth,\nthan to be really true, and that for such like reasons as these:--\n\n\"1. They denied any knowledge of the Divine Nature, because, they say,\nto know adequately is to comprehend, and to comprehend is to contain,\nand the thing contained must be less than that which contains it; to\nknow inadequately is not to know.\n\n\"2. From the uncertainty of our senses, as, for instance, our eyes\nrepresent things at a distance to be less than they really are. A\nstraight stick in the water appears crooked; the moon to be no bigger\nthan a cheese; the sun greater at rising and setting than at noon. The\nshore seems to move, and the ship to stand still; square things to be\nround at a distance; an erect pillar to be less at the top. Neither (say\nthey) do we know whether objects are really as our eyes represent them\nto us, for the same thing which seems white to us seems yellow to a\njaundiced man, and red to a creature afflicted with red eyes; also, if a\nman rubs his eyes, the figure which he beholds seems long or narrow, and\ntherefore it is not improbable that goats, cats, and other creatures,\nwhich have long pupils of the eye, may think those things long which we\ncall round, for as glasses represent the object variously, according\nto their shape, so it may be with our eyes. And so the sense of hearing\ndeceives. Thus, the echo of a trumpet, sounded in a valley, makes the\nsound seem before us, when it is behind us. Besides, how can we think\nthat an ear, which has a narrow passage, can receive the same sound with\nthat which has a wide one? Or the ear, whose inside is full of hair, to\nhear the same with a smooth ear? Experience tells us that if we stop,\nor half stop, our ears, the sound cometh different as when the ears are\nopen. Nor is the smelling, taste, or touch less subject to mistake; for\nthe same scents please some, and displease others, and so in our tastes.\nTo a rough and dry tongue that very thing seems bitter (as in an ague,)\nwhich to the most moist tongue seems otherwise, and so is it in other\ncreatures. The like is true of the touch, for it were absurd to think\nthat those creatures which are covered with shells, scales, or hairs,\nshould have the same sense in touching with those that are smooth. Thus\none and the same object is diversely judged of, according to the\nvarious qualities of the instruments of sense, which convinceth to\nthe imagination; from all which the Sceptic concluded, that what these\nthings are in their own nature, whether red, white, bitter, or sweet,\nhe cannot tell; for, says he, why should I prefer my own conceit in\naffirming the nature of things to be thus, or thus, because it seemeth\nso to me--when other living creatures, perhaps, think it is otherwise?\nBut the greatest fallacy is in the operation of our inward senses; for\nthe fancy is sometimes persuaded that it hears and sees what it does\nnot, and our reasoning is so weak, that in many disciplines scarce one\ndemonstration is found, though this alone produces science. Wherefore it\nwas Democritus's opinion that truth is hid in a well, that she may not\nbe found by men. Now, although this doctrine be very inconsistent with\nChristianity, yet I could wish Adam had been of this persuasion, for\nthen he would not have mortgaged his posterity for the purchase of a\ntwilight knowledge. Now, from these sinister observations it was that\nthey esteemed all our sciences to be but conjectures, and our knowledge\nbut opinion. Whereupon, doubting the sufficiency of human reason, they\nwould not venture to affirm or deny anything of the soul's future state;\nbut civilly and quietly gave way to the doctrines and ordinances under\nwhich they lived, without raising or espousing any new opinions.\"\nSpeaking of the \"origin of the world,\" Gildon gives the following as a\ntranslation from Ocellus Lucanas:--\"Again (says he,) as the frame of the\nworld has been always, so it is necessary that its parts should likewise\nalways have existed; by parts, I mean the heaven, earth, and that which\nlieth betwixt--viz., the sky; for not without these, but with these, and\nof these, the world consists. Also, if the parts exist, it is necessary\nthat the things which are within them should also coexist; as with\nthe heavens, the sun, moon, fixed stars, and planets; with the earth,\nanimals, plants, minerals, gold, and silver; with the air, exhalations,\nwinds, and alterations of weather, sometimes heat and sometimes cold,\nfor with the world all those things do, and ever have existed, as parts\nthereof. Nor hath man had any original production from the earth,\nor elsewhere, as some believe, but have always been, as now he is,\ncoexistent with the world, whereof he is a part. Now, corruptions and\nviolent alterations are made according to the parts of the earth, by\nwinds and waters imprisoned in the bowels thereof; but a universal,\ncorruption of the earth never hath been, nor ever shall be. Yet these\nalterations have given occasion for the invention of many lies and\nfables. And thus are we to understand them that derive the original of\nthe Greek history from Inachus, the Argive; not that he really was the\noriginal, as some make him, but because a most memorable alteration\ndid then happen, and some were so unskilful as to attribute it to\nInachus.... But for the universe, and all the parts whereof it subsists,\nas it is at present, so it ever was, and ever shall be; one nature\nperpetually moving, and another perpetually suffering, one always\ngoverning, and the other always being governed. The course which\nnature takes in governing the world, is by one contrary prevailing over\nanother, as thus:--The moisture in the air prevaileth over the dryness\nof the fire; and the coldness of the wafer over the heat of the air,\nand the dryness of the earth over the moisture of the water; and so the\nmoisture of the water over the dryness of the earth; and the heat in the\nair over the coldness of the water; and the dryness in the fire over the\nmoisture of the air. And thus the alterations are made and produced, out\nof one another.... As nature cannot create by making something out\nof nothing, so neither can it annihilate, by turning something into\nnothing; whence it consequently follows, as there is no access, so there\nis no diminution in the universe, no more than in the alphabet, by the\ninfinite combination and transposition of letters, or in the wax by the\nalteration of the seal stamped upon it. Now, as for the forms of natural\nbodies, no sooner doth any one abandon the matter he occupied, but\nanother instantly steps into the place thereof; no sooner hath one acted\nhis part and is retired, but another comes presently forth upon the\nstage, though it may be in a different shape, and so act a different\npart; so that no portion of the matter is, or at any time can be,\naltogether void and empty, but like Proteus, it burns itself into a\nthousand shapes, and is always supplied with one form or another, there\nbeing in nature nothing but circulation.\"\n\nThe following are the principal works of Blount:--\"Anima Mundi; or, an\nHistorical Narration of the Opinions of the Ancients concerning Man's\nSoul after this Life, according to Enlightened Nature;\" published in\n1679. Upwards of twenty answers were published to this work. In 1680\nhe published a translation, with notes, of the life of Apolloninis, of\nTyana. This work was suppressed. During the same year, he gave the world\n\"Great is Diana of the Ephesians; or, the Original of Idolatry.\"\n\nBy able critics this is considered one of his ablest works in 1683,\n\"Religio Laici\" appeared, which is published frum a Latin work of Lord\nHerbert's. In 1688 he wrote \"A Vindication of Learning, and of the\nLiberty of the Press.\" This tractate sparkles with wit and argument. But\nby far the most important work he was connected with, was published in\nthe year he died, and mainly written by himself, \"The Oracles of\nReason\" a favorite title with both American and English Freethinkers. It\nconsists of sixteen sections; the most interesting being the first four,\ncontaining \"A Vindication of Dr. Burnett's Archiologie.\" The seventh and\neighth chapters (translated) of the same, of \"Moses's Description of\nthe Original State of Man,\" and Dr. Burnett's \"Appendix of the Brahmin's\nReligion.\" We would quote from these sections of the \"Oracles,\" but\nintend to form separate \"Half-Hours,\" with sketches of Drs. Brown and\nBurnett; it will be more appropriate to use Blount's translation in\ndescribing those quaint, but highly instructive authors. In the general\nstyle of Blount's works, he is not seen to advantage; there is too much\nheaviness, enhanced by the perpetual Greek and Latin quotations; but as\nhis works were intended for scholars, and the time in which they were\nwritten was essentially the most pedantic era of our literary history,\nwe cannot expect that vivacity and clearness which other writers in\na later age possessed. It was in his character as a man that Blount\nexcelled--he was the leader of the chivalry of the period, as in the\nnext age Woolston was his successor. At the Court he was the gayest of\nthe gay, without the taint of immorality, in a period of the grossest\nlicentiousness; he defended the honor of his friends, frequently at\nthe expense of calumny and danger. In witty repartees he was equal to\nRochester; while for abstruse learning he was superior to many of the\nmost learned theologians. Daintily brave and skilfully alive to the\nrequirements of friends and foes, he passed through life in the gilded\nbarge of pleasure, and ended it sailing through a cloud where he\nfoundered. But the darkness which enveloped his history is now charged\nwith that sympathetic power which draws the young to his grave, and\ncompels the gloomiest to shed a tear over his unhappy fate.\n\nAt the close of August, in 1693, a few friends met near the grave of\nBlount, to join in their last respects to their lost friend. Foremost\namongst them was Charles Gildon, who so soon repented of the part he\nhad taken in the \"Oracles of Reason,\" but never forgot the kindness he\nexperienced from Blount. He lived long enough for Pope to be revenged on\nhis apostacy, by inserting his name in his great satire. At the time we\nspeak he was mournful and deeply grieved at the loss he had sustained;\nnear him was Harvey Wilwood, whose bold demeanor and sorrowful\ncountenance told of heart-struck grief, for of the few able to\nappreciate the genius of Blount, he was one of the earliest and most\ndevoted in his friendship. Now we see the noble Lord, whom Blount always\naddressed as \"the most ingenious Strephon;\" along with him there is the\npretty Anne Rogers, with Savage, and Major Arkwright; we look in vain\nfor Eliza Tyr-rel; they talk slowly over him that is no more; they\nrecount to themselves the intellectual achievements, and the brilliant\nhours they have spent in the past; and while they speak so kindly, and\nthink so deeply, they kneel on the hallowed spot, but not to pray;\nsome of them pledge their enmity against Christian laws and Christian\npriests, and they executed it. During this time, the calm radiance of\nthe lunar light shines on the church of Ridge, illumining those ghostly\ntablets of white marble, where the forefathers of Blount lie entombed.\nThe baronial arms are emblazoned on the wall; heraldic pomp is keeping\nwatch over the mouldering bones of the now-levelled great. Anne Rogers\nweeps wildly for Eliza and Eleanora. Those metaphysical disquisitions\nwhich have exalted woman to so high a nature, that devotion to esthetics\nwhich woman should always cultivate, not as a household slave, but\nas one of equal rights with man, and his leader in everything which\nconcerns taste, elegance, and modesty; such gifts in no ordinary degree\nhad Anne Rogers--and often in dialectic subtlety had she mastered her\nrelative, who stood by her side, and given tokens of her admiration of\nBlount's philosophy and conduct. \"Strephon\" was passionately attached\nto his confidant and friend, and could not give so calm an expression\nto his loss. He wept wildly, for he had lost one who tempered his rebuke\nwith a kind word, and pointed out that Epicurean path which leads to\nenjoyment without excess: to pleasure, without a reaction. It was a\nmemorable meeting. While the remembrance of past deeds of love lighted\nup the eye and made the blood course faster through their veins, Anne\nRogers detailed the following episode in his character:--Blount had\nvisited the Court of King James, and had been singled out by that\nmonarch for one of his savage fits of spleen. \"I hear, Mr. Blount, you\nare very tenacious of the opinions of Sir Henry, your father, and you\nconsider his conduct during the Rebellion as worthy of imitation. Is\nit so?\" \"Your Majesty,\" replies Blount, \"has been correctly informed; I\nadmire my father's conduct.\" \"What!\" says James, \"in opposing his king?\"\nBlount quickly answered, \"A king, my liege, is the chief magistrate of\nthe Commonwealth, and is so hereditarily while he obeys the laws of\nthat Commonwealth, whose power he represents; but when he usurps the\ndirection of that power, he is king no longer, and such was the case\nwith your royal father.\" With a scowl of defiance on his face, King\nJames left the Freethinker, and sought more congenial company; and as\nAnne Rogers told the story, each eye was dimmed with tears. The moon had\nrisen high in the heavens ere the mourners prepared to depart--the first\nstreaks of dawn broke through the Eastern sky, and revealed the grave\nwatered with tears, where the most chivalrous Freethinker of his age\nreposed, in that sleep which knows of no awakening.\n\n\"A. C.\"\n\n\n\n\nPERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY.\n\nPercy Bysshe Shelley (the son and heir of a wealthy English baronet, Sir\nTimothy Shelley, of Castle Goring, in the county of Sussex) was born at\nField Place, near Horsham, in that county, on the 4th of August, 1792.\nUshered into the world in the midst of wealth and fashion, with all the\nadvantages of family distinction, the future of Shelley's life appeared\na bright one; but the sunshine of the morning only served to render\nthe darkness which came over his noontide more dark, and to make poor\nShelley still more susceptible of the hardships he had to encounter.\nFirst educated at Eton, his spirit there manifested itself by an\nunflinching opposition to the fagging system, and by revolt against the\nsevere discipline of the school; in his \"Revolt of Islam\" Shelley has\nthus portrayed his feeling:--\n\n     \"I do remember well the hour which burst\n     My spirit's sleep; a fresh May dawn it was\n     When I walked forth upon the glittering grass\n     And wept, I knew not why: until there rose\n     From the near school-room voices that, alas!\n     Were but one echo from a world of woes,\n     The harsh and grating strife of tyrants and of foes.\n\n     And then I clasped my hands and looked around,\n     And none was near to mock my streaming eyes,\n     Which poured their warm drops on the sunny ground;\n     So, without shame, I spake--' I will be wise,\n     And just, and free, and mild, if in me lies\n     Such power, for I grow weary to behold\n     The selfish, and the strong still tyrannize\n     Without reproach or check.'\"\n\n .....\n\n     And from that hour did I, with earnest thought,\n     Heap knowledge from forbidden mines of lore;\n     Yet nothing that ray tyrants knew or taught\n     I cared to learn, but from that secret store\n     Wrought linked armour for my soul, before\n     It might walk forth to war among mankind.\"\n\n\nFrom Eton, Shelley went to Oxford, and while there he, scarce at the age\nof eighteen, published a volume of political rhymes, entitled \"Margaret\nNicholson's Remains,\" the said Margaret being a woman who tried to\nassassinate George III. He also wrote a pamphlet in defence of Atheism.\nA copy of this pamphlet he caused to be sent to the head of each of the\ncolleges in Oxford, with a challenge to discuss and answer.--The answer\nto this was the edict which expelled Shelley from Oxford, and at the\nsame time placed a wide chasm between him and his family. This breach\nwas still further widened in the following year by his marriage, at the\nage of nineteen, with a beautiful girl named Westbrook. Although Miss\nWestbrook was respectfully connected, Shelley's aristocratic family\nregarded this as a _mesalliance_, and withdrew his pecuniary allowance;\nand had it not been for the bride's father, who allowed the young couple\n\u00a3200 a year, they would have been reduced to actual poverty. This was an\nunfortunate marriage for both. After having two children, disagreements\narose, and Shelley was separated from his wife. She (like all beautiful\nwomen) was soon attacked by the busy tongue of slander, and, unable to\nbear the world's taunts, committed suicide by throwing herself into a\npond, just four years from the date of their marriage. Shelley, on this\naccount, suffered much misery and misrepresentation, and this misery was\nmuch increased by his family, who applied to the Court of Chancery, and\nobtained a decree, by which Shelley was deprived of the custody of\nhis children, on the ground of his Atheism. The same spirit even now\npervades the Shelley family, and scarce a copy of his poems can be found\nin the neighborhood of his birth-place. Shelley afterwards contracted\na second marriage with the daughter of Godwin, the author of \"Caleb\nWilliams,\" and Mary Wollstonecroft (who died in giving birth to\nShelley's wife), and for sometime the poet resided at Marlow in\nBuckinghamshire, where he composed the \"Revolt of Islam;\" and it is\na strong proof of the reality of Shelley's poetical pleadings for the\noppressed amongst the human race, that he was indefatigable in his\nattentions to the poor cottagers of his neighborhood; and that he\nsuffered severely from an attack of opthalmia, which was originated\nin one of his benevolent visits. Nearly the first of Shelley's poems was\nhis \"Queen Mab,\" in which (having in vain struggled to devote himself\nto metaphysics apart from poetry), he blended his metaphysical\nspeculation with his poetical aspirations. The following quotations\nare taken from that poem, in which his wonderful command of language is\nwell shown:--\n\n     \"There's not one atom of yon earth\n          But once was living man;\n     Nor the minutest drop of rain,\n     That hangeth in its thinnest cloud,\n          But flowed in human veins;\n\n     And from the burning plains\n     Where Lybian monsters yell,\n     From the most gloomy glens\n     Of Greenland's sunless clime,\n     To where the golden fields\n     Of fertile England spread\n     Their harvest to the day,\n     Thou canst not find one spot\n     Whereon no city stood.\n\n          How strange is human pride!\n     I tell thee that those living things,\n     To whom the fragile blade of grass,\n          That springeth in the morn\n     And perishes ere noon.\n\n         In an unbounded world;\n     I tell thee that those viewless beings.\n     Whose mansion is the smallest particle\n     Of the impassive atmosphere,\n         Think, feel, and live, like man:\n     That their affections and antipathies,\n         Like his, produce the laws\n         Ruling their mortal state;\n         And the minutest throb.\n\n     That through their frame diffuses\n         The slightest, faintest motion,\n         Is fixed and indispensable\n         As the majestic laws\n         That rule yon rolling orbs.\n\n                       .....\n\n  How bold the flight of passion's wandering wing,\n  How swift the step of reason's firmer tread,\n  How calm and sweet the victories of life.\n  How terrorless the triumph of the grave!\n  How powerless were the mightiest monarch's arm,\n  Vain his loud threat and impotent his frown!\n  How ludicrous the priest's dogmatic roar!\n  The weight of his exterminating curse,\n  How light! and his affected charity,\n  To suit the pressure of the changing times,\n  What palpable deceit!--but for thy aid,\n  Religion! but for thee, prolific fiend,\n  Who peoplest earth with demons, hell with men,\n  And heaven with slaves!\n\n  Thou taintest all thou look'st upon!--The stare,\n  Which on thy cradle beamed so brightly sweet,\n  Were gods to the distempered playfulness\n  Of thy untutored infancy: the trees,\n  The grass, the clouds, the mountains, and the sea,\n\n  All living things that walk, swim, creep, or fly,\n  Were gods: the sun had homage, and the moon\n  Her worshipper.   Then thou becam'st a boy,\n  More daring in thy frenzies: every shape,\n  Monstrous or vast, or beautifully wild,\n  Which, from sensation's relics, fancy culls;\n  The spirits of the air, the shuddering ghost,\n  The genii of the elements, the powers\n  That give a shape to nature's varied works,\n  Had life and place in the corrupt belief\n  Of thy blind heart--yet still thy youthful hands\n  Were pure of human blood.   Then manhood gave\n  Its strength and ardor to thy frenzied brain;\n  Thine eager gaze scanned the stupendous scene,\n  Whose wonders mocked the knowledge of thy pride.\n\n  Their everlasting and unchanging laws\n  Reproached thine ignorance.\n  Awhile thou stood'st\n  Baffled and gloomy; then thou did'st sum up\n  The elements of all that thou did'st know.\n\n  The changing seasons, winter's leafless reign,\n  The budding of the heaven-breathing trees,\n  The eternal orbs that beautify the night,\n  The sunrise, and the setting of the moon,\n  Earthquakes and wars, and poisons and disease,\n  And all their causes, to an abstract point,\n  Converging, thou did'st bend, and called it God;\n  The self-sufficing, the omnipotent,\n  The merciful, and the avenging God!\n\n  Who, prototype of human misrule, sits\n  High in Heaven's realm, upon a golden throne,\n  Even like an earthly king: and whose dread work,\n  Hell gapes forever for the unhappy slaves\n  Of fate, whom he created in his sport,\n  To triumph in their torments when they fell!\n\n  Earth heard the name; earth trembled, as the smoke\n  Of his revenge ascended up to Heaven,\n  Blotting the constellations: and the cries\n  Of millions, butchered in sweet confidence,\n  And unsuspecting peace, even when the bonds\n  Of safety were confirmed by wordy oaths,\n\n  Sworn in his dreadful name, rung through the land;\n  Whilst innocent babes writhed on thy stubborn spear,\n  And thou did'st laugh to hear the mother's shriek\n  Of maniac gladness, as the sacred steel\n  Felt cold in her torn entrails!\n\n  Religion! thou wert then in manhood's prime;\n  But age crept on: one God would not suffice\n  For senile puerility; thou fram'dst\n  A tale to suit thy dotage, and to glut\n  Thy misery-thirsting soul, that the mad fiend\n  Thy wickedness had pictured might afford\n  A plea for sating the unnatural thirst\n  For murder, rapine, violence, and crime,\n  That still consumed thy being, even when\n  Thou heard'st the step of fate:--that flames might light\n  Thy funeral scene, and the shrill horrent shrieks\n  Of parents dying on the pile that burned\n  To light their children to thy paths, the roar\n  Of the encircling flames, the exulting cries\n  Of thine apostles, loud commingling there,\n       Might sate thy hungry ear\n       Even on the bed of death!\n\n  But now contempt is mocking thy gray hairs;\n  Thou art descending to the darksome grave,\n  Unhonored and unpitied, but by those\n  Whose pride is passing by like thine, and sheds\n  Like thine, a glare that fades before the sun\n  Of truth, and shines but in the dreadful night\n  That long has lowered above the ruined world.\"\n\n\nSpeaking of the Atheist's martyrdom in answer to the spirit of \"Ianthe,\"\nShelley makes his fairy say:--\n\n          \"There is no God!\n  Nature confirms the faith his death-groan sealed.\n  Let heaven and earth, let man's revolving race,\n  His ceaseless generations, tell their tale;\n\n  Let every part depending on the chain\n  That links it to the whole, point to the hand\n  That grasps its term!   Let every seed that falls\n  In silent eloquence unfold its store\n  Of argument.   Infinity within,\n  Infinity without, belie creation;\n  The exterminate spirit it contains\n  Is nature's only God: but human pride\n  Is skilful to invent most serious names\n  To hide its ignorance.\n\n        The name of God\n  Has fenced about all crime with holiness,\n  Himself the creature of his worshippers,\n  Whose names and attributes and passions change,\n  Seeva, Buddh, Foh, Jehovah, Goa, or Lord,\n  Even with the human dupes who build his shrines.\n  Still serving o'er the war-polluted world\n  For desolation's watch-word; whether hosts\n  Stain his death-blushing chariot wheels, as on\n   Triumphantly they roll, whilst Brahmins raise\n  A sacred hymn to mingle with the groans;\n  Or countless partners of his powers divide\n  His tyranny to weakness: or the smoke\n  Of burning towns, the cries of female helplessness,\n  Unarmed old age, and youth, and infancy,\n  Horribly massacred, ascend to heaven\n  In honor of his name; or, last and worst,\n  Earth groans beneath religion's iron age,\n  And priests dare babble of a God of peace,\n  Even whilst their hands are red with guiltless blood,\n  Murdering the while, uprooting every germ\n  Of truth, exterminating, spoiling all,\n  Making the earth a slaughter-house.\"\n\n\"Ianthe's\" spirit, however, asks still further, and the ghost of\nAhasuerus having been summoned, the question is repeated, \"Is there a\nGod?\"\n\n  \"_Ahasuerus_.--Is there a God? ay, an Almighty God,\n  And vengeful as Almighty!   Once his voice\n  Was heard on earth: earth shuddered at the sound,\n  The fiery-visaged firmament expressed\n  Abhorrence, and the grave of nature yawned\n  To swallow all the dauntless and the good\n  That dared to hurl defiance at his throne,\n  Girt as it was with power.   None but slaves\n  Survived,--cold-blooded slaves, who did the work\n  Of tyrannous omnipotence: whose souls\n  No honest indignation ever urged\n  To elevated daring, to one deed\n  Which gross and sensual self did not pollute.\n  These slaves built temples for the omnipotent fiend,\n  Gorgeous and vast: the costly altars smoked\n  With human blood, and hideous moans rung\n  Through all the long-drawn aisles.   A murderer heard\n  His voice in Egypt, one whose gifts and arts\n  Had raised him to his eminence in power,\n  Accomplice of omnipotence in crime,\n  And confidant of the all-knowing one.\n\n  These were Jehovah's words:\n  \"From an eternity of idleness,\n  God, awoke: in seven days toil made earth\n  From nothing; rested, and created man.\n  I placed him in a paradise, and there\n  Planted the tree of evil, so that he\n  Might eat and perish, and my soul procure\n  Wherewith to sate its malice, and to turn,\n  Even like a heartless conqueror of the earth,\n  All misery to my fame.   The race of men,\n  Chosen to my honor, with impunity,\n  May sate the lusts I planted in their heart.\n  Here I command thee hence to lead them on,\n  Until, with hardened feet, their conquering troops\n  Wade on the promised soil through woman's blood,\n  And make my name be dreaded through the land.\n  Yet ever burning flame and ceaseless woe\n  Shall be the doom of their eternal souls,\n  With every soul on this ungrateful earth,\n  Virtuous or vicious, weak or strong,--even all\n  Shall perish, to fulfil the blind revenge\n  Which you, to men, call justice, of their God.\"\n\n       The murderer's brow\n  Quivered with horror.\n       God omnipotent!\n  Is there no mercy? must our punishment\n  Be endless? will long ages roll away,\n  And see no 'term?   Oh! wherefore hast thou made\n  In mockery and wrath this evil earth?\n  Mercy becomes the powerful--be but just:\n  O God! repent and save.\n\n       \"One way remains!\n  I will beget a son, and he shall bear\n  The sins of all the world: he shall arise\n  In an unnoticed corner of the earth,\n\n  And there shall die upon a cross, and purge\n  The universal crime; so that the few\n  On whom my grace descends, those who are marked\n  As vessels to the honor of their God,\n  May credit this strange sacrifice, and save\n  Their souls alive.    Millions shall live and die\n  Who ne'er shall call upon their Saviour's name,\n  But, unredeemed, go to the gaping, grave.\n  Thousands shall deem it an old woman's tale,\n  Such as the nurses frighten babes withal.\n  These in a gulph of anguish and of flame\n  Shall curse their reprobation endlessly.\n  Yet tenfold pangs shall force them to avow,\n  Even on their beds of torment, where they howl,\n  My honor, and the justice of their doom.\n  What then avail their virtuous deeds, their thoughts\n  Of purity, with radiant genius bright,\n  Or lit with human reason's earthly ray?\n  Many are called, but few I will elect.\n  Do thou my bidding, Moses!\"\n\nIn his poem of \"Rosalind and Helen,\" the poet indulges in the following\nprophecy, which he puts in the mouth of Helen:--\n\n     \"Fear not the tyrants shall rule forever,\n     Or the priests of the bloody faith;\n     They stand on the brink of that mighty river,\n     Whose waves they have tainted with death.\n     It is fed from the depths of a thousand dells,\n     Around them it foams, and rages, and swells;\n     And their swords and their sceptres I floating see,\n     Like wrecks on the surge of eternity.\"\n\nBeside the poems mentioned, Shelley wrote \"The Cenci,\" \"Alastor,\"\n\"Prometheus Unbound,\" and many others, including a beautiful little ode\nto a \"Skylark,\" and the well-known \"Sensitive Plant.\"\n\nShelley was a true and noble man--no poet was ever warmed by a more\ngenuine and unforced aspiration.--De Quincey says, \"Shelley would, from\nhis earliest manhood, have sacrificed all that he possessed for any\ncomprehensive purpose of good for the race of man. He dismissed all\ninsults and injuries from his memory. He was the sincerest and most\ntruthful of human creatures.\n\n\"If he denounced marriage as a vicious institution, _that_ was but\nanother phase of the partial lunacy which affected him: for to no man\nwere purity and fidelity more essential elements in the idea of real\nlove. Again, De Quincey speaks of Shelley's \"fearlessness, his gracious\nnature, his truth, his purity from all flesh-liness of appetite, his\nfreedom from vanity, his diffusive love and tenderness.\" This testimony\nis worth much, the more especially when we remember that it is from the\npen of Thomas de Quincey, who, while truthfully acknowledging the man,\nhesitates not to use polished irony, rough wit, and covert sneering,\nwhen dealing with the man's uttered thinkings.\n\n\"That Shelley understood the true mission of a poet, and the true nature\nof poetry, will appear from the following extract from one of his prose\nessays:--\"Poetry,\" he says, \"is the record of the best and happiest\nmoments of the happiest and best minds. We are aware of evanescent\nvisitations of thought and feeling, sometimes associated with place\nand person, sometimes regarding our own mind alone, and always arising\nunforeseen, and departing unbidden, but elevating and delightful beyond\nall expression. Poets are not only subject to these experiences, as\nspirits of the most refined organization, but they can color all they\ncombine with the evanescent lines of this ethereal world; a word,\na trait in the representation of a scene or passion will touch the\nenchanted cord, and reanimate in those who have ever experienced these\nemotions, the sleeping, the cold, the buried image of the past. Poetry\nthus makes immortal all that is best and most beautiful in the world;\nit arrests the vanishing apparitions which haunt the interlunations\nof life, and veiling them, or in language or in form, sends them forth\namong mankind, bearing sweet news of kindred joy to those with whom\ntheir sisters abide--abide, because there is no portal of expression\nfrom the caverns of the spirit which they inhabit into the universe of\nthings.\"\n\nShelley's beautiful imagery and idealistic drapery is sometimes so\naccumulated in his poems, that it is difficult to follow him in his\nthinkings. In his verse he wishes to stand high as a philosophical\nreasoner, and this, together with his devotion to the cause, which even\nmen of De Quincey's stamp call \"Insolent Infidelity,\" has prevented\nShelley from becoming so popular as he might have been.\n\nShelley lived a life of strife, passed his boyhood and youth in\nstruggling to be free--misunderstood and misinterpreted: and when at\nlast in his manhood happier circumstances were gathering around him,\na blast of wind came, and the waves of the sea washed away one who was\nreally and truly \"a man and a poet.\"\n\nOn Monday. July 8th, 1822, being then in his 29th year, Shelley was\nreturning from Leghorn to his home at Lerici, in a schooner-rigged boat\nof his own, with one friend and an English servant; when the boat had\nreached about four miles from the shore, the storm suddenly rose, and\nthe wind suddenly shifted. From excessive smoothness, all at once the\nsea was foaming, and breaking, and getting up in a heavy swell. The\nboat is supposed to have filled to leeward, and (carry-ins: two tons of\nballast) to have sunk instantaneously--all on board were drowned. The\nbody of Shelley was washed on shore eight days afterwards, near Via\nReggio, in an advanced state of decomposition, and was therefore burned\non a funeral pyre in the presence of Leigh Hunt, Lord Byron, Mr.\nTrelawney, and a Captain Shenley.\n\nThus died Shelley in the mid day of life, and ere the warm sun of that\nmid-day could dispel the clouds that had gathered round the morning of\nhis career. The following comparison made between the personal\nappearance of Shelley and of Byron, by Gilfillan, has been called by De\nQuincey \"an eloquent parallel,\" and we therefore conclude the present\nnumber by quoting it:--\n\n\"In the forehead and head of Byron there is more massive power and\nbreadth: Shelley has a smooth, arched, spiritual expression; wrinkle\nthere seems none on his brow; it is as if perpetual youth had there\ndropped its freshness. Byron's eye seems the focus of pride and lust:\nShelley's is mild, pensive, fixed on you, but seeing you through\nthe mist of his own idealism. Defiance curls on Byron's nostril, and\nsensuality steps his full large lips. The lower features of Shelley's\nface are frail, feminine, flexible.--Byron's head is turned upwards\nas if having risen proudly above his contemporaries, he were daring\nto claim kindred, or demand a contest with a superior order of beings.\nShelley's is half bent, in reverence and humility, before some vast\nvision seen by his own eye alone. Misery erect, and striving to cover\nits retreat under an aspect of contemptuous fury, is the permanent and\npervading expression of Byron's countenance. Sorrow, softened and shaded\naway by hope and habit, lies like a 'holier day' of still moonshine upon\nthat of Shelley. In the portrait of Byron, taken at the age of nineteen,\nyou see the unnatural age of premature passion; his hair is young, his\ndress is youthful, but his face is old. In Shelley you see the eternal\nchild, none the less that his hair is grey, and that sorrow seems half\nhis immortality.\"\n\n\"I.\"\n\n\n\n\nCLAUD ARIAN HELVETIUS.\n\nIf France, at the present day, has not reason to be proud of its\n\"leading man,\" it has in former times produced those minds that shed\nlustre upon the country, and who, by their literature, add immortality\nto its renown. During the eighteenth century, when religious persecution\nand intolerance were rampant throughout Europe, France furnished men to\ncheck oppression and expose superstition, while others followed to\nlay the foundation of excellence and greatness in the examination and\ncultivation of its true source--the mind. Heivetius sought to direct\nmen's attention to self-examination, and to show how many disputes might\nbe avoided if each person understood _what_ he was disputing about.\n\"Helvetius on the Mind\" is a work that ought to be read widely, and\nstudied attentively, especially by \"rising young men,\" as it is one of\nthose _Secular_ works too rarely found among our literature.\n\nClaud Arian Helvetius was born in Paris in the year 1715. After his\npreparatory studies, he was sent to the College of Louis le Grand,\nhaving for his tutor the famous Poree, who bestowed additional attention\nupon Heivetius, perceiving in him great talent and genius. Early in life\nHeivetius formed the friendship of some of the leading minds of France,\nMontesquieu being his intimate friend. Voltaire, too, sought his\ncorrespondence when at the age of twenty-three, calling him his \"Young\nApollo,\" and his \"Son of Parnassus.\" The first literary attempts of\nHelvetius consisted of poetry--\"Epistles on Happiness,\" which appeared\nas a posthumous production, with the \"lavish commendations\" of Voltaire.\nAfter ten years' thought and study Helvetius in 1758, published a\nwork entitled \"De L'Esprit,\" which brought upon him a great amount of\npersecution. The Parliament of Paris condemned it, and Helvetius was\nremoved from the office he held of \"Maitre d'Hotel to the Queen.\"\nVoltaire remarks:--\"it is a little extraordinary that they should have\npersecuted, disgraced, and harassed, a much respected philosopher of our\ndays, the innocent, the good Helvetius, for having said that if men\nhad been without hands they could not have built houses, or worked in\ntapestry. Apparently those who have condemned this proposition, have a\nsecret for cutting stones and wood, and for sewing with the feet.... I\nhave no doubt that they will soon condemn to the galleys the first who\nshall have the insolence to say, that a man cannot think without his\nhead; for, some bachelor will tell him, the soul is a pure spirit, the\nhead is nothing but matter: God can place the soul in the nails, as well\nas in the skull, therefore I proscribe you as impious.\"\n\nDuring the persecution raised against him, Helvetius visited England in\n1764. In 1765 he visited Prussia, being well received by Frederick,\nin whose place he lodged. Voltaire strongly advised Helvetius to leave\nFrance in these words:--\"In your place, I should not hesitate a moment\nto sell all that I have in France; there are some excellent estates in\nmy neighborhood, and there you might cultivate in peace the arts you\nlove.\" About this period Hume became acquainted with Helvetius, whom\nhe styles, in writing to Dr. Robertson, \"a very fine genius and worthy\nman.\" In 1765, Helvetius returned from Prussia, and retired to his\nestate at Vore. The sight of misery much affected him; and when\nrelieving distress, he enjoined strict secrecy. Sometimes, when told he\nrelieved those undeserving his aid, he would say, \"If I were a king I\nwould correct them, but as I am only rich and they are poor, I do my\nduty in relieving them.\" An attack of gout in the head and stomach\nterminated his life in December, 1771, in the fifty-sixth year of his\nage.\n\nIn \"De L'Esprit, or, Essays on the Mind,\" chap. I.. Helvetius makes the\nfollowing remarks on the \"Mind considered in itself\":--\n\n\"We hear every day disputes with regard to what ought to be called the\nMind; each person delivers his thoughts, but annexes different ideas to\nthe word; and thus the debate is continued, without understanding each\nother. In order, therefore, to enable us to give a just and precise idea\nof the word Mind, and its different acceptations, it is necessary first\nto consider the Mind in itself. We consider the Mind either as the\neffect of the faculty of thinking, and in this sense the Mind is no\nmore than an assemblage of our thoughts, or, we consider it as the very\nfaculty of thinking. But in order to understand what is meant by\nthe Mind, in the latter acceptation, we ought previously to know the\nproductive causes of our ideas. Man has two faculties; or, if I may be\nallowed the expression, two passive powers whose existence is generally\nand distinctly acknowledged. The one is the faculty of receiving the\ndifferent impressions caused by external objects, and is called Physical\nSensibility. The other is the faculty of preserving the impressions\ncaused by those objects, called Memory; and Memory is nothing more than\na continued, but weakened sensation.--Those faculties which I consider\nas the productive causes of our thoughts, and which we have in common\nwith beasts, would produce but a very small number of ideas, if they\nwere not assisted by certain external organizations. If Nature, instead\nof hands and flexible fingers, had terminated our wrist with the foot\nof a horse, mankind would doubtless have been totally destitute of art,\nhabitation, and defence against other animals. Wholly employed in the\ncare of procuring food, and avoiding the beasts of prey, they would have\nstill continued wandering in the forests, like fugitive flocks. It is\ntherefore evident that, according to this supposition, the police would\nnever have been carried in any society to that degree of perfection, to\nwhich it is now arrived. There is not a nation now existing, but, with\nregard to the action of the mind, must not have continued very inferior\nto certain savage nations, who have not two hundred different ideas,\nnor two hundred words to express those ideas; and whose language must\nconsequently be reduced, like that of animals, to five or six different\nsounds or cries, if we take from it the words bow, arrow, nets, etc.,\nwhich suppose the use of hands. From whence I conclude, that, without a\ncertain exterior organization, sensibility and memory in us would prove\ntwo sterile faculties. We ought to examine if these two faculties, by\nthe assistance of this organization, have in reality produced all our\nthoughts. But; before we examine this subject, I may possibly be asked\nwhether these two faculties are modifications of a spiritual or a\nmaterial substance? This question, which has formerly been so often\ndebated by philosophers, and by some persons revived in our time, does\nnot necessarily fall within the limits of my work.---What I have to\noffer, with regard to the Mind, is equally conformable to either of\nthese hypothesis. I shall therefore only observe that, if the church\nhad not fixed our belief in respect to this particular, and we had\nbeen obliged by the light of reason alone to acquire a knowledge of\nthe thinking, principle, we must have granted, that neither opinion is\ncapable of demonstration; and consequently that, by weighing the reasons\non both sides, balancing the difficulties, and determining in favor of\nthe greater number of probabilities, we should form only conditional\njudgments. It would be the fate of this problem, as it hath been of many\nothers, to be resolvable only by the assistance of the calculation of\nprobabilities.\"\n\nHelvetius, on the question \"whether genius ought to be considered as a\nnatural gift, or as an effect of education,\" says:--\n\n\"I am going to examine in this discourse what the mind receives from\nnature and education; for which purpose it is necessary first, to\ndetermine what is here meant by the word Nature. This word may raise in\nour minds a confused idea of a being or a force that has endued us with\nall our senses: now the senses are the sources of all our ideas. Being\ndeprived of our senses, we are deprived of all the ideas relative to\nthem: a man born blind has for this reason no idea of colors; it is then\nevident that, in this signification, genius ought to be considered as\na gift of nature. But, if the word be taken in a different acceptation,\nand we suppose that among the men well formed and endued with all their\nsenses, without any perceivable defect of their organization, nature\nhas made such a remarkable difference, and formed such an unequal\ndistribution of the intellectual powers, that one shall be so organized\nas to be stupid, and the other be a man of genius, the question will\nbecome more delicate. I confess that, at first, we cannot consider the\ngreat inequality in the minds of men, without admitting that there is\nthe same difference between them as between bodies, some of which are\nweak and delicate, while others are strong and robust. What can\nhere occasion such variations from the uniform manner wherein nature\noperates? This reasoning, it is true, is founded only on analogy. It is\nlike that of the astronomers who conclude that the moon is inhabited,\nbecause it is composed of nearly the same matter as our earth.--How weak\nsoever this reasoning may be, it must yet appear demonstrative; for,\nsay they, to what cause can be attributed the great disproportion of\nintellects observable between people who appear to have had the same\neducation! In order to reply to this objection, it is proper first\nto inquire, whether several men can, strictly speaking, have the same\neducation; and for this purpose to fix the idea included in the word\nEducation. If by education we merely understand that received in the\nsame places, and under the same masters; in this sense the education is\nthe same with an infinite number of men. But, if we give to this word\na more true and extensive signification, and in general comprehend\neverything that relates to our instruction; then I say, that nobody\nreceives the same education; because each individual has, for his\npreceptors, if I may be allowed to say so, the form of government under\nwhich he lives, his friends, his mistresses, the people about him,\nwhatever he reads, and in short chance; that is, an infinite number\nor events, with respect to which our ignorance will not permit us to\nperceive their causes, and the chain that connects them together. Now,\nthis chance has a greater share in our education than is imagined. It\nis this places certain objects before us, and in consequence of\nthis, occasions more happy ideas, and sometimes leads to the greatest\ndiscoveries. To give some examples: it was chance that conducted Galileo\ninto the gardens of Florence, when the gardeners were working the pumps:\nit was that which inspired those gardeners, when, not being able to\nraise the water above the height of 32 feet, to ask him the cause, and\nby that question piqued the vanity of the philosopher, put in action by\nso casual a question, that obliged him to make this natural effect the\nsubject of his thoughts, till, at last, by discovering the weight of\nthe air, he found the solution of the problem. In the moment when the\npeaceful soul of Newton was employed by no business, and agitated by\nno passion, it was also chance that, drawing him under an apple tree,\nloosened some of the fruit from the branches, and gave that philosopher\nthe first idea of his system on gravitation: it was really this incident\nthat afterwards made him turn his thoughts to inquire whether the moon\ndoes not gravitate towards the earth with the same force as that with\nwhich bodies fall on its surface? It is then to chance that great\ngeniuses are frequently obliged for their most happy thoughts. How many\ngreat minds are confounded among the people of moderate capacities for\nwant of a certain tranquillity of soul, the question of a gardener, or\nthe fall of an apple!\"\n\nOf the \"exclusive qualities of the Mind and Soul,\" Helvetius observes:--\n\n\"My view in the preceding chapters was to affix clear ideas to the\nseveral qualities of the mind, I propose in this to examine if there are\ntalents that must necessarily exclude each other? This question, it is\nsaid, is determined by facts; no person is, at the same time, superior\nto all others in many different kinds of knowledge. Newton is not\nreckoned among the poets, nor Milton among the geometricians: the verses\nof Leibnitz are bad. There is not a man who, in a single art, as poetry,\nor painting, has succeeded in all the branches of it. Corneille and\nRacine have done nothing in comedy comparable to Moli\u00e8re: Michael\nAngelo has not drawn the pictures of Albani, nor Albani painted those\nof Julius Romano. The genius of the greatest men appears then to be\nconfined within very narrow limits. This is, doubtless, true: but I ask,\nwhat is the cause? Is it time, or is it wit, which men want to render\nthemselves illustrious in the different arts and sciences? The progress\nof the human mind, it is said, ought to be the same in all the arts and\nsciences: the operations of the mind are reduced to the knowledge of the\nresemblances and differences that subsist between various objects. It is\nthen by observation that we obtain, in all the different kinds of study,\nthe new and general ideas on which our superiority depends. Every great\nphysician, every great chemist, may then become a great geometrician,\na great astronomer, a great politician, and the first, in short, in all\nthe sciences This fact being stated, it will doubtless be concluded,\nthat it is the short duration of human life that forces superior\nminds to limit themselves to one kind of study. It must, however, be\nconfessed, that there are talents and qualities possessed only by the\nexclusion of some others. Among mankind some are filled with the love\nof glory, and are not susceptible of any other of the passions: some may\nexcel in natural philosophy, civil law, geometry, and, in short, in all\nthe sciences that consist in the comparison of ideas. A fondness for any\nother study can only distract or precipitate them into errors. There\nare other men susceptible not Only of the love of glory, but an infinite\nnumber of other passions: these may become celebrated in different\nkinds of study, where the success depends on being moved. Such is,\nfor instance, the dramatic kind of writing: but, in order to paint the\npassions, we must, as I have already said, feel them very warmly: we are\nignorant both of the language of the passions and of the sensations they\nexcite in us, when we have not experienced them. Thus ignorance of this\nkind always produces mediocrity. If Fontenelle had been obliged to paint\nthe characters of Rhadamistus, Brutus, or Cataline, that great man would\ncertainly have fallen much below mediocrity.... Let a man, for instance,\nlike M. de Fontenelle, contemplate, without severity, the wickedness\nof mankind; let him consider it, let him rise up against crimes without\nhating the criminals, and people will applaud his moderation; and yet,\nat the same instant, they will accuse him of being too lukewarm in\nfriendship. They do not perceive, that the same absence of the passions,\nto which he owes the moderation they commend, must necessarily render\nhim less sensible of the charms of friendship.\"\n\nThe \"abuse of words\" by different schools of philosophers is thus ably\npointed out:--\n\n\"Descartes had before Locke observed that the Peripatetics, intrenching\nthemselves behind the obscurity of words, were not unlike a blind man,\nwho, in order to be a match for his clear-sighted antagonist, should\ndraw him into a dark cavern. 'Now,' added he, 'if this man can introduce\nlight into the cavern, and compel the Peripatetics to fix clear ideas\nto their words, the victory is his own. In imitation of Descartes and\nLocke, I shall show that, both in metaphysics and morality, the abuse of\nwords, and the ignorance of their true import, is a labyrinth in which\nthe greatest geniuses have lost themselves; and, in order to set this\nparticular in a clear light, instance, in some of those words which\nhave given rise to the longest and sharpest disputes among philosophers:\nsuch, in metaphysics, are Matter, Space, and Infinite. It has at all\ntimes been alternately asserted that Matter felt, or did not feel, and\ngiven rise to disputes equally loud and vague. It was very late before\nit came into the disputants! heads to ask one another, what they were\ndisputing about, and to annex a precise idea to the word Matter. Had\nthey at first fixed the meaning of it, they would have perceived, if\nI may use the expression, that men were the creators of Matter; that\nMatter was not a being; that in nature there were only individuals to\nwhich the name of Body had been given; and that this word Matter could\nimport no more than the collection of properties common to all bodies.\nThe meaning of this word being determined, all that remained was to\nknow, whether extent, solidity, and impenetrability, were the only\nproperties common to all bodies; and whether the discovery of a power,\nsuch for instance as attraction, might not give rise to a conjecture\nthat bodies had some properties hitherto unknown, such as that of\nsensation, which, though evident only in the organized members of\nanimals, might yet be common to all individuals! The question being\nreduced to this, it would have appeared that if, strictly speaking, it\nis impossible to demonstrate that all bodies are absolutely insensible,\nno man, unless instructed by a particular revelation, can decide the\nquestion otherwise than by calculating and comparing the verisimilitude\nof this opinion with that of the contrary....\"\n\nInstructed by the errors of great men who have gone before us, we should\nbe sensible that our observations, however multiplied and concentrated,\nare scarcely sufficient to form one of those partial systems\ncomprehended in the general system; add that it is from the depth of\nimagination that the several systems of the universe have hitherto\nbeen drawn; and, as our informations of remote countries are always\nimperfect, so the informations philosophers have of the system of\nthe world are also defective. With a great genius and a multitude of\ncombinations, the products of their labors will be only fictions till\ntime and chance shall furnish then? with a general fact, to which all\nothers may be referred.\n\n\"What I have said of the word Matter, I say also of Space. Most of the\nphilosophers have made a being of it; and the ignorance of the true\nsense of the word has occasioned long disputes. They would have been\ngreatly shortened by annexing a clear idea to this word; for then the\nsages would have agreed that Space, considered in bodies, is what we\ncall extension; that we owe the idea of a void, which partly composes\nthe idea of Space, to the interval seen betwixt two lofty mountains; an\ninterval which, being filled only by air, that is, by a body which at a\ncertain distance makes no sensible impression on us, must have given us\nan idea of a vacuum; being nothing more than a power of representing\nto ourselves mountains separated from each other, and the intervening\ndistances not being filled by other bodies. With regard to the idea of\nInfinite, comprehended also within the idea of Space, I say that we owe\nthis idea of Infinite only to the power which a man standing on a plain\nhas of continually extending its limits, the boundary of his imagination\nnot being determinable: the absence of limits is therefore the only idea\nwe can form of Infinite. Had philosophers, previously to their giving\nany opinion on this subject, determined the signification of the word\nInfinite, I am inclined to believe they would have adopted the above\ndefinition, and not spent their time in frivolous disputes. To the false\nphilosophy of former ages, our gross ignorance of the true signification\nof words is principally owing; as the art of abusing them made up the\ngreatest part of that philosophy. This art, in which the whole science\nof the schools consisted, confounded all ideas; and the obscurity\nit threw on the expressions, generally diffused itself over all the\nsciences, especially morality.\"\n\nThe following remarks show Helvetia's notions of the \"love of glory\":--\n\n\"By the word Strong-Passion, I mean a passion the object of which is so\nnecessary to our happiness, that without the possession of it life would\nbe insupportable. This was Omar's idea of the passion, when he said,\n'Whoever thou art, that lovest liberty, desirest to be wealthy without\nriches, powerful without subjects, a subject without a master, dare to\ncondemn death: kings will then tremble before thee, whilst thou alone\nshalt fear no person.'.... It was the passion of honor and philosophic\nfanaticism alone that could induce Timicha, the Pythagorean, in the\nmidst of torture, to bite off her tongue, that she might not expose\nherself to reveal the secrets of her sect. Cato, when a child, going\nwith his tutor to Sylla's palace, at seeing the bloody heads of the\nproscribed, asked with impatience the name of the monster who had caused\nso many Roman citizens to be murdered. He was answered, it was Sylla:\n'How,' says he, 'does Sylla murder thus, and is Sylla still alive?'\n'Yes,' it was replied, 'the very name of Sylla disarms our citizens.'\n'Oh! Rome,' cried Cato, 'deplorable is thy fate, since within the vast\ncompass of thy walls not a man of virtue can be found, and the arm of a\nfeeble child is the only one that will oppose itself against tyranny!'\nThen, turning towards his governor, 'Give me,' said he, 'your sword; I\nwill conceal it under my robe, approach Sylla, and kill him. Cato lives,\nand Rome is again free.' If the generous pride, the passion of\npatriotism and glory, determine citizens to such heroic actions, with\nwhat resolution and intrepidity do not the passions inspire those who\naim at distinction in the arts and sciences, and whom Cicero calls the\npeaceable heroes? It is from a desire of glory that the astronomer is\nseen, on the icy summits of the Cordileras, placing his instruments in\nthe midst of snows and frost; which conducts the botanist to the brinks\nof precipices in quest of plants; which anciently carried the juvenile\nlovers of ihe sciences into Egypt, Ethiopia, and even into the Indies,\nfor visiting the most celebrated philosophers, and acquiring from their\nconversation the principles of their doctrine. How strongly did this\npassion exert itself in Demosthenes, who, for perfecting his\npronunciation, used every day to stand on the sea-shore, and with his\nmouth full of pebbles harangue the agitated waves! It was from the same\ndesire of glory that the young Pythagoreans submitted to a silence of\nthree years, in order to habituate themselves to recollection and\nmeditation; it induced Democritus to shun the distractions of the world,\nand retire among the tombs, to meditate on those valuable truths, the\ndiscovery of which, as it is always very difficult, is also very little\nesteemed; in fine, it was this that prompted Heraclitus to cede to his\nyounger brother the throne of Ephesus, to which he had the right of\nprimogeniture, that he might give himself up entirely to philosophy;\nwhich made the Athletic improve his strength, by denying himself the\npleasures of love; it was also from a desire of popular applause that\ncertain ancient priests renounced the same pleasures, and often, as\nBoindin pleasantly observes of them, without any other recompense for\ntheir continence than the perpetual temptation it occasions,... 'The\ncause,' says Cardinal Richelieu, 'why a timorous mind perceives an\nimpossibility in the most simple projects, when to an elevated mind the\nmost arduous seems easy, is, because, before the latter the mountains\nsink, and before the former mole-hills are metamorphosed into\nmountains.'\"\n\nThe different motives that influence our conduct are thus stated:--\n\n\"A mother idolizes her son; 'I love him,' says she, 'for his own sake.'\nHowever, one might reply, you take no care of his education, though\nyou are in no doubt that a good one would contribute infinitely to his\nhappiness; why, therefore, do not you consult some men of sense about\nhim, and read some of the works written on this subject? 'Why, because,'\nsays she, 'I think I know as much of this matter as those authors\nand their works.' But how did you get this confidence in your own\nunderstanding? Is it not the effect of your indifference? An ardent\ndesire always inspires us with a salutary distrust of ourselves. If we\nhave a suit at law of considerable consequence, we visit counsellors and\nattorneys, we consult a great number, and examine their advice. Are we\nattacked by any of those lingering diseases, which incessantly place\naround us the shades and horrors of death? We seek physicians, compare\ntheir opinions, read physical books, we ourselves become little\nphysicians. Such is the conduct prompted by a warm interest. With\nrespect to the education of children, if you are not influenced in the\nsame manner, it is because you do not love your son as well as\nyourself. 'But,' adds the mother, 'what then should be the motive of my\ntenderness?' Among fathers and mothers, I reply, some are influenced by\nthe desire of perpetuating their name in their children; they properly\nlove only their names; others are fond of command, and see in their\nchildren their slaves. The animal leaves its young when their\nweakness no longer keeps them in dependence; and paternal love becomes\nextinguished in almost all hearts, when children have, by their age or\nstation, attained to independence. 'Then,' said the poet Saadi, 'the\nfather sees nothing in them but greedy heirs,' and this is the cause,\nadds some poet, of the extraordinary love of the grandfather for his\ngrandchildren; he considers them as the enemies of his enemies. There\nare, in short, fathers and mothers, who make their children their\nplaythings and their pastime. The loss of this plaything would be\ninsupportable to them; but would their affliction prove that they loved\nthe child for itself? Everybody knows this passage in the life of\nM. de Lauzun: he was in the Bastile; there, without books, without\nemployment, a prey to lassitude and the horrors of a prison, he took it\nin his head to tame a spider. This was the only consolation he had\nleft in his misfortune. The governor of the Bastile, from an inhumanity\ncommon to men accustomed to see the unhappy, crushed the spider. The\nprisoner felt the most cutting grief, and no mother could be affected\nby the death of a son with a more violent sorrow. Now whence is derived\nthis conformity of sentiments for such different objects? It is because,\nin the loss of a child, or in the loss of the spider, people frequently\nweep for nothing but for the lassitude and want of employment into which\nthey fall. If mothers appear in general more afflicted at the death of\na child than fathers employed in business, or given up to the pursuit\nof ambition, it is not because the mother loves her child more tenderly,\nbut because she suffers a loss more difficult to be supplied. The\nerrors, in my opinion, are, in this respect, very frequent; people\nrarely cherish a child for its own sake. That paternal love of which so\nmany men make a parade, and by which they believe themselves so warmly\naffected, is most frequently nothing more than an effect, either of a\ndesire of perpetuating their names, or of pride of command...... Do\nyou not know that Galileo was unworthily dragged to the prison of the\nInquisition, for having maintained that the sun is placed in the centre,\nand does not move around the earth; that his system first offended the\nweak, and appeared directly contrary to that text of Scripture--'Sun,\nstand thou still?' However, able divines have since made Galileo's\nprinciples agree with those of religion. Who has told you, that a\ndivine more happy or more enlightened than you, will not remove the\ncontradiction, which you think you perceive between your religion, and\nthe opinion you resolve to condemn! Who forces you by a precipitate\ncensure to expose, if not religion, at least its ministers, to the\nhatred excited by persecution? Why, always borrowing the assistance of\nforce and terror, would you impose silence on men of genius, and deprive\nmankind of the useful knowledge they are capable of dispensing? You\nobey, you say, the dictates of religion. But it commands you to distrust\nyourselves, and to love your neighbor. If you do not act in conformity\nto these principles, you are then not actuated by the spirit of God.\nBut you say, by whom then are we inspired? By laziness and pride. It\nis laziness, the enemy of thought, which makes you averse to those\nopinions, which you cannot, without study and some fatigue of attention,\nunite with the principles received in the schools; but which being\nproved to be philosophically true, cannot be theologically false. It is\npride, which is ordinarily carried to a greater height in the bigot than\nin any other person, which makes him detest in the man of genius the\nbenefactor of the human race, and which exasperates him against the\ntruths discovered by humility. It is then this laziness and this pride,\nwhich, disguising themselves under the appearance of zeal, render them\nthe persecutors of men of learning; and which in Italy, Spain, and\nPortugal, have forged chains, built gibbets, and held the torch to the\npiles of the Inquisition. Thus the same pride, which is so formidable in\nthe devout fanatic, and which in all religions makes him persecute, in\nthe name of the Most High, the men of genius, sometimes arms against\nthem the men in power. After the example of those Pharisees, who treated\nas criminals the persons who did not adopt all their decisions, how\nmany viziers treat, as enemies to the nation, those who do not blindly\napprove their conduct!\"\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n\n\nFRANCES W. D'ARUSMONT.\n\nThe previous issues of this publication contain notices of the lives and\nwritings of men of eminence in the world of Freethought. This number\nis devoted to a review of the career and works of a most talented and\naccomplished lady--a Freethinker and Republican. As a proof--if any\nproof were needed--that women, if adequately educated, are equally\ncapable with men to become teachers and reformers, the works of the\nsubject of present notice afford abundant evidence. The efforts now\nbeing made to procure an adjustment of the laws relating to women,\nwhereby they will be protected in their property, and consequently\nimproved in their social position, deserve the support of all classes;\nWhen females become independent, there will be less ignorance among\nwomen and more happiness among men.\n\nFrances Wright, afterwards Madame D'Arusmont, was a native of Dundee.\nShe was born on the 6th of September, 1795. She came of a wealthy\nfamily, who had been extensive holders of city property from the year\n1500. Her father was a man of considerable literary attainments, and to\nhis active antiquarian researches and donations the British Museum is\nindebted for many rare and valuable coins and medals. He died young, as\nalso his wife, leaving three children--two girls and a boy. Frances\nwas then but two years and a half old. At the wish of her grandfather,\nGeneral Duncan Campbell, she was taken to England, and reared as a ward\nof Chancery, under the guardianship of a maternal aunt. She grew to be\nvery tall in person, erect, and of a commanding figure; large eyes, and\nmagnificent head, with a face somewhat masculine, but well formed,\nand decidedly handsome. Her brother was sent to India, at the age of\nfifteen, as a cadet in the East India Company's service, and was killed\non the passage out in an encounter with a French vessel. Her sister\npassed her life with her, and died in Paris in 1831.\n\nAt an early age, Miss Wright gave evidence of great intellectual\nability. The education she received was of a very superior kind. She\ndiligently applied herself to the various branches of science, and to\nthe study of ancient and modern letters and the arts, being impelled by\na strong desire for knowledge. At the age of nineteen, she published her\nfirst work, \"A Few Days in Athens.\" Her attention was early drawn to the\nsufferings of the lower classes, and on reflection she became convinced\nthat some great vice lay at the foundation of the whole of human\npractice: She determined to endeavor to discover, and assist in removing\nit. She read Bocca's \"History of the American Revolution,\" and resolved\nto visit that country, it appearing to her young imagination as the\nland of freedom and hope.--After having familiarised herself with the\ngovernment and institutions of America, she sailed for New York 1818.\nShe returned to England in 1820, and published a large volume, entitled\n\"Views of Society and Manners in America.\" It was dedicated to Jeremy\nBentham, and had a large sale. The work being translated into most of\nthe continental languages, she became known to the prominent reformers\nof Europe.\n\nIn 1821, she made her first visit to Paris, and was there introduced\nto General Lafayette, who, having previously read her work on America,\ninvited her to that city. A republican in all her views and hopes, she\nwas highly appreciated by Lafayette and other eminent supporters of the\nliberal party in France.--She remained in Paris until 1824, when she\nreturned to the United States, and immediately undertook a project for\nthe abolition of slavery upon a plan somewhat different from any that\nthen engaged the attention of philanthropists. For this purpose she\npurchased two thousand acres of land at Chickasaw Bluffe, (now\nMemphis, Tennessee), intending to make a good farm rather than a cotton\nplantation. She then purchased several slave families, gave them their\nliberty, and removed them to the farm, residing there herself to direct\ntheir labor. Commencing this novel undertaking with all that enthusiasm\nfor which she was remarkable, she continued the experiment some three\nyears and a half, when her health gave way, and, suffering under severe\nsickness, she made a voyage to Europe for her recovery. During her\nabsence, the farm got involved in difficulties by the influence of her\nenemies; and finally, the whole project falling through, the negroes\nwere sent off to Hayti at her expense.--She gave much time and money to\nthe carrying forward of this experiment; and though it was a failure,\nit strikingly exhibited her strong sympathy and benevolence for an\noppressed and degraded class of beings. Returning from Europe, she went\nto New Harmony (Indiana) to assume the proprietorship of a periodical\nthe Harmony Gazette, which had been published under the direction of\nRobert Dale Owen. In 1828, leaving Mr. Owen in charge of the paper,\nshe began a lecturing tour through the Union; and probably no man, and\ncertainly no _woman_, ever met with such furious opposition. Her views,\nas announced in her paper, had made her generally known, and, being\nsomewhat new and radically \"anti-theological,\" brought down upon her\nhead the rancor of religious bigotry. As no church or hall would be\nopened for her, she lectured in theatres; and her ability and eloquence\ndrew great audiences. On one occasion, while preparing to lecture in\na theatre at Baltimore, she was threatened with the destruction of her\nlife if she attempted to speak. She calmly replied, that she thought she\nknew the American people, and for every riotous fanatic that might annoy\nher, a hundred good citizens would protect her, and she was not afraid\nto place herself in their hands. She judged rightly. She went to the\ntheatre, which was crammed from pit to ceiling, and lectured to an\nadmiring and enthusiastic audience. In other cities she was not always\nso fortunate; more or less rioting occurred, while the press, almost\nwithout exception, denounced her in the bitterest terms. Subsequently,\nher paper was removed to New York. Some years afterwards, she again made\na lecturing tour, but this time she spoke on subjects of a political\nnature, and met with a better reception. In addition to lecturing,\nshe conducted a political magazine, entitled the Manual of American\nPrinciples, and was also engaged with Mr. Kneeland in editing the Boston\nInvestigator. She wrote a great deal, and upon many subjects. Among\nher many works is a tragedy called \"Altorf,\" which was performed on the\nstage, the principal character being sustained by Mr. James Wallack.\nHer last work, of any considerable size, was entitled \"England the\nCiviliser,\" published in London in 1847.\n\nMadame D'Arusmont died suddenly in Cincinnati, on Tuesday, December 14,\n1852, aged fifty-seven. She had been for sometime unwell, in consequence\nof a fall upon the ice the previous winter, which broke her thigh, and\nprobably hastened her decease; but the immediate cause of her death was\nthe rupture of a blood vessel. She was aware of her situation, knew when\nshe was dying, and met her last hour with perfect composure. A daughter,\nher only child, survives her.\n\nIn a small work entitled \"Observations on Religion and Civilization,\"\nare given the following \"Definitions of Theology and Religion: in the\nwords and in the things signified. Origin and Nature of Theology:\"--\n\n\"Theology from the Greek _theos, logos_, renders distinct the meaning of\nthe subject it attempts to treat.--_Theos_, God, or Gods, unseen beings\nand unknown causes. _Logos_, word, talk--or, if we like to employ\nyet more familiar and expressive terms, prattle or chatter. _Talk, or\nprattle, about unseen beings or unknown causes_, The idleness of the\nsubject, and inutility--nay, absolute insanity of the occupation,\nsufficiently appears in the strict etymological meaning of the word\nemployed to typify them. The danger, the mischief, the cruelly immoral,\nand, if I may be permitted to coin a word for the occasion, the\n_unhumanizing_ tendencies both of the subject and the occupation, when\nand where these are (as they have for the most part ever been throughout\nthe civilized world) absolutely protected by law and upheld by\ngovernment, sufficiently appear also from the whole page of history.\nReligion, from the Latin _religio, religio_, renders with equal\ndistinctness the things signified. _Religo_, to tie over again, to bind\nfast; _religio_, a binding together, a bond of union. The importance of\nthe great reality, here so accurately shadowed out, appears sufficiently\nin the etymological signification of the word. Its utility will be\nevident if we read, with intelligence, the nature, the past history, the\nactual condition, and the future destiny of man. But now, taking these\ntwo things in the most strict etymological sense of the words which\nexpress them, it will readily be distinguished that the first is a\nnecessary creation of the _human intellect_ in a certain stage of\ninquiry; the second, a necessary creation of the _human soul_ (by which\nI understand both our intellectual and moral faculties taken conjointly)\nin any and every state of human civilization. Theology argues, in its\norigin, the first awakening of human attention to the phenomena of\nnature, and the first crude efforts of human ingenuity to expound them.\nWhile man sees the sun and stars without observing either their diurnal\nor their annual revolutions; while he receives upon his frame the rain\nand the wind, and the varying elements, without observing either their\neffects upon himself or upon the field of nature around him, he is as\nthe brute which suffers and enjoys without inquiring why it experiences\nlight or darkness, pain or pleasure. When first he puts, in awkward\nlanguage, to himself or to his fellow, the question _why does such an\neffect follow such a cause_? he commences his existence, if not as a\nreasonable being, (a state at which he has not yet arrived) at least\n_as a being capable of reason_. The answer to this first inquiry of\nawakening intelligence is, of course, such as his own circumscribed\nobservation supplies.--It is, in fine, in accordance with the\nexplanation of the old nurse to the child, who, asking, when startled by\na rolling peal of thunder--'what makes that noise' was fully satisfied\nby the reply: 'my darling, it is God Almighty overhead moving his\nfurniture.' Man awakening to thought, but still unfamiliar with the\nconcatenation of natural phenomena, inevitably conceives of some huge\nbeing, or beings, bestriding the clouds and whirlwind, or wheeling the\nsun and the moon like chariots through the blue vault. And so again,\nfancy most naturally peoples the gloom of the night with demons, the\nwoods and the waters with naiads and dryads, elves and fairies, the\nchurch-yard with ghosts, and the dark cave and the solitary cot with\nwizards, imps and old witches. Such, then, is theology in its origin;\nand, in all its stages, we find it varying in grossness according to\nthe degree of ignorance of the human mind; and, refining into verbal\nsubtleties and misty metaphysics in proportion as that mind exchanges,\nin its progress from darkness to light, the gloom of ignorance for the\nmass of terror.\"\n\nThe nature of belief in the unknowable, and the dire consequences\narising from fanaticism, are ably depicted in the following passages,\nselected from Lecture IV., on \"Religion:\"--\n\n\"Admitting religion to be the most important of all subjects, its truths\nmust be the most apparent; for we shall readily concede, both that a\nthing true, must be always of more or less importance--and that a thing\nessentially important, must always be indisputably true. Now, again, I\nconceive we shall be disposed to admit, that exactly in proportion to\nthe indisputability of a truth, is the proof it is capable of affording;\nand that, exactly in proportion to the proof afforded, is our admission\nof such truth and belief in it. If, then, religion be the most important\nsubject of human inquiry, it must be that also which presents the most\nforcible, irrefragable, and indisputable truths to the inquirer.--It\nmust be that on which the human mind can err the least, and where all\nminds must be the most agreed. If religion be at once a science, and the\nmost true of all sciences, its truths must be as indisputable as those\nin any branch of the mathematics--as apparent to all the senses as those\nrevealed by the chemist or observed by the naturalist, and as easily\nreferred to the test of our approving or disapproving sensations, as\nthose involved in the science of morals.... Is religion a science?\nIs it a branch of knowledge? Where are the _things known_ upon which it\nrests? Where are the accumulated facts of which it is compounded? What\nare the human sensations to which it appeals? Knowledge is compounded\nof _things known_. It is an accumulation of facts gleaned by our senses,\nwithin the range of material existence, which is subject to their\ninvestigation.... Now let us see where, in the table of knowledge,\nwe may class religion. Of what part or division of nature, or material\nexistence, does it treat? What bodies, or what properties of tangible\nbodies, does it place in contact with our senses, and bring home to the\nperception of our faculties? It clearly appertains not to the table of\nhuman knowledge, for it treats not of objects discoverable within the\nfield of human observation. 'No,' will you say? 'but its knowledge\nis superhuman, unearthly--its field is in heaven.' My friends, the\nknowledge which is not human, is of slippery foundation to us human\ncreatures. Things _known_, constitute knowledge; and here is a science\ntreating of things unseen, unfelt, uncomprehended! Such cannot be\n_knowledge_. What, then, is it? Probability? possibility? theory?\nhypothesis? tradition? written? spoken? by whom? when? where? Let its\nteachers--nay, let all earth reply! But what confusion of tongues and\nvoices now strike on the ear! From either Indies, from torrid Africa,\nfrom the frozen regions of either pole, from the vast plains of ancient\nAsia, from the fields and cities of European industry, from the palaces\nof European luxury, from the soft chambers of priestly ease, from the\ndomes of hierarchal dominion, from the deep cell of the self-immolated\nmonk, from the stony cave of the self-denying anchorite, from the\ncloud-capt towers, spires, and minarets of the crescent and the cross,\narise shouts, and hosannas, and anathemas, in the commingled names\nof Brama, and Veeshnu, and Creeshna, and Juggernaut; heavenly kings,\nheavenly queens, triune deities, earth-born gods, heaven-born prophets,\napotheosized monarchs, demon-enlightened philosophers, saints, angels,\ndevils, ghosts, apparitions, and sorceries! But, worse than these sounds\nwhich but stun the ear and confound the intellect, what sights, oh!\nhuman kind! appal the heart! The rivers of earth run blood! Nation set\nagainst nation! Brother against brother! Man against the companion of\nhis bosom! and that soft companion, maddened with the frenzy of insane\nremorse for imaginary crimes? fired with the rage of infatuated bigotry,\nor subdued to diseased helplessness and mental fatuity, renounces\nkindred, flies from social converse, and pines away a useless or\nmischievous existence in sighings and tremblings, spectral fears,\nuncharitable feelings and bitter denunciations! Such are thy doings,\noh! religion! Or, rather, such are thy doings, oh! man! While standing\nin a world so rich in sources of enjoyment, so stored with objects of\nreal inquiry and attainable knowledge, yet shutting thine eyes, and,\nworse, thine heart, to the tangible things and sentient creatures around\nthee, and winging thy diseased imagination beyond the light of the sun\nwhich gladdens thy world, and contemplation of the objects which are\nhere to expand thy mind and quicken the pulses of thy heart!... I will\npray ye to observe how much of our positive misery originates in our\nidle speculations in matters of faith, and in our blind, our fearful\nforgetfulness of facts--our cold, heartless, and, I will say, _insane_\nindifference to visible causes of tangible evil, and visible sources of\ntangible happiness. Look to the walks of life, I beseech ye--look into\nthe public prints--look into your sectarian churches--look into the\nbosoms of families--look into your own bosoms, and those of your fellow\nbeings, and see how many of our disputes and dissensions, public\nand private--how many of our unjust actions--how many of our harsh\njudgments--how many of our uncharitable feelings--spring out of our\nignorant ambition to rend the veil which wraps from our human senses the\nknowledge of things unseen, and from our human faculties the conception\nof causes unknown? And oh! my fellow beings! do not these very words\n_unseen_ and _unknown_, warn the enthusiast against the profanity of\nsuch inquiries, and proclaim to the philosopher their futility? Do they\nnot teach us that religion is no subject for instruction, and no subject\nfor discussion? Will they not convince us that as beyond the horizon of\nour observation we can know nothing, so within that horizon's the\nonly safe ground for us to meet in public?... Every day we see sects\nsplitting, creeds new modelling, and men forsaking old opinions only to\nquarrel about their opposites.\n\n\"I see three Gods in one, says the Trinitarian, and excommunicates the\nSocinian, who sees a God-head in unity. I see a heaven but no hell, says\nthe Universalist, and disowns fellowship with such as may distinguish\nless. 'I see a heaven and hell also, beyond the stars,' said lately\nthe Orthodox friend, and expelled his shorter-sighted brethren from the\nsanctuary. I seek them both in the heart of man, said the more spiritual\nfollower of Penn, and straightway builded him up another temple, in\nwhich to quarrel with his neighbor, who perhaps only employs other words\nto express the same ideas. For myself, pretending to no insight into\nthese mysteries, possessing no means of intercourse with the inhabitants\nof other worlds, confessing my absolute incapacity to see either as far\nback as a first cause, or as far forward as a last one, I am content\nto state to you, my fellow creatures, that all my studies, reading,\nreflection, and observation, have obtained for me no knowledge beyond\nthe sphere of our planet, our earthly interests and our earthly duties;\nand that I more than doubt whether, should you expend all your time and\nall your treasure in the search, you will be able to acquire any better\ninformation respecting unseen worlds and future events than myself.\"\n\nThe philosophical romance, \"A Few Days in Athens,\" though the first\nof Miss Wright's works, and written when she was very young, displays\nconsiderable power and eloquence. It is the most pleasing of all her\nwritings. It is intended to portray the doctrines of Epicurus, and gives\na picture of the Gargettian, in the \"Gardens of the Academy,\" surrounded\nby his pupils, calculated to counteract many of the popular and\nerroneous notions entertained of that philosopher's teachings. The\nfollowing dialogue between Epicurus and his favorite, Theon, will afford\nthe readers of the \"Half-Hours\" an opportunity of judging how far Miss\nWright has conveyed a truthful idea of Epicurus's ethical philosophy:--\n\n\"On leaving you, last night,\" said Theon, \"I encountered Cleanthes. He\ncame from the perusal of your writings, and brought charges against them\nwhich I was unprepared to answer.\"\n\n\"Let us hear them, my son; perhaps, until you shall have perused them\nyourself, we may assist your difficulty.\"\n\n\"First, that they deny the existence of the Gods.\"\n\n\"I see but one other assertion that could equal that in folly,\" said\nEpicurus.\n\n\"I knew it,\" exclaimed Theon, triumphantly, \"I knew it was impossible.\nBut where will not prejudice lead men, when even the uptight Cleanthes\nis capable of slander?\"\n\n\"He is utterly incapable of it,\" said the Master; \"and the inaccuracy,\nin this case, I rather suspect to rest with you than with him. To _deny_\nthe existence of the Gods would indeed be presumption in a 'philosopher;\na presumption equalled only by that of him who should _assert_ their\nexistence.\"\n\n\"How!\" exclaimed the youth, with a countenance in which astonishment\nseemed to suspend every other expression.\n\n\"As I never saw the Gods, my son,\" calmly continued the Sage, \"I cannot\n_assert_ their existence; and that I never saw them, is no reason for\nmy _denying_ it.\"\n\n\"But do we believe nothing except that of which we have ocular\ndemonstration?\"\n\n\"Nothing, at least, for which we have not the evidence of one or more\nof our senses; that is, when we believe on just grounds, which I grant,\ntaking men collectively, is very seldom.\"\n\n\"But where would this spirit lead us! To impiety!--to Atheism!--to\nall, against which I felt confidence in defending the character and\nphilosophy of Epicurus!\"\n\n\"We will examine presently, my son, into the meaning of the terms you\nhave employed. When you first entered the Garden your mind was unfit for\nthe examination of the subject you have now started: it is no longer so;\nand we will therefore enter upon the inquiry, and pursue it in order.\"\n\n\"Forgive me if I express--if I acknowledge,\" said the youth, slightly\nrecoiling from his instructor, \"some reluctance to enter on the\ndiscussion of truths, whose very discussion would seem to argue a doubt,\nand\"--\n\n\"And what then!\"\n\n\"That very doubt were a crime.\"\n\n\"If the doubt of any truth shall constitute a crime, then the belief of\nthe same truth should constitute a virtue.\"\n\n\"Perhaps a duty would rather express it!\" \"When you charge the neglect\nof any duty as crime, or account its fulfilment a virtue, you suppose\nthe existence of a power to neglect or fulfil; and it is the exercise of\nthis power, in the one way or the other which constitutes the merit or\ndemerit. Is it not so?\"\n\n\"Certainly.\"\n\n\"Does the human mind possess the power to believe or disbelieve, at\npleasure, any truths whatsoever.\"\n\n\"I am not prepared to answer: but I think it does, since it possesses\nalways the power of investigation.\"\n\n\"But, possibly, not the will to exercise the power. Take care lest\nI beat you with your own weapons. I thought this very investigation\nappeared to you a crime?\"\n\n\"Your logic is too subtle,\" said the youth, \"for my inexperience.\"\n\n\"Say, rather, my reasoning too close. Did I bear you down with sounding\nwords and weighty authorities, and confound your understanding with\nhair-drawn distinctions, you would be right to retreat from the\nbattery.\"\n\n\"I have nothing to object to the fairness of your deductions,\" said\nTheon. \"But would not the doctrine be dangerous that should establish\nour inability to help our belief; and might we not stretch the\nprinciple, until we asserted our inability to help our actions?\"\n\n\"We might, and with reason. But we will not now traverse the ethical\n_pons asinorum_ of necessity--the most simple and evident of mortal\ntruths, and the most darkened, tortured, and belabored by moral\nteachers. You inquire if the doctrine we have essayed to establish, be\nnot dangerous. I reply--not, if it be true.--Nothing is so dangerous\nas error--nothing so safe as truth. A dangerous truth would be a\ncontradiction in terms, and an anomaly in things.\"\n\n\"But what is a truth?\" said Theon.\n\n\"It is pertinently asked. A truth I consider to be an ascertained fact;\nwhich truth would be changed to an error, the moment the fact, on which\nit rested, was disproved.\"\n\n\"I see, then, no fixed basis for truth.\"\n\n\"It surely has the most fixed of all--the nature of things. And it\nis only an imperfect insight into that nature which occasions all our\nerroneous conclusions, whether in physics or morals.\"\n\n\"But where, if we discard the Gods and their will, as engraven on our\nhearts, are our guides in the search after truth?\"\n\n\"Our senses and our faculties as developed in and by the exercise of our\nsenses, are the only guides with which I am acquainted. And I do not\nsee why, even admitting a belief in the Gods, and in a superintending\nProvidence, the senses should not be viewed as the guides provided by\nthem, for our direction and instruction. But here is the evil attendant\non an ungrounded belief, whatever be its nature. The moment we take one\nthing for granted, we take other things for granted; we are started in\na wrong road, and it is seldom that we gain the right one, until we have\ntrodden back our steps to the starting place. I know but of one thing\nthat a philosopher should take for granted; and that only because he\nis forced to it by an irresistible impulse of his nature; and because,\nwithout doing so, neither truth nor falsehood could exist for him. He\nmust take for granted the evidence of his senses; in other words, he\nmust believe in the existence of things, as they exist to his senses. I\n_know_ of no other existence, and can therefore _believe_ in no other:\nalthough, reasoning from analogy, I may _imagine_ other existences to\nbe.--This, for instance, I do as respects the Gods. I see around me, in\nthe world I inhabit, an infinite variety in the arrangement of matter--a\nmultitude of sentient beings, possessing different kinds and varying\ngrades of power and intelligence--from the worm that crawls in the dust,\nto the eagle that soars to the sun, and man who marks to the sun its\ncourse. It is possible, it is moreover probable, that, in the worlds\nwhich I see not--in the boundless infinitude and eternal duration of\nmatter, beings may exist, of every countless variety, and varying grades\nof intelligence, inferior and superior to our own, until we descend to\na minimum and rise to a maximum, to which the range of our observation\naffords no parallel, and of which our senses are inadequate to the\nconception. Thus far, my young friend, 1 believe in the Gods, or in what\nyou will of existences removed from the sphere of my knowledge. That you\nshould believe, with positiveness, in one unseen existence or another,\nappears to me no crime, although it may appear to me unreasonable; and\nso, my doubt of the same should appear to you no moral offence, although\nyou might account it erroneous. I fear to fatigue your attention, and\nwill, therefore, dismiss, for the present, these abstruse subjects.\"\n\n\"But we shall both be amply repaid for their discussion, if this truth\nremain with you--that an opinion, right or wrong, can never constitute a\nmoral offence, nor be in itself a moral obligation. It may be mistaken;\nit may involve an absurdity, or a contradiction.--It is a truth; or it\nis an error: it can never be a crime or a virtue.\"--[Chapter xiv.]\n\nMiss Wright was a poetess, as well as a politician and writer on ethics.\nIn her \"Fourth of July\" address, delivered in the New Harmony Hall, in\n1828, in commemoration of the American Independence, is the following:--\n\n     \"Is there a thought can fill the human mind\n     More pure, more vast, more generous, more refined\n     Than that which guides the enlightened patriot's toil?\n     Not he whose view is bounded by his soil--\n     Not he whose narrow heart can only shrine\n     The land, the people that he calleth mine--\n     Not he who, to set up that land on high,\n     Will make whole nations bleed, whole nations die--\n     Not he who, calling that land's rights his pride,\n     Trampleth the rights of all the earth beside.\n     No!    He it is, the just, the generous soul,\n     Who owneth brotherhood with either pole,\n     Stretches from realm to realm his spacious mind,\n     And guards the weal of all the human kind--\n     Holds freedom's banner o'er the earth unfurl'd,\n     And stands the guardian patriot of a world!\"\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n\n\nEPICURUS\n\n     Epicurean.--One who holds the principles of Epicurus--\n     Luxurious, contributing to luxury.\n\n     Epicurism--The principles of Epicurus--Luxury, sensual\n     enjoyment, gross pleasure.\n\n\nThe words with which this page is headed may be found in the current and\nestablished dictionaries of the present day; and it shall be our task to\nshow that never was slander more foul, calumny more base, or libel more\ncowardly, than when it associated the words luxury and sensuality with\nthe memory of the Athenian Epicurus. The much-worn anecdote of the brief\nendorsed \"The Defendant has no case, abuse the Plaintiffs Solicitor,\"\nwill well apply here. The religionists had no case, the Epicurean\nPhilosophy was impregnable as far as theological attacks were concerned,\nand the theologians have, therefore, constantly and vehemently abused\nits founder; so that, at last, children have caught the cry as though it\nwere the enunciation of a tact, and have grown into men believing that\nEpicurus was a sort of discriminating hog, who wallowed in the filth\nwhich some have miscalled pleasure.\n\nEpicurus was born in the early part of the year 344, B. C, the third\nyear of the 109th Olympiad, at Gargettus, in the neighborhood of Athens.\nHis father, Neocles, was of the \u00c6gean tribe. Some allege that Epicurus\nwas born in the island of Samos; but, according to others, he was taken\nthere when very young by his parents, who formed a portion of a colony\nof Athenian citizens, sent to colonize Samos after its subjugation\nby Pericles. The father and mother of Epicurus were in very humble\ncircumstances; his father was a schoolmaster, and his mother,\nCh\u00e6restrata, acted as a kind of priestess, curing diseases, exorcising\nghosts, and exercising other fabulous powers. Epicurus has been charged\nwith sorcery, because he wrote several songs for his mother's solemn\nrites. Until eighteen, he remained at Samos and the neighboring isle of\nTeos; from whence he removed to Athens, where he resided until the death\nof Alexander, when, disturbances arising, he fled to Colophon. This\nplace, Mitylene, and Lampsacus, formed the philosopher's residence until\nhe was thirty-six years of age; at which time he founded a school in the\nneighborhood of Athens. He purchased a pleasant garden, where he taught\nhis disciples until the time of his death.\n\nWe are told by Laertius, \"That those disciples who were regularly\nadmitted into the school of Epicurus, lived together, not in the manner\nof the Pythagoreans, who cast their possessions into a common stock; for\nthis, in his opinion, implied mutual distrust rather than friendship;\nbut upon such a footing of friendly attachment, that each individual\ncheerfully supplied the necessities of his brother.\"\n\nThe habits of the philosopher and his followers were temperate and\nexceedingly frugal, and formed a strong contrast to the luxurious,\nalthough refined, manners of the Athenians. At the entrance of the\ngarden, the visitor of Epicurus found the following inscription:--\"The\nhospitable keeper of this mansion, where you will find pleasure the\nhighest good, will present you with barley cakes and water from the\nspring. These gardens will not provoke your appetite by artificial\ndainties, but satisfy it with natural supplies. Will you not, then, be\nwell entertained?\" And yet the owner of the garden, over the gate\nof which these words were placed, has been called \"a glutton\" and \"a\nstomach worshipper!\"\n\nFrom the age of thirty-six until his decease, he does not seem to have\nquitted Athens, except temporarily. When Demetrius besieged Athens, the\nEpicureans were driven into great difficulties for want of food; and it\nis said that Epicurus and his friends subsisted on a small quantity of\nbeans which he possessed, and which he shared equally with them.\n\nThe better to prosecute his studies, Epicurus lived a life of celibacy.\nTemperate and continent himself, he taught his followers to be so\nlikewise, both by example and precept. He died 273 B. C, in the\nseventy-third year of his age; and, at that time, his warmest opponents\nseem to have paid the highest compliments to his personal character;\nand, on reading his life, and the detailed accounts of his teachings, it\nseems difficult to imagine what has induced the calumny which has been\nheaped upon his memory.\n\nWe \"cannot quote from his own works, in his own words, because, although\nhe wrote very much, only a summary of his writings has come to us\nuninjured; but his doctrines have been so fully investigated and treated\non, both by his opponents and his disciples, that there is no difficulty\nor doubt as to the principles inculcated in the school of Epicurus.\n\n\"The sum of his doctrine concerning philosophy, in general, is\nthis:--Philosophy is the exercise of reason in the pursuit and\nattainment of a happy life; whence it follows, that those studies which\nconduce neither to the acquisition nor the enjoyment of happiness are to\nbe dismissed as of no value. The end of all speculation ought to be, to\nenable men to judge with certainty what is to be chosen, and what to be\navoided, to preserve themselves free from pain, and to secure health of\nbody, and tranquillity of mind. True philosophy is so useful to every\nman, that the young should apply to it without delay, and the old should\nnever be weary of the pursuit; for no man is either too young or too\nold to correct and improve his mind, and to study the art of happiness.\nHappy are they who possess by nature a free and vigorous intellect,\nand who are born in a country where they can prosecute their inquiries\nwithout restraint: for it is philosophy alone which raises a man above\nvain fears and base passions, and gives him the perfect command of\nhimself. As nothing ought to be dearer to a philosopher than truth, he\nshould, pursue it by the most direct means, devising no actions himself,\nnor suffering himself to be imposed upon by the fictions of others,\nneither poets, orators, nor logicians, making no other use of the\nrules of rhetoric or grammar, than to enable him to speak or write with\naccuracy and perspicuity, and always preferring a plain and simple to an\nornamented style. Whilst some doubt of everything, and others profess\nto acknowledge everything, a wise man will embrace such tenets, and\nonly such as are built upon experience, or upon certain and indisputable\naxioms.\"\n\nThe following is a summary of his Moral Philosophy:--\n\n\"The end of living, or the ultimate good, which is to be sought for its\nown sake, according to the universal opinion of mankind, is happiness;\nyet men, for the most part, fail in the pursuit of this end, either\nbecause they do not form a right idea of the nature of happiness, or\nbecause they do not make use of proper means to attain it. Since it is\nevery man's interest to be happy through the whole of life, it is the\nwisdom of every one to employ philosophy in the search of felicity\nwithout delay; and there cannot be a greater folly, than to be always\nbeginning to live.\n\n\"The happiness which belongs to man, is that state in which he enjoys\nas many of the good things, and suffers as few of the evils incident\nto human nature as possible; passing his days in a smooth course of\npermanent tranquillity. A wise man, though deprived of sight or hearing,\nmay experience happiness in the enjoyment of the good things which\nyet remain; and when suffering torture, or laboring under some painful\ndisease, can mitigate the anguish by patience, and can enjoy, in\nbis afflictions, the consciousness of bis own constancy. But it is\nimpossible that perfect happiness can be possessed without the pleasure\nwhich attends freedom from pain, and the enjoyment of the good things of\nlife. Pleasure is in its nature good, as pain is in its nature evil; the\none is, therefore, to be pursued, and the other to be avoided, for its\nown sake.--Pleasure, or pain, is not only good, or evil, in itself,\nbut the measure of what is good or evil, in every object of desire or\naversion; for the ultimate reason why we pursue one thing, and avoid\nanother, is because we expect pleasure from the former, and apprehend\npain from the latter. If we sometimes decline a present pleasure, it is\nnot because we are averse to pleasure itself, but because we conceive,\nthat in the present instance, it will be necessarily connected with a\ngreater pain. In like manner, if we sometimes voluntarily submit to a\npresent pain, it is because we judge that it is necessarily connected\nwith a greater pleasure.--Although all pleasure is essentially good, and\nall pain essentially evil, it doth not thence necessarily follow, that\nin every single instance the one ought to be pursued, and the other to\nbe avoided; but reason is to be employed in distinguishing and comparing\nthe nature and degrees of each, that the result may be a wise choice of\nthat which shall appear to be, upon the whole, good. That pleasure is\nthe first good, appears from the inclination which every animal, from\nits first birth, discovers to pursue pleasure, and avoid pain; and is\nconfirmed by the universal experience of mankind, who are incited\nto action by no other principle than the desire of avoiding pain, or\nobtaining pleasure. There are two kinds of pleasure: one consisting in\na state of rest, in which both body and mind are undisturbed by any kind\nof pain; the other arising from an agreeable agitation of the senses,\nproducing a correspondent emotion in the soul. It is upon the former\nof these that the enjoyment of life chiefly depends. Happiness may\ntherefore be said to consist in bodily ease, and mental tranquillity,\nWhen pleasure is asserted to be the end of living, we are not then to\nunderstand that violent kind of delight or joy which arises from the\ngratification of the senses and passions, but merely that placid state\nof mind, which results from the absence of every cause of pain or\nuneasiness. Those pleasures, which arise from agitation, are not to be\npursued as in themselves the end of living, but as means of arriving at\nthat stable tranquillity, in which true happiness consists. It is the\noffice of reason to confine the pursuit of pleasure within the limits\nof nature, in order to the attainment of that happy state, in which\nthe body is free from every kind of pain, and the mind from all\nperturbation. This state must not, however, be conceived to be perfect\nin proportion as it is inactive and torpid, but in proportion as all\nthe functions of life are quietly and pleasantly performed. A happy life\nneither resembles a rapid torrent, nor a standing pool, but is like a\ngentle stream, that glides smoothly and silently along.\n\n\"This happy state can only be obtained by a prudent care of the body,\nand a steady government of the mind. The diseases of the body are to be\nprevented by temperance, or cured by medicine, or rendered tolerable\nby patience. Against the diseases of the mind, philosophy provides\nsufficient antidotes. The instruments which it employs for this purpose\nare the virtues; the root of which, whence all the rest proceed, is\nprudence. This virtue comprehends the whole art of living discreetly,\njustly, and honorably, and is, in fact, the same thing with wisdom. It\ninstructs men to free their understandings from the clouds of prejudice;\nto exercise temperance and fortitude in the government of themselves:\nand to practice justice towards others. Although pleasure, or happiness,\nwhich is the end of living, be superior to virtue, which is only the\nmeans, it is every one's interest to practice all the virtues; for in a\nhappy life, pleasure can never be separated from virtue.\n\n\"A prudent man, in order to secure his tranquillity, will consult his\nnatural disposition in the choice of his plan of life. If, for example,\nhe be persuaded that he should be happier in a state of marriage than in\ncelibacy, he ought to marry; but if he be convinced that matrimony would\nbe an impediment to his happiness, he ought to remain single. In like\nmanner, such persons as are naturally active, enterprising, and\nambitious, or such as by the condition of their birth are placed in the\nway of civil offices, should accommodate themselves to their nature and\nsituation, by engaging in public affairs; while such as are, from\nnatural temper, fond of leisure and retirement, or, from experience or\nobservation, are convinced that a life of public business would be\ninconsistent with their happiness, are unquestionably at liberty, except\nwhere particular circumstances call them to the service of their\ncountry, to pass their lives in obscure repose.\n\n\"Temperance is that discreet regulation of the desires and passions, by\nwhich we are enabled to enjoy pleasures without suffering any consequent\ninconvenience. They who maintain such a constant self-command, as never\nto be enticed by the prospect of present indulgence, to do that which\nwill be productive of evil, obtain the truest pleasure by declining\npleasure. Since, of desires some are natural and necessary; others\nnatural, but not necessary; and others neither natural nor necessary,\nbut the offspring of false judgment; it must be the office of temperance\nto gratify the first class, as far as nature requires: to restrain the\nsecond within the bounds of moderation; and, as to the third, resolutely\nto oppose, and, if possible, entirely repress them.\n\n\"Sobriety, as opposed to inebriety and gluttony, is of admirable use in\nteaching men that nature is satisfied with a little, and enabling them\nto content themselves with simple and frugal fare. Such a manner of\nliving is conducive to the preservation of health: renders a man alert\nand active in all the offices of life; affords him an exquisite relish\nof the occasional varieties of a plentiful board, and prepares him to\nmeet every reverse of fortune without the fear of want.\n\n\"Continence is a branch of temperance, which prevents the diseases,\ninfamy, remorse, and punishment, to which those are exposed, who\nindulge themselves in unlawful amours. Music and poetry, which are often\nemployed as incentives to licentious pleasure are to be cautiously and\nsparingly used.\n\n\"Gentleness, as opposed to an irrascible temper, greatly contributes\nto the tranquillity and happiness of life, by preserving the mind from\nperturbation, and arming it against the assaults of calumny and malice.\nA wise man, who puts himself under the government of reason, will be\nable to receive an injury with calmnese, and to treat the person who\ncommitted it with lenity; for he will rank injuries among the casual\nevents of life, and will prudently reflect that he can no more stop the\nnatural current of human passions, than he can curb the stormy winds.\nRefractory servants in a family should be chastised, and disorderly\nmembers of a state punished without wrath.\n\n\"Moderation, in the pursuit of honors or riches, is the only security\nagainst disappointment and vexation. A wise man, therefore, will prefer\nthe simplicity of rustic life to the magnificence of courts. Future\nevents a wise man will consider as uncertain, and will, therefore,\nneither suffer himself to be elated with confident expectation, nor to\nbe depressed by doubt and despair: for both are equally destructive of\ntranquillity. It will contribute to the enjoyment of life, to consider\ndeath as the perfect termination of a happy life, which it becomes us to\nclose like satisfied guests, neither regretting the past, nor anxious for\nthe future.\n\n\"Fortitude, the virtue which enables us to endure pain, and to banish\nfear, is of great use in producing tranquillity. Philosophy instructs us\nto pay homage to the gods, not through hope or fear, but from veneration\nof their superior nature. It moreover enables us to conquer the fear\nof death, by teaching us that it is no proper object of terror; since,\nwhilst we are, death is not, and when death arrives, we are not: so\nthat it neither concerns the living nor the dead. The only evils to\nbe apprehended are bodily pain, and distress of mind. Bodily pain it\nbecomes a wise man to endure with patience and firmness; because, if it\nbe slight, it may easily be borne; and if it be intense, it cannot\nlast long. Mental distress commonly arises not from nature, but from\nopinion; a wise man will therefore arm himself against this kind of\nsuffering, by reflecting that the gifts of fortune, the loss of which\nhe may be inclined to deplore, were never his own, but depended upon\ncircumstances which he could not command. If, therefore, they happen\nto leave him, he will endeavor, as soon as possible, to obliterate the\nremembrance of them, by occupying his mind in pleasant contemplation,\nand engaging in agreeable avocations.\n\n\"Justice respects man as living in society, and is the common bond\nwithout which no society can subsist. This virtue, like the rest,\nderives its value from its tendency to promote the happiness of\nlife. Not only is it never injurious to the man who practices it, but\nnourishes-in his mind calm reflections and pleasant hopes; whereas it is\nimpossible that the mind in which injustice dwells, should not be full\nof disquietude.--Since it is impossible that iniquitous actions should\npromote the enjoyment of life, as much as remorse of conscience, legal\npenalties, and public disgrace, must increase its troubles, every one\nwho follows the dictates of sound reason, will practice the virtues of\njustice, equity, and fidelity. In society, the necessity of the mutual\nexercise of justice, in order to the common enjoyment of the gifts of\nnature, is the ground of those laws by which it is prescribed. It is\nthe interest of every individual in a state to conform to the laws of\njustice; for by injuring no one, and rendering to every man his due, he\ncontributes his part towards the preservation of that society, upon the\nperpetuity of which his own safety depends. Nor ought any one to think\nthat he is at liberty to violate the rights of his fellow citizens,\nprovided he can do it securely; for he who has committed an unjust\naction can never be certain that it will not be discovered; and however\nsuccessfully he may conceal it from others, this will avail him little,\nsince he cannot conceal it from himself. In different communities,\ndifferent laws may be instituted, according to the circumstances of\nthe people who compose them. Whatever is thus prescribed is to be\nconsidered as a rule of justice, so long as the society shall judge the\nobservance of it to be for the benefit of the whole. But whenever any\nrule of conduct is found upon experience not to be conducive to the\npublic good, being no longer useful, it should no longer be prescribed.\n\n\"Nearly allied to justice are the virtues of beneficence, compassion,\ngratitude, piety, and friendship.--He who confers benefits upon others,\nprocures to himself the satisfaction of seeing the stream of plenty\nspreading around him from the fountain of his beneficence; at the same\ntime, he enjoys the pleasure of being esteemed by others. The exercise\nof gratitude, filial affection, and reverence for the gods, is\nnecessary, in order to avoid the hatred and contempt of all men.\nFriendships are contracted for the sake of mutual benefit; but by\ndegrees they ripen into such disinterested attachment, that they are\ncontinued without any prospect of advantage. Between friends there is a\nkind of league, that each will love the other as himself. A true friend\nwill partake of the wants and sorrows of his friend, as if they were his\nown; if he be in want, he will relieve him; if he be in prison, he will\nvisit him; if he be sick, he will come to him; nay-situations may occur,\nin which he would not scruple to die for him. It cannot then be doubted,\nthat friendship is one of the most useful means of procuring a secure,\ntranquil, and happy life.\"\n\nNo man will, we think, find anything in the foregoing summary to justify\nthe foul language used against Epicurus, and his moral philosophy; the\nsecret is in the physical doctrines, and this secret is, that Epicurus\nwas actually, if not intentionally, an Atheist. The following is a\nsummary of his physical doctrine:--\n\n\"Nothing can ever spring from nothing, nor can anything ever return to\nnothing. The universe always existed, and will always remain; for there\nis nothing into which it can be changed. There is nothing in Nature, nor\ncan anything be conceived, besides body and space. Body is that which\npossesses the properties of bulk, figure, resistance, and gravity: it is\nthis alone which can touch or be touched. Space is the region which\nis, or may be, occupied by body, and which affords it an opportunity of\nmoving freely. That there are bodies in the universe is attested by\nthe senses. That there is also space is evident; since otherwise bodies\nwould have no place in which to move or exist, and of their existence\nand motion we have the certain proof of perception. Besides these, no\nthird nature can be conceived; for such a nature must either have bulk\nand solidity, or want them; that is, it must either be body or space:\nthis does not, however, preclude the existence of qualities, which have\nno subsistence but in the body to which they belong.\n\n\"The universe, consisting of body and space, is infinite, for it has\nno limits. Bodies are infinite in multitude; space is infinite in\nmagnitude. The term above, or beneath, high or low, cannot be\nproperly applied to infinite space. The universe is to be conceived as\nimmoveable, since beyond it there is no place into which it can move;\nand as eternal and immutable, since it is neither liable to increase\nnor decrease, to production nor decay. Nevertheless, the parts of the\nuniverse are in motion, and are subject to change.\n\n\"All bodies consist of parts, of which they are composed, and into\nwhich they may be resolved; and these parts are either themselves simple\nprinciples, or may be resolved into such. These first principles,\nor simple atoms, are divisible by no force, and, therefore, must be\nimmutable. This may also be inferred from the uniformity of Nature,\nwhich could not be preserved if its principles were not certain\nand consistent. The existence of such atoms is evident, since it is\nimpossible that anything which exists should be reduced to nothing. A\nfinite body cannot consist of parts infinite, either in magnitude or\nnumber; divisibility of bodies _ad infinitum_, is therefore\nconceivable. All atoms are of the same nature, or differ in no essential\nqualities--From their different effects upon the senses, it appears,\nhowever, that they differ in magnitude, figure, and weight. Atoms exist\nin every possible variety of figure--round, oval, conical, cubical,\nsharp, hooked, etc. But in every shape, they are, on account of their\nsolidity, infrangible, or incapable of actual division.\n\n\"Gravity must be an essential property of atoms; for since they are\nperpetually in motion, or making an effort to move, they must be moved\nby an internal impulse, which may be called gravity.\n\n\"The principle of gravity, that internal energy which is the cause of\nall motion, whether simple or complex, being essential to the primary\ncorpuscles or atoms, they must have been incessantly and from eternity\nin actual motion.\"\n\nEpicurus, who boasts that he was an inquirer and a philosopher in his\nthirteenth year, was scarcely likely to bow his mind to the mythology of\nhis country. The man who, when he was but a schoolboy, insisted upon an\nanswer to the question, \"Whence came chaos?\" could hardly be expected\nto receive as admitted facts the fabulous legends as to Jupiter and the\nother gods. His theology is, however, in some respects, obscure, and\nunintelligible; for while he zealously opposed the popular fables, which\nmen misname God-ideas, he at the same time admitted the existence of\nmaterial gods, whom he placed in the intervals between the infinite\nworlds, where they passed a life undisturbed by aught, and enjoyed a\nhappiness which does not admit of augmentation. These inactive gods play\na strange part in the system of Epicurus; and it is asserted by many\nthat these extraordinary conceptions of Deity were put forward by the\nphilosopher to screen him from the consequences attaching to a charge of\nAtheism. Dr. Heinrich Ritter, who does not seem very friendly disposed\ntowards Epicurus, or his philosophy, repudiates this notion, and argues\nEpicurus was not in truth an Atheist, and alleges that it was a mere\npretence on his part; and that from his very theory of knowledge the\nexistence of gods could be deduced. This has been much litigated, (vide\nElectric Review for 1806, p. 606.) It is quite evident that Epicurus\nneither regarded \"the gods\" in the capacity of Creators, controllers, or\nrulers, so that his Theism (if it be Theism) twas not of a very\nsuperstitious character. The God who neither created man, nor exercised\nany influence whatever over his actions or thinkings, could have but\nlittle to do with man at all.\n\nIf we attempt to review the whole of the teachings of Epicurus, we and\nthey are defective and imperfect in many respects, and necessarily so.\nWe say necessarily so, because the imperfect science of the day limited\nthe array of facts presented to the philosopher, and narrowed the base\nupon which he was to erect his system. We must expect, therefore, to\nfind the structure weak in many points, because it was too large for\nthe foundation; but we are not, therefore, to pass it on one side, and\nwithout further notice; it should rather be our task to lay good, wide,\nand sure foundations, On which to build up a system, and develope a\nmethod, really having, for its end, the happiness of mankind. We live\n2000 years later than the Athenian philosopher.--In those 2000 years\nmany facts have been dragged out of \"the circle of the unknown and\nunused.\" Astronomy, geology, physiology, psychology--all except theology\nare belter understood. Men pretend they are searching after happiness,\nand where do they try to find it? Not here amongst the known, but in the\npossible hereafter amongst the unknowable. How do they try to find it?\nNot by the aid of the known, not by the light of facts, gathered in\nyears of toil, and sanctified by the blood of some of the noblest\nof truth's noble martyrs; no--but in the darkness of the unknown and\nunknowable; in the next world. Question the men who fly to theology\nfor happiness, and they will tell you that the most learned of the\ntheologians sum up their knowledge in the word \"incomprehensible.\" Is it\nwonderful that their happiness is somewhat marred \"here\" by quarrels\nas to the true definition of \"hereafter?\" G. H. Lewes says, of the\nEpicurean philosophy, \"that the attempt failed because the basis was\nnot broad enough. The Epicureans are therefore to be regarded as men who\nventured on a great problem, and failed because they only saw part\nof the truth.\" And we might add that Christianity, and every other\nreligious \"anity,\" fails, because the professors expect to obtain\nhappiness in the next life, and neglect to work for it in the present\none.\n\nEpicurus says, no life can be pleasant except a virtuous life; and he\ncharges you to avoid whatever maybe calculated to create disquiet in the\nmind, or give pain to the body. The Rev. Habbakuk Smilenot, of little\nBethel, says that all pleasure here, is vanity and vexation in the\nhereafter; and he charges you to continually worry and harass your mind\nwith fears that you may be condemned to hell, and doubts whether you\nwill be permitted to enter heaven. Which is the best, the philosophy of\nEpicurus, or the theology of Smilenof?\n\nG. H. Lewes says:--\"Epicureanism, in leading man to a correct\nappreciation of the moral end of his existence, in showing him how to\nbe truly happy, has to combat with many obstructions which hide from\nhim the real road of life. These obstructions are his illusions, his\nprejudices, his errors, his ignorance. This ignorance is of two kinds,\nas Victor Cousin points out; ignorance of the laws of the external\nworld, which creates absurd superstitions, and troubles the mind with\nfalse fears and false hopes. Hence the necessity of some knowledge of\nphysics.\" (We can scarcely blame Epicurus that he was not in advance of\nhis time, as far as the physical sciences are concerned, and therefore\nimparted an imperfect system of physics. We must, with our improved\nknowledge, ourselves remove the obstruction.) \"The second kind of\nignorance is that of the nature of man. Socrates had taught men to\nregard their own nature as the great object of investigation; and this\nlesson Epicurus willingly gave ear to.--But man does not interrogate his\nown nature out of simple curiosity, or simple erudition; he studies\nhis nature in order that he may improve it; he learns the extent of\nhis capacities, in order that he may properly direct them. The aim,\ntherefore, of all such inquiries must be happiness.\"\n\nWe may add that the result of all such inquiries will be happiness, if\nthe inquirer will but base his investigation and experiments upon\nfacts. Let him understand that, as he improves the circumstances which\nsurround him, so will he advance himself, becoming happier, and making\nhis fellows happy also. Remember the words of Epicurus, and seek that\npleasure for yourself which appears the most durable, and attended with\nthe greatest pleasure to your fellow men.\n\n\"I\"\n\n\n\n\nZENO, THE STOIC\n\nIn the previous number we gave a short sketch of the opinions of\nEpicurus. In this we shall deal with the founder of a rival sect--the\nStoics. Amongst the disciples and students in the Stoic schools have\nbeen many illustrious names, and not the least worthy is the name with\nwhich we are now dealing.\n\nZeno was born at Cittius, a small maritime town in the Island of Cyprus.\nThis place having been originally peopled by a colony of Phoenicians,\nZeno is sometimes called a Phoenician; but at the period when he\nflourished, it was chiefly inhabited by Greeks. The date of his birth is\nuncertain, but must have been about the year B.C. 362. His father was a\nmerchant, and Zeno appears to have been, in the early part of his life,\nengaged in mercantile pursuits. He received a very liberal education\nfrom his father, whom, we are told, perceived in his son a strong\ninclination for philosophical studies, and who purchased for Zeno the\nwritings of the Socratic philosophers; which were studied with avidity,\nand which undoubtedly exercised a considerable influence over his future\nthinkings. When about thirty years of age, he made a trading voyage from\nCittius to Athens, with a very valuable cargo of Phoenician purple, but\nwas unfortunately shipwrecked on the coast of Greece, and the whole of\nhis freight destroyed. It is supposed that this severe loss, which must\nhave considerably reduced his means, materially influenced Zeno, and\ninduced him to embrace the tenets of the Cynics, whose leading principle\nwas a contempt of riches. We are told that upon is first arrival in\nAthens, he went into the shop of a bookseller, and took up, by accident,\na volume of the \"Commentaries of Xenophon.\" Alter reading a few pages,\nZeno was so much delighted with the work, that he asked the bookseller\nto direct him where he might meet such men as the author? Crates, the\nCynic philosopher, passed by at the time, and the bookseller said,\n\"Follow that man!\" He did so, and after listening to several of his\ndiscourses, was so pleased with the doctrines of the Cynics, that\nhe became a disciple. He did not long remain attached to the Cynic\nschool--their peculiar manners were too gross for him; and his energetic\nand inquiring mind was too much cramped by that indifference to all\nscientific investigation which was one of their leading characteristics.\nHe therefore sought instruction elsewhere, and Stilpo, of Megara, became\nhis teacher, from whom he acquired the art of disputation, in which\nhe afterwards became so proficient. The Cynics were displeased at his\nfollowing other philosophy, and we are told that Crates attempted to\ndrag him by force out of the school of Stilpo, on which Zeno said, \"You\nmay seize my body, but Stilpo has laid hold of my mind.\" The Megaric\ndoctrine was, however, insufficient. Zeno was willing to learn all that\nStilpo could teach, but having learned all, his restless and insatiable\nappetite for knowledge required more, and after an attendance of several\nyears upon the lectures of Stilpo, he passed over to the expositors of\nPlato, Xenocrates, and Polemo. The latter philosopher appears to have\npenetrated Zeno's design in attending the various schools--_i.e._, to\ncollect materials from various quarters for a new system of his own;\nand when he came to the school, Polemo said, \"I am no stranger, Zeno, to\nyour Phoenician arts; I perceive that your design is to creep slily into\nmy garden, and steal away my fruit.\" After twenty years of study, having\nmastered the tenets of the various schools, Zeno determined to become\nthe founder of a sect himself. In accordance with this determination, he\nopened a school in a public portico, called the Painted Porch, from the\npictures of Polygnotus, and other eminent painters, with which it\nwas adorned. This portico became famous in Athens, and was called\n(Stoa)---the Porch. From this Stoa the school derived its name, the\nstudents being called the Stoics. Zeno was a subtle reasoner, and\nexceedingly popular. He taught a strict system of morals and exhibited\na pleasing picture of moral discipline in his own life. As a man,\nhis character appears deserving of the highest respect. He became\nexceedingly respected and revered at Athens for the probity and severity\nof bis life and manners, and consistency thereof with his doctrine. He\npossesed so large a share of public esteem that the Athenians decreed\nhim a golden crown, and on account of his approved integrity, deposited\nthe keys of their citadel in his hands. Antigouus Gonates, King of\nMacedon, was a constant attendant at his lectures whilst at Athens,\nand when that monarch returned, he earnestly invited Zeno to his court.\nDuring the philosopher's lifetime, the Athenians erected a statue of\nbrass as a mark of the estimation in which they held him.\n\nZeno lived to the extreme age of ninety-eight, when, as he was leaving,\nhis school one day, he fell and broke his finger. The consciousness of\nhis infirmity afflicted him so much, that he exclaimed, \"Why am I thus\nimportuned? Earth, I obey thy summons!\" and immediately going home, he\nput his affairs in order, and strangled himself. In person, Zeno was\ntall and slender; his brow was furrowed with thought; and this, with\nhis long and close application to study, gave a tinge of severity to his\naspect. Although of a feeble constitution, he preserved his health by\nhis great abstemiousness, his diet consisting of figs, bread, and honey.\nHe was plain and modest in his dress and habits and very frugal in all\nhis expenses, showing the same respect for the poor as for the rich, and\nconversing as freely with the slave as he did with the king. Independent\nin spirit, he broke off all communication with his friend Democharis,\nbecause that person had offered to procure a gratuity for Zeno from\nthe King of Macedon. His system appears to have been little more than a\ncollection from his various lessons of whatever was most in unison with\nhis peculiar habit of thought, and an attempt to reconcile and combine\nin one system the various elements of different theories. Taking from\nso many schools various portions of their doctrine, he seems to have\nprovoked the antagonism of many of his contemporaries, and several\nphilosophers of learning and ability employed their eloquence to\ndiminish the growing influence of the new school. Towards the close of\nhis life, he found a powerful antagonist in the person of Epicurus, and\nthe Epicureans and Stoics have since treated each other as rival sects.\nZeno's school appears to have been generally a resort for the poor, and\nit was a common joke amongst his adversaries, that poverty was the charm\nfor which he was indebted for his scholars. The list of his disciples,\nhowever, contains the names of some very rich and powerful men, who\nmay have regarded the Stoic theory as a powerful counter-agent to the\ngrowing effeminacy of the age. After Zeno's death, the Athenians, at\nthe request of Antigonus, erected a monument to his memory, in the\nCeramicura.\n\n\nFrom the particulars which have been related concerning Zeno, it will\nnot be difficult to perceive what kind of influence his circumstances\nand character must have had upon his philosophical system. If his\ndoctrines be diligently compared with the history of his life, it will\nappear, that having attended upon many eminent preceptors, and being\nintimately conversant with their opinions, he compiled, out of their\nvarious tenets, an heterogeneous system, on the credit of which he\nassumed to himself the title of the founder of a new sect.... The\ndialectic arts which Zeno learned in the school of Diodorus Chronus,\nhe did not fail to apply to the support of his own system, and to\ncommunicate to bis followers. As to the moral doctrine of the Cynic\nsect, to which Zeno strictly adhered to the last, there can be no doubt\nthat he transferred it almost without alloy, into his own school. In\nmorals, the principal difference between the Cynics and the Stoics was,\nthat the former disdained the cultivation of nature, the latter affected\nto rise above it. On the subject of physics, Zeno received his doctrine\nthrough the channel of the Platonic school, as will fully appear from\na careful comparison of their respective systems. The Stoic philosophy,\nbeing in this manner of heterogeneous origin, it necessarily partook of\nthe several systems of which it was composed. The idle quibbles, jejune\nreasonings, and imposing sophisms, which so justly exposed the schools\nof the dialectic philosophers to ridicule, found their way into the\nPorch, where much time was wasted, and much ingenuity thrown away, upon\nquestions of no importance. Cicero censures the Stoics for encouraging\nin their schools a barren kind of disputation, and employing themselves\nin determining trifling questions, in which the disputants can have no\ninterest, and which, at the close, leave them neither wiser nor better.\nAnd that this censure, is not, as some modern advocates for Stoicism\nhave maintained, a mere calumny, but grounded upon fact, sufficiently\nappears from what is said by the ancients, particularly by Sextus\nEmpiricus, concerning the logic of the Stoics. Seneca, who was himself\na Stoic, candidly acknowledges this. It may, perhaps, be thought\nsurprising that philosophers, who affected so much gravity and\nwisdom, should condescend to such trifling occupations. But it must be\nconsidered, that, at this time, a fondness for subtle disputations so\ngenerally prevailed in Greece, that excellence in the arts of reasoning\nand sophistry was a sure path to fame. The Stoics, with whom vanity\nwas unquestionably a ruling passion, were ambitious for this kind of\nreputation. Hence it was that they engaged with so much vehemence\nin verbal contests, and that they largely contributed towards the\nconfusion, instead of the improvement, of science, by substituting vague\nand ill-defined terms in the room of accurate conceptions. The moral\npart of the Stoical philosophy, in like manner, partook of the defects\nof its origin. It may be as justly objected against the Stoics as the\nCynics, that they assumed an artificial severity of manners, and a tone\nof virtue above the condition of a man. Their doctrine of moral wisdom\nwas an ostentatious display of words, in which little regard was paid\nto nature and reason. It professed to raise human nature to a degree of\nperfection before unknown; but its real effect was, merely to amuse\nthe ear, and captivate the fancy, with fictions which can never\nbe realized.... The extravagancies and absurdities of the Stoical\nphilosophy may also be in some measure ascribed to the vehement contests\nwhich subsisted between Zeno and the Academics on the one hand, and\nbetween him and Epicurus on the other. For, not only did these disputes\ngive rise to many of the dogmas of Stoicism, but led Zeno and his\nfollowers, in the warmth of controversy, to drive their arguments to the\nutmost extremity, and to express themselves with much greater confidence\nthan they would probably otherwise have done. This is, perhaps, the\ntrue reason why so many extravagant notions are ascribed to the Stoics,\nparticularly upon the subject of morals. Whilst Epicurus taught his\nfollowers to seek happiness in tranquillity, Zeno imagined his wise man,\nnot only free from all sense of pleasure, but void of all passions and\nemotions, and capable of being happy in the midst of torture. That he\nmight avoid the position taken by the Epicureans, he had recourse to\na moral institution, which bore indeed the lofty front of wisdom, but\nwhich was elevated far above the condition and powers of human nature.\nThe natural disposition of Zeno, and his manner of life, had, moreover,\nno inconsiderable influence in fixing the peculiar character of his\nphilosophy. By nature severe and morose, and constitutionally inclined\nto reserve and melancholy, he early cherished this habit by submitting\nto the austere ami rigid discipline of the Cynics. Those qualities\nwhich he conceived to be meritorious in himself, and which he found to\nconciliate the admiration of mankind, he naturally transferred to his\nimaginary character of a wise or perfect man.\n\nIn order to form an accurate judgment concerning the doctrine of\nthe Stoics, besides a careful attention to the particulars already\nenumerated, it will be necessary to guard with the utmost caution\nagainst two errors, into which several writers have fallen. Great care\nshould be taken, in the first place, not to judge of the doctrine of the\nStoics from words and sentiments, detached from the general system, but\nto consider them as they stand, related to the whole train of premises\nand conclusions.... The second caution is, not to confound the genuine\ndoctrines of Zeno, and other ancient fathers of this sect, with the\nglosses of the later Stoics.... Out of the many proofs of this change,\nwhich might be adduced, we shall select one, which is the more worthy\nof notice, as it has occasioned many disputes among the learned. The\ndoctrine we mean is that concerning fate. This doctrine, according to\nZeno and Chrysippus, implies an eternal and immutable series of causes\nand effects, within which all events are included, and to which the\nDeity himself is subject: whereas, the later Stoics, changing the term\nfate into the Providence of God, discoursed with great plausibility\non this subject, but still in reality retained the ancient doctrine of\nuniversal fate. From this example, a judgment may be formed concerning\nthe necessity of using some caution, in appealing to the writings of\nSeneca, Antoninus, and Epictetus, as authorities, in determining what\nwere the original doctrines of the Stoic philosophers.\n\nConcerning philosophy in general, the doctrine of the Stoics was,\nthat wisdom consists in the knowledge of things divine and human; that\nphilosophy is such an exercise of the mind as produces wisdom; that\nin this exercise consists the nature of virtue; and consequently,\nthat virtue is a term of extensive meaning, comprehending the right\nemployment of the mind in reasoning, in the study of nature, and in\nmorals. The wisdom of the Stoics is either progressive, through several\nstages; or perfect, when every weakness if subdued, and every error\ncorrected, without the possibility of a relapse into folly, or vice, or\nof being again enslaved by any passion, or afflicted by any calamity.\nWith Socrates and the Cynics, Zeno represented virtue as the only true\nwisdom; but being disposed to extend the pursuits of his wise man into\nthe regions of speculation and science, he gave, after his usual manner,\na new signification to an old term, and comprehended the exercise of the\nunderstanding in the search of truth, as well as the government of\nthe appetites and passions, under the general term, virtue. The great\nimportance of the united exercise of the intellectual and active\npowers of the mind, are thus beautifully asserted by the philosophical\nemperor:--\"Let every one endeavor so to think and act, that his\ncontemplative and active faculties may at the same time be going on\ntowards perfection. His clear conceptions, and certain knowledge, will\nthen produce within him an entire confidence in himself, unperceived\nperhaps by others, though not affectedly concealed, which will give a\nsimplicity and dignity to his character; for he will at all times be\nable to judge, concerning the several objects which come before him,\nwhat is their real nature, what place they hold in the universe, how\nlong they are by nature fitted to last, of what materials they are\ncomposed, by whom they may be possessed, and who is able to bestow them,\nor take them away.\" The sum of the definitions and rules given by\nthe Stoics concerning logic is this:--Logic is either rhetorical or\ndialectic. Rhetorical logic is the art of reasoning and discoursing on\nthose subjects which require a diffuse kind of declamation. Dialectic is\nthe art of close argumentation in the form of disputation or dialogue.\nThe former resembles an open, the latter, a closed hand.--Rhetoric is\nof three kinds, deliberative, judicial, and demonstrative. The dialectic\nart is the instrument of knowledge, as it enables a man to distinguish\ntruth from error, and certainty from bare probability. This art\nconsiders things as expressed by words, and words themselves. External\nthings are perceived by a certain impression, made either upon some\nparts of the brain, or upon the percipient faculty, which may be called\nan image, since it is impressed upon the mind, like the image of a seal\nupon wax.\n\nThis image is commonly accompanied with a belief of the reality of the\nthing perceived; but not necessarily, since it does not accompany\nevery image, but those only which are not attended with any evidence\nof deception. Where only the image is perceived by itself, the thing\nis apprehensible; where it is acknowledged and approved as the image\nof some real thing, the impression is called apprehension, because the\nobject is apprehended by the mind as a body is grasped by the hand. Such\napprehension, if it will bear the examination of reason, is knowledge;\nif it is not examined, it is mere opinion; if it will not bear this\nexamination, it is misapprehension. The senses, corrected by reason,\ngive a faithful report; not by affording a perfect apprehension of\nthe entire nature of things, but by leaving no room to doubt of their\nreality. Nature has furnished us with these apprehensions, as the\nelements of knowledge, whence further conceptions are raised in the\nmind, and a way is opened for the investigations of reason. Some\nimages are sensible, or received immediately through the senses; others\nrational, which are perceived only in the mind. These latter are called\nnotions, or ideas. Some images are probable, to which the mind assents\nwithout hesitation; others improbable, to which it does not readily\nassent; and others doubtful, where it is not entirely perceived, whether\nthey are true or false. True images are those which arise from things\nreally existing, and agree with them. False images, or phantasms, are\nimmediately derived from no real object. Images are apprehended\nby immediate perception, through the senses, as when we see a man;\nconsequentially, by likeness, as when from a portrait we apprehend the\noriginal; by composition, as when, by compounding a horse and man, we\nacquire the image of a Centaur; by augmentation, as in the image of a\nCyclops; or by diminution, as in that of a pigmy. Judgment is employed\neither in determining, concerning particular things, or concerning\ngeneral propositions. In judging of things we make use of some one of\nour senses, as a common criterion or measure of apprehension, by which\nwe judge whether a thing is, or is not; or whether or not it exists\nwith certain properties; or we apply to the thing, concerning which a\njudgment is to be formed, some artificial measure, as a balance, a rule,\netc., or we call in other peculiar measures to determine things not\nperceptible by the senses. In judging of general propositions, we make\nuse of our pre-conceptions, or universal principles, as _criteria_, or\nmeasures of judgment. The first impressions from the senses produce in\nthe mind an involuntary emotion; but a wise man afterwards deliberately\nexamines them, that he may know whether they be true or false, and\nassents to, or rejects them, as the evidence which offers itself to\nhis understanding appears sufficient or insufficient. This assent, or\napprobation, will indeed be as necessarily given, or withheld, according\nto the ultimate state of the proofs which are adduced, as the scales of\na balance will sink or rise, according to the weights which are placed\nupon them; but while the vulgar give immediate credit to the reports of\nthe senses, wise men suspend their assent, till they have deliberately\nexamined the nature of things, and carefully estimated the weight\nof evidence. The mind of man is originally like a blank leaf, wholly\nwithout characters, but capable of receiving any. The impressions which\nare made upon it, by means of the senses, remain in the memory, after\nthe objects which occasioned them are removed; a succession of these\ncontinued impressions, made by similar, objects, produces experience;\nand hence arises permanent notions, opinions, and knowledge. Even\nuniversal principles are originally formed by experience from sensible\nimages. All men agree in their common notions or preconceptions;\ndisputes only arise concerning the application of these to particular\ncases.\n\nLet us pass on to the Stoical doctrine concerning nature. According to\nZeno and his followers, there existed from eternity a dark and confused\nchaos, in which was contained the first principles of all future beings.\nThis chaos being at length arranged, and emerging into variable forms,\nbecame the world, as it now subsists. The world, or nature, is that\nwhole which comprehends all things, and of which all thing are parts\nand members. The universe, though one whole, contains two principles,\ndistinct from elements, one passive, the other active. The passive\nprinciple is pure matter without qualities; the active principle\nis reason, or God. This is the fundamental doctrine of the Stoics\nconcerning nature....The Stoical system teaches, that both the active\nand passive principles in nature are corporeal, since whatever acts or\nsuffers must be so. The efficient cause, or God, is pure ether, or fire,\ninhabiting the exterior surface of the heavens, where every thing\nwhich is divine is placed. This ethereal substance, of divine fire,\ncomprehends all the vital principles by which individual beings are\nnecessarily produced, and contains the forms of things, which from the\nhighest regions of the universe, are diffused through every other part\nof nature. Seneca, indeed, calls God incorporeal reason; but by this\nterm he can only mean to distinguish the divine ethereal substance from\ngross bodies; for, according to the Stoics, whatever has a substantial\nexistence is corporeal; nothing is incorporeal, except that infinite\nvacuum which surrounds the universe; even mind and voice are corporeal,\nand, in like manner, Deity. Matter, or the passive principle, in the\nStoical system, is destitute of all qualities, but ready to receive any\nform, inactive, and without motion, unless moved by some external cause.\nThe con =trary principle, or the ethereal operative fire, being active,\nand capable of producing all things from matter, with consummate\nskill, according to the forms which it contains, although in its nature\ncorporeal, considered in opposition to gross and sluggish matter, or\nto the elements, is said to be immaterial and spiritual. For want of\ncarefully attending to the preceding distinction, some writers have been\nso far imposed upon, by the bold innovations of the Stoics in the use of\nterms, as to inter from the appellations which they sometimes apply\nto the Deity, that they conceived him to be strictly and properly\nincorporeal. The truth appears to be, that, as they sometimes spoke of\nthe soul of man, a portion of the Divinity, as an exceedingly rare and\nsubtle body, and sometimes as a warm or fiery spirit,* so they spoke\nof the Deity as corporeal, considered as distinct from the incorporeal\nvacuum, or infinite space; but as spiritual, considered in opposition to\ngross and inactive matter. They taught, indeed, that God is underived,\nincorruptible, and eternal, possessed of intelligence, good and perfect,\nthe efficient cause of all the peculiar qualities or forms of things;\nand the constant preserver and governor of the world; and they described\nthe Deity under many noble images, and in the most elevated language.\nThe hymn of Cleanthes, in particular, is justly admired for the grandeur\nof its sentiments, and the sublimity of its diction. But if in reading\nthese descriptions, we hastily associate with them modern conceptions\nof Deity, and neglect to recur to the leading principles of the sect, we\nshall be led into fundamental misapprehensions of the true doctrine of\nStoicism. For according to this sect. God and matter are alike underived\nand eternal, and God is the former of the universe in no other sense\nthan as he has been the necessary efficient cause, by which motion and\nform have been impressed upon matter.\n\nWhat notions the Stoics entertained of God sufficiently appears from\nthe single opinion of his finite nature; an opinion which necessarily\nfollowed from the notion that he is only a part of a spherical, and\ntherefore a finite universe. On the doctrine of divine providence, which\nwas one of the chief points upon which the Stoics disputed with the\nEpicureans, much is written, and with great strength and elegance, by\nSeneca, Epictetus, and other later Stoics. But we are not to judge of\nthe genuine and original doctrine of this sect from the discourses of\nwriters who had probably corrupted their language on this subject, by\nvisiting the Christian school. The only way to form an accurate judgment\nof their opinions concerning Providence, is to compare their popular\nlanguage upon this head with their general system, and explain the\nformer consistently with the fundamental principles of the latter.\n\nIf this be fairly done, it will appear that the agency of Deity is,\naccording to the Stoics, nothing more than the active motion of a\ncelestial ether, or fire, possessed of intelligence, which at first gave\nform to the shapeless mass of gross matter, and being always essentially\nunited to the visible world by the same necessary agency, preserves its\norder and harmony.\n\nThe Stoic idea of Providence is, not that of a being, wholly independent\nof matter, freely directing and governing all things, but that of a\nnecessary chain of causes and effects, arising from the action of a\npower, which is itself a part of the existence which it regulates, and\nwhich equally with that existence is subject to the immutable law of\nnecessity. Providence, in the Stoic creed, is only another name for\nabsolute necessity, or fate, to which God and matter, or the universe,\nwhich consists of both, is immutably subject. The rational, efficient,\nand active principle in nature, the Stoics called by various names:\nNature, fate, Jupiter, God.\n\n\"What is nature,\" says Seneca, \"but God; the divine reason, inherent in\nthe whole universe, and in all its parts? or you may call him, if you\nplease, the author of all things.\"\n\nAnd again: \"Whatever appellations imply celestial power and energy, may\nbe justly applied to God; his names may properly be as numerous as his\noffices,\" The term nature, when it is at all distinguished in the Stoic\nsystem from God, denotes not a separate agent, but that order of things\nwhich is necessarily produced by his perpetual agency. Since the active\nprinciple of nature is comprehended within the world, and with matter\nmakes one whole, it necessarily follows that God penetrates, pervades,\nand animates matter, and the things which are formed from it; or, in\nother words, that he is the soul of the universe.\n\nThe universe is, according to Zeno and his followers, \"a sentient\nand animated being.\" Nor was this a new tenet, but, in some sort, the\ndoctrine of all antiquity. Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and after these,\nZeno, taking it for granted that there is no real existence which is\nnot corporeal, conceived nature to be one whole, consisting of a subtle\nether and gross matter, the former the active, the latter the passive\nprinciple, as essentially united as the soul and body of man that is,\nthey supposed God, with respect to nature, to be, not a co-existing, but\nan informing principle.\n\nConcerning the second principle in the universe, matter, and concerning\nthe visible world, the doctrine of the Stoics is briefly this:--Matter\nis the first essence of all things, destitute of, but capable of\nreceiving, qualities. Considered universally, it is an eternal whole,\nwhich neither increases nor decreases. Consid\u00e9r\u00e9e! with respect to\nits parts, it is capable of increase or diminution, of collision and\nseparation, and is perpetually changing. Bodies are continually tending\ntowards dissolution; matter always remains the same. Matter is not\ninfinite, but finite, being circumscribed by the limits of the world;\nbut its parts are infinitely divisible. The world is spherical in its\nform; and is surrounded by an infinite vacuum. The action of the divine\nnature upon matter first produced the element of moisture, and then the\nother elements, fire, air, and earth, of which all bodies are composed.\nAir and fire have essential levity, or tend towards the exterior surface\nof the world; earth and water have essential gravity, or tend towards\nthe centre. All the elements are capable of reciprocal conversion; air\npassing into fire, or into water; earth into air and water; but there\nis this essential difference among the elements, that fire and air\nhave within themselves a principle of motion, while water and earth are\nmerely passive.... The world, including the whole of nature,\nGod and matter, subsisted from eternity, and will for ever subsist; but\nthe present regular frame of nature had a beginning, and will have\nan end. The parts tend towards a dissolution, but the whole remains\nimmutably the same. The world is liable to destruction from the\nprevalence of moisture, or of dryness; the former producing a universal\ninundation, the latter a universal conflagration. These succeed each\nother in nature as regularly as winter and summer. When the universal\ninundation takes place, the whole surface of the earth is covered with\nwater, and all animal life is destroyed; after which, nature is renewed\nand subsists as before, till the element of fire, becoming prevalent in\nits turn, dries up all the moisture, converts every substance into its\nown nature, and at last, by a universal conflagration, reduces the world\nto its pristine state. At this period, all material forms are lost in\none chaotic mass: all animated nature is re-united to the Deity, and\nnature again exists in its original form, as one whole, consisting of\nGod and matter. From this chaotic state, however, it again emerges, by\nthe energy of the efficient principle, and gods, and men, and all the\nforms of regulated nature, are renewed, and to be dissolved and renewed\nin endless succession. The above is collated from Ritter, Enfield,\nand Lewes, as a specimen of one of the earlier phases of Freethought.\nFreethought as then expressed had many faults and flaws, but it has\ngrown better every day, extending and widening its circle of utterance,\nand we hope that it will continue to do so.\n\n\"I.\"\n\n\n\n\nMATTHEW TINDAL.\n\nIt is easy to mark the progress of the age by recurring to the history\nof past Freethinkers. Bishops, established and dissenting, are now\nrepeating the parts the old Deiste played. _They_ were sadly treated for\nsetting the example, modern divines follow with applause.\n\nMatthew Tindal was an example of this. He labored to establish religion\non the foundation of Reason and Nature. It was to be expected that\nChristians would be pleased at efforts which would have no effect but\nto strengthen its foundations. The effort was met by reprobation, and\nresented as an injury. It is but a just retaliation that believers\nshould now have to establish in vain that evidence they once denounced.\n\nMatthew Tindal was an English Deistical writer, who was born at\nBeer-Terres, in Devonshire, 1656.--His father, it appears, was a\nclergyman, who held the living of Beer-Terres, presented to him by the\nUniversity of Cambridge, in the time of the Civil Wars.--Young Matthew\nwas educated at Oxford, where at twenty-eight he took the degree of\nLL.D. Matthew Tindal, LL. D., was early tossed about by the winds of\ndoctrine. First he embraced Romanism: afterwards he became a Protestant.\nThen politics interested him, and he engaged in controversy on the side\nof William III. He was appointed Commissioner of a Court for Trying\nForeigners. In 1693 he published an essay on the Law of Nations\nWhen fifty-four, in 1710, he entered so vigorously into theological\ncontroversy, arising out of Trinitarian criticism, that his marked\nsatire led to his books being condemned by the House of Commons, and\nburnt by the hangman. He resented this indignity by a spirited attack on\nthe dominant priestly party in his \"High Church Catechism,\" and he also\nwrote in defence of philosophical necessity. But his most notable work\nwas the performance of his old age, his \"Christianity as Old as the\nCreation: or, the Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature.\"\nThis was produced in his seventy-third year. He was attacked in Reply\nby Bishop Waterland. It is generally agreed that in point of good spirit\nand good temper the Bishop was far inferior to the Deist. Dr. Conyers\nMiddleton, says Thomas Cooper, in his brief sketch of Tindal, appeared\nin defence of Tindal in a \"Letter to Dr. Waterland,\" whom he condemned\nfor the shallowness of his answer to Tindal, and boldly and frankly\nadmitted that the Freethinker was right in asserting that the Jews\nborrowed some of their ceremonies and customs from Egypt; that allegory\nwas, in some cases, employed in the Scriptures, where common readers\ntook the relation for fact; and, that the Scriptures are _not_ of\n\"absolute and universal inspiration.\" The following sentence, which will\nbe found in this \"Letter\" of Dr. Conyers Middleton, does honor to his\nname:--\"If religion consists in depreciating moral duties and depressing\nnatural reason; if the duty of it be to hate and persecute for\na different way of thinking where the best and wisest have never\nagreed--then. I declare myself an Infidel, and to have no share in that\nreligion.\" Matthew Tindal died at his house in Coldbath Fields, of the\nstone, 1773, aged seventy-seven. * Rysbrach, the famous statuary, took a\nmodel of him.\n\n     * Julian Hibbert gives 1656-7: Dr. Beard, 1556; Thomas\n     Cooper, 1657, as the year of Tindal's birth. All agree that\n     he died 1733--he was therefore seventy-six or seventy-seven\n     at the time of his death.\n\nTindal opens his great work thus:--\"The author makes no apology for\nwriting on a subject of the last importance; and which, as far as I can\nfind, has no where been so fully treated: he builds nothing on a thing\nso uncertain as tradition, which differs in most countries; and of\nwhich, in all countries, the bulk of mankind are incapable of judging;\nbut thinks he has laid down such plain and evident rules, as may\nenable men of the meanest capacity, to distinguish between religion and\nsuperstition; and has represented the former in every part so beautiful,\nso amiable, and so strongly affecting, that they, who in the least\nreflect, must be highly in love with it; and easily perceive, that their\nduty and happiness are inseparable.\"\n\nThe character of the performance will be seen from a few of the\npropositions he maintains:--\n\n\"That God, at all times, has given mankind sufficient means of knowing\nwhatever he requires of them.\n\n\"That the religion of nature consists in observing those things, which\nour reason, by considering the nature of God and man, and the relation\nwe stand in to him, and one another, demonstrates to be our duty; and\nthat those things are plain; and likewise what they are.\n\n\"That the perfection and happiness of all rational beings, supreme\nas well as subordinate, consist in living up to the dictates of their\nnature.\n\n\"That God requires nothing for his own sake; no, not the worship we are\nto render him, nor the faith we are to have in him.\n\n\"That the not adhering to those notions reason dictates, concerning\nthe nature of God, has been the occasion of all superstition, and those\ninnumerable mischiefs, that mankind, on the account of religion, have\ndone either to themselves, or one another.\n\n\"The bulk of mankind, by their reason, must be able to distinguish\nbetween religion and superstition; otherwise they can never extricate\nthemselves from that superstition they chance to be educated in.\"\n\nTindal deals with the question of the obscurity of Revelation in these\nterms, sufficiently salient to alarm the very proper divines of that\nday:--\n\n\"Had God, from time to time, spoken to all mankind in their several\nlanguages, and his words had miraculously conveyed the same ideas to\nall persons; yet he could not speak more plainly than he has done by the\nthings themselves, and the relation which reason shows there is\nbetween them. Nay, since it is impossible in any book, or books, that\na particular rule could be given for every case, we must even then have\nhad recourse to the light of nature to teach us our duty in most cases;\nespecially considering the numberless circumstances which attend us, and\nwhich, perpetually varying, may make the same actions, according as men\nare differently affected by them, either good or bad. And I may add,\nthat most of the particular rules laid down in the gospel for our\ndirection, are spoken after such figurative a manner, that except we\njudge of their meaning, not merely by the letter, but by what the law\nof nature antecedently declares to be our duty, they are apt to lead\nus wrong. And if precepts relating to morality are delivered after an\nobscure manner, when they might have been delivered otherwise; what\nreason can you assign, for its being so, but that infinite wisdom meant\nto refer us to that law for the explaining them? Sufficient instances\nof this nature I shall give you hereafter, though I must own, I\ncannot carry this point so far as a learned divine, who represents the\nScriptures more obscure (which one would think impossible) than even the\nfathers. He tells us, 'that a certain author (viz., Flaccus Illyricus)\nhas furnished us with one-and-fifty reasons for the obscurity of the\nScriptures;' adding, 'I think I may truly say that the writing of the\nprophets and apostles abound with tropes, and metaphors, types, and\nallegories, parables, and dark speeches; and are as much, nay, much more\nunintelligible in many places, than the writings of the ancients.' It\nis well this author, who talks of people being stark Bible-mad, stopped\nhere; and did not with a celebrated wit * cry, 'The truly illuminated\nbooks are the darkest of all.' The writer above mentioned supposes it\nimpossible, that God's will should be fully revealed by books; 'except,'\nsays he, 'it might be said perhaps without a figure, that even the world\nitself could not contain the books which should be written.' But with\nsubmission to this reverend person, I cannot help thinking, but that\n(such is the divine goodness) God's will is so clearly and fully\nmanifested in the Book of Nature, that he who runs may read it.\"\n\n     * Dean Swift--\"Tale of a Tub.\"\n\nIn the next extract we make, we find Tindal quoting two striking\npassages from Lord Shaftesbury, followed by an acute vindication of the\nintegrity of the Law of Nature over the Scriptures:--\n\n\"Had the heathen distinguished themselves by creeds made out of spite\nto one another, and mutually persecuted each other about the worship of\ntheir gods, they would soon have made the number of their votaries as\nfew as the gods they worshipped; but we don't find (except in Egypt,\nthat mother-land of superstition) that they ever quarrelled about their\ngods; though their gods sometimes quarrelled, and fought about their\nvotaries. By the universal liberty that was allowed by the ancients,\n'Matters (as a noble author observes) were so balanced, that reason had\nfair play; learning and science flourished; wonderful was the harmony\nand temper which arose from these contrarieties. Thus superstition and\nenthusiasm were mildly treated; and being let alone, they never raged\nto that degree as to occasion bloodshed, wars, persecutions, and\ndevastations; but a new sort of policy has made us leap the bounds of\nnatural humanity, and out of a supernatural charity, has taught us the\nway of plaguing one another most devoutly. It has raised an antipathy,\nthat no temporal interest could ever do, and entailed on us a mutual\nhatred to all eternity. And savage zeal, with meek and pious semblance,\nworks dreadful massacre; and for heaven's sake (horrid pretence) makes\ndesolate the earth.' And further, Shaftesbury observes, 'The Jupiter\nof Strangers, was, among the ancients, one of the solemn characters\nof divinity, the peculiar attribute of the supreme deity; benign to\nmankind, and recommending universal love, mutual kindness, and benignity\nbetween the remotest and most unlike of the human race. Such was the\nancient heathen charity and pious duty towards the whole of mankind;\nboth those of different nations and different worship. But, good God!\nhow different a character do bigots give us of the Deity, making him an\nunjust, cruel, and inconsistent Being; requiring all men to judge for\nthemselves, and act according to their consciences; and yet authorizing\nsome among them to judge for others, and to punish them for not acting\naccording to the consciences of those judges, though ever so much\nagainst their own. These bigots thought they were authorized to punish\nall those that differ with them in their religious worship, as God's\nenemies; but had they considered that God alone could discern men's\nhearts, and alone discover whether any, by conscientiously offering him\na wrong worship, could become his enemies; and that infinite wisdom best\nknew how to proportion the punishment to the fault, as well as infinite\npower how to inflict it; they would, surely, have left it to God to\njudge for himself, in a cause which immediately related to himself; and\nwhere they were not so much as parties concerned, and as likely to be\nmistaken as those they would punish. Can one, without horror, think\nof men's breaking through all the rules of doing as they would be done\nunto, in order to set themselves up for standards of truth for God as\nwell as man? Do not these impious wretches suppose, that God is not able\nto judge for himself; at least, not able to execute his own judgment?\nAnd that, therefore, he has recourse, forsooth, to their superior\nknowledge or power; and they are to revenge his injuries, root out his\nenemies, and restore his lost honor, though with the destruction of the\nbetter part of mankind? But, to do the propagators of these blasphemous\nnotions justice, they do not throw this load of scandal on the law of\nNature, or so much as pretend from thence to authorize their execrable\nprinciples; but endeavor to support them by traditional religion;\nespecially by mis-interpreted texts from the Old Testament; and thereby\nmake, not only natural and revealed religion, but the Old and New\nTestament (the latter of which requires doing good both to Jews and\nGentiles) contradict each other. But to return; if what the light of\nNature teaches us concerning the divine perfections, when duly attended\nto, is not only sufficient to hinder us from falling into superstition\nof any kind whatever; but, as I have already shown, demonstrates what\nGod, from his infinite wisdom and goodness, can, or cannot command; how\nis it possible that the law of Nature and grace can differ? How can\nit be conceived, that God's laws, whether internally, or externally\nrevealed, are not at all times the same, when the author of them is, and\nhas been immutably the same forever?'\"\n\nThe following passage exhibits the judicious mixture of authority and\nargument for which our author is remarkable. The quotation is a good\nillustration of Tindal's best manner. He is replying to Dr. Samuel\nClark:--\n\n\"It cannot be imputed to any defect in the light of nature, that the\npagan world ran into idolatry, but to their being entirely governed by\npriests, who pretended communication with their gods, and to have\nthence their revelations, which they imposed on the credulous as divine\noracles: whereas the business of the Christian dispensation was to\ndestroy all those traditional revelations; and restore, free from all\nidolatry, the true primitive, and natural religion, implanted in mankind\nfrom the creation. The Dr. (Clark) however, seems afraid, lest he had\nallowed too much to the light of nature, in relation to the discovery of\nour duty both to God and man; and not left room for revelation to make\nany addition; he therefore supposes, 'there are some duties, which\nnature hints at only in general.'--But, if we cannot, without highly\nreflecting on the wisdom and goodness of God, suppose that he has not,\nat all times, given the whole rational creation a plain rule for their\nconduct, in relation to those duties they owe to God, themselves, and\none another; must we not suppose reason, and religion (that rule of all\nother rules) inseparable; so that no rational creature can be ignorant\nof it, who attends to the dictates of his own mind; I mean, as far as\nit is necessary for him to know it! An ignorant peasant may know what is\nsufficient for him, without knowing as much as the learned rector of St.\nJames's. Though the Dr. says, 'the knowledge of the law of nature is,\nin fact, by no means universal;' yet he asserts, that 'man is plainly in\nhis own nature an accountable creature;' which supposes that the light\nof nature plainly, and undeniably, teaches him that law, for breach of\nwhich he is naturally accountable; and did not the Dr. believe this\nlaw to be universal, he could not infer a future judgment from the\nconscience _all_ men have of their actions, or the judgment they pass on\nthem in their own minds whereby 'They that have not any law, are a law\nunto themselves; their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts\naccusing, or excusing one another;' which is supposing but one law,\nwhether that law be written on paper, or in men's hearts only; and that\nall men by the judgment they pass on their own actions, are conscious\nof this law. And, the apostle Paul, though quoted by the Dr., is so far\nfrom favoring his hypothesis of any invincible ignorance, even in the\nwisest and best of the philosophers, that he, by saying, The Gentiles,\nthat have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,\nmakes the law of nature and grace to be the same: and supposes the\nreason why they were to be punished, was their sinning against light and\nknowledge. That which may be known of God was manifest in them, and when\nthey knew God, they glorified him not as God. And they were likewise\nguilty of abominable corruptions, not ignorantly, but knowing the\njudgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death.\n\n\"Had the Dr. but considered this self-evident proposition, that there\ncan be no transgression where there is no law; and that an unknown law\nis the same as no law; and consequently, that all mankind, at all times,\nmust be capable of knowing all (whether more or less) that God requires,\nit would have prevented his endeavoring to prove, that, till the gospel\ndispensation, mankind were entirely, and unavoidably ignorant of their\nduty in several important points; and thus charging the light of\nnature with undeniable defects. I think it no compliment to external\nrevelation, though the Dr. designed it as the highest, to say, it\nprevailed, when the light of nature was, as he supposes, in a manner\nextinct; since then an irrational religion might as easily obtain, as\na rational one. The Dr., to prove that revelation has supplied the\ninsufficiency, and undeniable defects of the light of nature, refers us\nto Phil., iv., 1, which he introduces after this pompous manner:--'Let\nany man of an honest and sincere mind consider, whether that practical\ndoctrine has not, even in itself, the greatest marks of a divine\noriginal, wherein whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things\nare honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,\nwhatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if\nthere be any virtue, it there be anything praiseworthy; all these, and\nthese only, are earnestly recommended to man's practice.' I would ask\nthe Dr., how he can know what these are, which are thus alone earnestly\nrecommended to man's practice; or, why they have, in themselves, the\ngreatest marks of a divine original; but from the light of nature? Nay,\nhow can the Dr. know there are defects in the light of nature, but from\nthat light itself? which supposes this light is all we have to trust\nto; and consequently, all the Dr. has been doing, on pretence of\npromoting the honor of revelation, is introducing universal scepticism.\nAnd I am concerned, and grieved, to see a man, who had so great a share\nof the light of nature, employing it to expose that light, of which\nbefore he had given the highest commendation; and which can have no\nother effect, than to weaken even his own demonstration, drawn from that\nlight, for the being of a God. I shall mention but one text more,\nwhich, had not the Dr. thought it highly to his purpose, for showing the\ninsufficiency of the light of nature, he would not have ushered it in\nafter this most solemn manner:--'When men have put themselves into this\ntemper and frame of mind, let them try if they can any longer reject the\nevidence of the gospel. If any man will do his will, he shall know\nof the doctrine; whether it be of God.' Is it not strange, to see so\njudicious a divine write after such a manner, as if he thought the\nbest way to support the dignity of revelation, was to derogate from the\nimmutable and eternal law of nature? and while he is depressing it,\nextol revelation for those very things it borrows from that law? in\nwhich, though he asserts there are undeniable defects, yet he owns that\nGod governs all his own actions by it, and expects that all men should\nso govern theirs.\n\n\"But, I find the Dr.'s own brother, the Dean of Sa-rum, is entirely of\nmy mind, as to those texts the Dr. quotes--viz., Rom. ii., 14, and\nPhil, iv., 8. As to the first--viz., Rom. ii., 14, he says, 'The apostle\nsupposes, that the moral law is founded in the nature and reason of\nthings: that every man is endued with such powers and faculties of mind,\nas render him capable of seeing, and taking notice of this law; and also\nwith such a sense and judgment of the reasonableness and fitness of\nconforming his actions to it, that he cannot but in his own mind acquit\nhimself when he does so; and condemn himself when he does otherwise.'\nAnd as to the second--viz., Phil, iv., 8, where the same apostle\nrecommends the practice of Virtue, upon the fore-mentioned principles\nof comeliness and reputation.--'These principles,' says he, 'if duly\nattended to, were sufficient to instruct men in the whole of their duty\ntowards themselves, and towards each other. And they would also have\ntaught them their duty towards God, their Creator and Governor, if they\nhad diligently pursued them. For according as the apostle expresses it,\nRom. i., 20, the invisible things of God from the creation of the world\nare clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his\neternal power and Godhead. The same fitness and decency that appears\nin men's regular behavior towards each other, appears also in their\nbehavior towards God. And this, likewise, is founded in the nature and\nreason of things; and is what the circumstances and condition they are\nin do absolutely require. Thus we see therein moral virtue, or good\nconsists, and what the obligation to it is from its own native beauty\nand excellency.'\"\n\nOne more example of Tindal's style will show how skilfully and cogently\nhe forced, the great authorities of his day to bear Witness to the truth\nof his leading proposition, the natural antiquity of all the reasonable\nprecepts of the Bible:--\n\n\"The most accurate Dr. Barrow gives this character of the Christian\nreligion, 'That its precepts are no other than such as physicians\nprescribe for the health of our bodies; as politicians would allow to be\nneedful for the peace of the state; as Epicurean philosophers recommend\nfor the tranquillity of our minds, and pleasures of our lives; such\nas reason dictates, and daily shows conducive to our welfare in all\nrespects; which consequently, were there no law enacting them, we should\nin wisdom choose to observe, and voluntarily impose them on ourselves;\nconfessing them to be fit matters of law, and most advantageous and\nrequisite to the good, general and particular, of mankind.'\n\n\"That great and good man Dr. Tillotson says, 'That all the precepts\nof Christianity are reasonable and wise, requiring such duties as are\nsuitable to the light of nature, and do approve themselves to the best\nreason of mankind; such as have their foundation in the nature of God,\nand are an imitation of the divine excellencies; such as tend to the\nperfection of human nature, and to raise the minds of men to the highest\npitch of goodness and virtue. They command nothing that is unnecessary,\nthey omit nothing that may tend to the glory of God, or the welfare of\nmen, nor do they restrain us in anything, but what is contrary to the\nregular inclinations of nature, or to our reason, and true interest;\nthey forbid us nothing but what is base and unworthy to serve our humors\nand passions, to make ourselves fools and beasts. In a word, nothing but\nwhat tends to our private harm, or prejudice, or to public disorder and\nconfusion.'\n\n\"The late Dean of Canterbury, in a sermon preached in defence of\nChristianity, says, * 'What can be a more powerful incentive to\nobedience, than for a rational creature clearly to discern the equity,\nthe necessity, the benefit, the decency and beauty of every action\nhe is called to do, and thence to be duly sensible how gracious a\nmaster he serves; one that is so far from loading him with fruitless,\narbitrary, and tyrannical impositions, that each command abstracted\nfrom his command who issues it, is able to recommend itself; and nothing\nrequired but what every wise man would choose of his accord: and cannot,\nwithout being his own enemy, wish to be exempted from?' And this\ncharacter of Christianity he makes to be essential to its being from\nGod, and therefore must make it the same with natural religion, which\nhas this character impressed on it.\n\n\"'There was none of the doctrines of our Saviour (says the late\nArchbishop of York) ** calculated for the gratification of men's\nidle curiosities, the busying and amusing them with airy and useless\nspeculations; much less were they intended for an exercise of our\ncredulity, or a trial how far we could bring our reason to submit to our\nfaith; but as on the one hand they were plain and simple, and such as\nby their agreeable-ness to the rational faculties of mankind, did highly\nrecommend themselves to our belief; so on the other hand they had an\nimmediate relation to practice, and were the general principles and\nfoundation, on which all human and divine virtues were naturally to be\nsuperstructed.'\n\n     * Boyle's Lect., p. 26,\n\n     ** Sermon before the Queen on Christmas Day, 1724.\n\n\"Does not every one see, that if the religion of nature had been put\ninstead of Christianity, these descriptions would have exactly agreed\nwith it? The judicious Dr. Scot affirms, 'God never imposes laws on us\n_pro imperio_, as arbitrary tests and trials of our obedience. The great\ndesign of them (says he,) is to do us good, and direct our actions to\nour own interest. This, if we firmly believe, will infinitely encourage\nour obedience; for when I am sure God commands me nothing but what my\nown health, ease, and happiness requires; and that every law of his is\nboth a necessary and sovereign prescription against the diseases of\nmy nature, and he could not prescribe less than he has, without being\ndefective in his care of my recovery and happiness; with what prudence\nand modesty can I grudge to obey him?'\n\n\"Nay, the most considerate men, even among the Papists, do not scruple\nto maintain there's nothing in religion but what is moral. The divines\nof Port Royal for instance, say, 'All the precepts, and all the\nmysteries that are expressed in so many different ways in the holy\nvolumes, do all centre in this one commandment of loving God with all\nour heart, and in loving our neighbors as ourselves: for the Scripture\n(it is St. Austin who says it) forbids but one only thing, which is\nconcupiscence, or the love of the creature; as it commands but one only\nthing, which is charity, and the love of God. Upon this double precept\nis founded the whole system of the Christian religion; and it is unto\nthis, say they, according to the expression of Jesus Christ, that all\nthe ancient law and the prophets have reference; and we may add also,\nall the mysteries, and all the precepts of the new law; for love, says\nSt. Paul, is the fulfilling of the law.' And these divines likewise cite\na remarkable passage of St. Austin on this subject, viz., 'He that knows\nhow to love God, and to regulate his life by that love, knows all that\nthe Scripture propounds to be known.' And might add the authority of\na greater man, and a Papist too, * who says, 'Religion adds nothing\nto natural probity, but the consolation of doing that for love and\nobedience to our Heavenly Father, which reason itself requires us do in\nfavor of virtue.'\"\n\n     * Archbishop of Cambray: Lettres sur la Religion,\n     p. 258, a Paris.\n\nTindal was a solid, rather than a brilliant writer: but he perfectly\nknew what he was about; and the work from which we quote, was well\nconceived and carefully executed. His ground was skilfully chosen, his\narguments were placed on an eminence where his friends could see them,\nand where his enemies could not assail them. Dr. Leland, in his view of\nDeistical writers, is quite in a rage with him, because he discredits\nBook Revelation, to set up Nature's Revelation. His real offence\nwas, that he did prove that Nature was the only source of truth and\nreason--the criterion by which even Divine Revelation must be judged.\nHe carried men back to the gospel of nature, by the side of which the\ngospel of the Jewish fishermen did not show to advantage. Tindal did\nput something in the place of that which he was supposed desirous\nof removing. How unwilling Christians of that day were to admit of\nimprovement in religion, is shown by the number of attacks Tindal's work\nsustained. The Bishop of London published a \"Second Pastoral Letter\"\nagainst it; Dr. Thomas Burnet \"confuted\" it; Mr. Law \"fully\" answered\nit; Dr. Stebbing \"obviated the principal objections\" in it. \"The same\nlearned and judicious writer,\" observes Leland, a second time entered\nthe lists, in \"answer to the fourteenth chapter of a book, entitled\n'Christianity as Old as the Creation.'\" Mr. Balgny issued a \"Second\nLetter to a Deist,\" occasioned by Tindal's work. Mr. Anthony O'Key gave\na short view of the whole controversy. Dr. Foreter, Dr. John Conybeare,\n\"particularly engaged public attention\" as Dr. Tindal's antagonists.\nMr. Simon Brown produced a \"solid and excellent\" answer; and Dr. Leland,\nwith many blushes, tells us that he himself issued in Dublin, in 1773,\ntwo volumes, taking a wider compass than the other answers.\n\n\"Christianity as Old as the Creation\" is a work which Freethinkers may\nyet consult with advantage, as a repertory of authorities no longer\naccessible to the readers of this generation. What these authorities\nallege will be found to have intrinsic value, to be indeed lasting\ntestimonies in favor of Rationalism. In passing in review the noble\ntruths, Tindal insists that it is impossible not to wonder at the\npolicy, or rather want of policy displayed by Christians. Tindal is an\nauthor whom they might be proud of, if they were really in love with\nreason. Tindal's opponents have shown how instinctively the children of\nfaith distrust the truths of Nature. After all the \"refutations,\" and\n\"confutations\" and answers made to the great Deist, Tin-dal's work\nhas maintained its ground, and the truths he so ably and spiritedly\nvindicated, have spread wider since and taken deeper root.\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n\n\nDAVID HUME\n\nLord Brougham has rendered service not only to \"Letters,\" but also to\nFreethought, by his admirable \"Lives,\" incomparably the best we have,\nof Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Gibbon, etc. From Lord Brougham we learn\n(whose life in this sketch we follow) that David Hume, related to the\nEarl of Hume's family, was born in Edinburgh, in April, 1711. Refusing\nto be made a lawyer, he was sent, in 1734, to a mercantile house in\nBristol. The \"desk\" not suiting the embryo historian's genius, we find\nhim in 1737 at La Fl\u00e8che, in Anjou, writing his still-born \"Treatise on\nHuman Nature;\" which in 1742, in separate Essays, attracted some notice.\nKeeper and companion to the Marquis of Annandale in 1745, private\nsecretary to General St. Clair in 1747, he visited on embassy the courts\nof Vienna and Turin. While at Turin he completed his \"Inquiry Concerning\nthe Human Understanding,\" the \"Treatise on Human Nature\" in a new form.\nReturned to Scotland, he published his \"Political Discourses\" in 1752,\nand the same year his \"Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.\"\nThe \"Essays, Moral and Metaphysical,\" are the form in which we now read\nthese speculations. In 1752, Hume became librarian to the Faculty of\nAdvocates. In 1754 he published the first volume of his \"History of\nEngland.\" In 1755, appeared his \"Natural History of Religion.\" In\n1763 he accompanied the British ambassador to Paris. In 1765 he became\n_charge d'affaires_.\n\nIn 1766 he was appointed Under Secretary of State under Marshal Conway.\nIn 1775 he was seized with a mortal disease, which he bore without any\nabatement of his cheerfulness; and on the 25th of August, \"_le bon_\nDavid,\" as he was styled in Paris, died, to use his own words,\nhaving \"no enemies--except all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the\nChristians\"--which was something to his honor, and a testimony of the\nusefulness of his life.\n\nDavid Hume was the first writer who gave historical distinction to Great\nBritain. Lord John Russell remarked in a speech at Bristol, in October,\n1854:--\"We have no other 'History of England' than Hume's....\nWhen a young man of eighteen asks for a 'History of England,' there is\nno resource but to give him Hume.\" Hume was the author of the modern\ndoctrines of politics and political economy, which now rule the world of\nscience. He was \"the sagacious unfolder of truth, the accurate and bold\ndiscoverer of popular error.\" More than a sceptic, he was an Atheist.\nSuch is Lord Brougham's judgment of him.\n\nHume carried Freethought into high places. In originality of thought,\ngrace of style, and logical ability, he distanced all rival writers on\nreligion in his time, and what is of no small importance, his life was\nas blameless as his intellect was unapproachable.\n\nOur first extract from his writings is a felicitous statement of\nthe _pro_ and _con_., on the questions of polygamous and single,\nmarriages:--\n\n\"A man, in conjoining himself to a woman, is bound to her according to\nthe terms of his engagement. In begetting children, he is bound, by all\nthe ties of nature and humanity, to provide for their subsistence and\neducation. When he has performed these two parts of duty, no one\ncan reproach him with injustice or injury. And as the terms of his\nengagement, as well as the methods of subsisting his offspring, may\nbe various, it is mere superstition to imagine that marriage can be\nentirely uniform, and will admit only of one mode or form. Did not human\nlaws restrain the natural liberty of men, every particular marriage\nwould be as different as contracts or bargains of any other kind\nor species. As circumstances vary, and the laws propose different\nadvantages, we find, that in different times and places, they impose\ndifferent conditions on this important contract. In Tonquin, it is usual\nfor the sailors, when the ship comes into the harbor, to marry for\nthe season; and, notwithstanding this precarious engagement, they are\nassured, it is said, of the strictest fidelity to their bed, as well as\nin the whole management of their affairs, from those temporary spouses.\nI cannot, at present, recollect my authorities; but I have somewhere\nread, that the Republic of Athens, having lost many of its citizens by\nwar and pestilence, allowed every man to marry two wives, in order the\nsooner to repair the waste which had been made by these calamities.\nThe poet Euripides happened to be coupled to two noisy vixens, who so\nplagued him with their jealousies and quarrels, that he became ever\nafter a professed _woman hater_; and is the only theatrical writer,\nperhaps the only poet, that ever entertained an aversion to the sex....\nThe advocates for polygamy may recommend it as the only effectual remedy\nfor the disorders of love, and the only expedient for freeing men from\nthat slavery to the females which the natural violence of our passions\nhas imposed upon us. By this means alone can we regain our right of\nsovereignty and, sating our appetite, re-establish the authority of\nreason in our minds, and, of consequence, our own authority in our\nfamilies. Man, like a weak sovereign, being unable to support himself\nagainst the wiles and intrigues of his subjects, must play one faction\nagainst another, and become absolute by the mutual jealousy of\nthe females. To divide and to govern is an universal maxim; and\nby neglecting it, the Europeans undergo a more grievous and a more\nignominious slavery than the Turks or Persians, who are subjected indeed\nto a sovereign that lies at a distance from them, but in their domestic\naffairs rules with an uncontrollable sway. On the other hand, it may be\nurged with better reason, that this sovereignty of the male is a real\nusurpation, and destroys that nearness of rank, not to say equality,\nwhich nature has established between the sexes. We are, by nature, their\nlovers, their friends, their patrons. Would we willingly exchange such\nendearing appellations for the barbarous title of master and tyrant? In\nwhat capacity shall we gain by this inhuman proceeding? As lovers, or\nas husbands? The _lover_ is totally annihilated; and courtship, the most\nagreeable scene in life, can no longer have place where women have\nnot the free disposal of themselves, but are bought and sold like the\nmeanest animal. The _husband_ is as little a gainer, having found\nthe admirable secret of extinguishing every part of love, except its\njealousy. No rose without its thorn; but he must be a foolish wretch\nindeed, that throws away the rose and preserves only the thorn. But the\nAsiatic manners are as destructive to friendship as to love. Jealousy\nexcludes men from all intimacies and familiarities with each other. No\none dares bring his friend to his house or table, lest he bring a lover\nto his numerous wives. Hence, all over the East, each family is as much\nseparate from another as if they were so many distinct kingdoms. No\nwonder then that Solomon, living like an Eastern prince, with his seven\nhundred wives, and three hundred concubines, without one friend, could\nwrite so pathetically concerning the vanity of the world. Had he tried\nthe secret of one wife or mistress, a few friends, and a great many\ncompanions, he might have found lite somewhat more agreeable. Destroy\nlove and friendship, what remains in the world worth accepting?\"\n\nNext we quote his famous statement of the principle of _utility_ in\nmorals:--\n\n\"There has been a controversy started of late much better worth\nexamination, concerning the general foundation of morals; whether\nthey be derived from reason or from sentiment; whether we attain\nthe knowledge of them by a chain of argument and induction, or by an\nimmediate feeling and finer internal sense; whether, like all sound\njudgment of truth and falsehood, they should be the name to every\nrational intelligent being; or whether like the perception of beauty\nand deformity, they be founded entirely on the particular fabric and\nconstitution of the human species. The ancient philosophers, though they\noften affirm that virtue is nothing but conformity to reason, yet, in\ngeneral, seem to consider morals as deriving their existence from taste\nand sentiment. On the other hand, our modern inquirers, though they\nalso talk much of the beauty of virtue, and, deformity of vice, yet have\ncommonly endeavored to account for these distinctions by metaphysical\nreasonings, and by deductions from the most abstract principles of\nthe understanding. Such confusion reigned in these subjects, that an\nopposition of the greatest consequence could prevail between one system\nand another, and even in the parts of almost each individual system: and\nyet nobody, till very lately, was ever sensible of it. The elegant Lord\nShaftesbury, who first gave occasion to remark this distinction, and\nwho, in general, adhered to the principles of the ancients, is not,\nhimself, entirely free from the same confusion.... In all determinations\nof morality, the circumstance of public utility, is ever principally in\nview; and wherever disputes arise, either in philosophy or common life,\nconcerning the bounds of duty, the question cannot, by any means, be\ndecided with greater certainty, than by ascertaining, on any side,\nthe true interests of mankind. If any false opinion, embraced from\nappearances, has been found to prevail; as soon as farther experience\nand sounder reasoning have given us juster notions of human affairs,\nwe retract our first sentiment, and adjust anew the boundaries of moral\ngood and evil. Giving alms to common beggars is naturally praised;\nbecause it seems to carry relief to the distressed and indigent;\nbut when we observe the encouragement thence arising to idleness and\ndebauchery, we regard that species of charity rather as a weakness than\na virtue. Tyrannicide, or the assassination of usurpers and oppressive\nprinces, was highly extolled in ancient times; because it both freed\nmankind from many of these monsters, and seemed to keep the others\nin awe whom the sword or poniard could not reach. But history and\nexperience having since convinced us, that this practice increases the\njealousy and cruelty of princes, a Timoleon and a Brutus, though treated\nwith indulgence on account of the prejudices of their times, are now\nconsidered as very improper models for imitation. Liberality in princes\nis regarded as a mark of beneficence. But when it occurs, that the\nhomely bread of the honest and industrious is often thereby converted\ninto delicious cakes for the idle and the prodigal, we soon retract our\nheedless praises. The regrets of a prince, for having lost a day, were\nnoble and generous; but had he intended to have spent it in acts of\ngenerosity to his greedy courtiers, it was better lost than misemployed\nafter that manner.... That justice is useful to society, and\nconsequently that _part_ of its merit, at least, must arise from that\nconsideration, it would be a superfluous undertaking to prove. That\npublic utility is the _sole_ origin of justice, that reflections on the\nbeneficial consequences of this virtue are the _sole_ foundation of its\nmerit; this proposition being more curious and important, will better\ndeserve our examination and inquiry. Let us suppose that nature has\nbestowed on the human race such profuse abundance of all external\nconveniences, that, without any uncertainty in the event, without any\ncare or industry on our part, every individual finds himself fully\nprovided with whatever his most voracious appetite can want, or\nluxurious imagination wish or desire. His natural beauty, we shall\nsuppose, surpasses all acquired ornaments; the perpetual clemency of the\nseasons renders useless all clothes or covering: the raw herbage affords\nhim the most delicious fare; the clear fountain, the richest beverage.\nNo laborious occupation required: no tillage: no navigation. Music,\npoetry, and contemplation, form his sole business: conversation, mirth,\nand friendship his sole amusement. It seems evident, that, in such\na happy state, every other social virtue would flourish, and receive\ntenfold increase; but the cautious, jealous virtue of justice, would\nnever once have been dreamed of. For what purpose make a partition of\ngoods, where every one has already more than enough? Why give rise\nto property, where there cannot possibly be any injury? Why call this\nobject _mine_, when, upon seizing of it by another, I need but stretch\nout my hand to possess myself of what is equally valuable? Justice, in\nthat case, being totally useless, would be an idle ceremonial, and could\nnever possibly have place in the catalogue of virtues. We see, even in\nthe present necessitous condition of mankind, that, wherever any benefit\nis bestowed by nature in an unlimited abundance, we leave it always in\ncommon among the whole human race, and make no subdivisions of right and\nproperty. Water and air, though the most necessary of all objects, are\nnot challenged as the property of individuals; nor can any man commit\ninjustice by the most lavish use and enjoyment of these blessings. In\nfertile extensive countries, with few inhabitants, land is regarded\non the same footing. And no topic is so much insisted on by those\nwho defend the liberty of the seas, as the unexhausted use of them in\nnavigation. Were the advantages procured by navigation as inexhaustible,\nthese reasoners had never had any adversaries to refute; nor had any\nclaims ever been advanced of a separate, exclusive dominion over\nthe ocean.... Suppose a society to fall into such want of all common\nnecessaries, that the utmost frugality and industry cannot preserve the\ngreater number from perishing, and the whole from extreme misery. It\nwill readily, I believe, be admitted that the strict laws of justice are\nsuspended in such a pressing emergence, and give place to the stronger\nmotives of necessity and self-preservation. Is it any crime, after a\nshipwreck, to seize whatever means or instrument of safety one can lay\nhold of, without regard to former limitations of properly? Or if a city\nbesieged were perishing with hunger; can we imagine that men will see\nany means of preservation before them, and lose their lives from a\nscrupulous regard to what, in other situations, would be the rules of\nequity and justice? The use and tendency of that virtue is to procure\nhappiness and security, by preserving order in society. But where the\nsociety is ready to perish from extreme necessity, no greater evil can\nbe dreaded from violence and injustice; and every man may now provide\nfor himself by all the means which prudence can dictate, or humanity\npermit. The public, even in less urgent necessities, opens granaries\nwithout the consent of proprietors; as justly supposing, that the\nauthority of magistracy may, consistent with equity, extend so far. But\nwere any number of men to assemble, without the tie of laws or civil\njurisdiction; would an equal partition of bread in a famine, though\neffected by power and even violence, be regarded as criminal or\ninjurious? Suppose, likewise, that it should be a virtuous man's fate\nto fall into the society of ruffians, remote from the protection of\nlaws and government; what conduct must he embrace in that melancholy\nsituation? He sees such a desperate rapaciousness prevail; such a\ndisregard to equity, such contempt of order, such stupid blindness\nto future consequences, as must immediately have the most tragical\nconclusion, and must terminate in destruction to the greater number, and\nin a total dissolution of society to the rest. He, meanwhile, can have\nno other expedient than to arm himself, to whomever the sword he seizes,\nor the buckler may belong: to make provision of all means of defence and\nsecurity: and his particular regard to justice being no longer of use\nto his own safety or that of others, he must consult the dictates of\nself-preservation alone, without concern for those who no longer merit\nhis care and attention.... But perhaps the difficulty of accounting for\nthese effects of usefulness, or its contrary, has kept philosophers from\nadmitting them into their systems of ethics, and has induced them to\nemploy any other principle, in explaining the origin of moral good and\nevil. But it is no just reason for rejecting any principle, confirmed\nby experience, that we cannot give a satisfactory account of its origin,\nnor are able to resolve it into other more general principles. And if we\nwould employ a little thought on the present subject, we need be at\nno loss to account for the influence of utility, and deduce it from\nprinciples the most known and avowed in human nature....\nUsefulness is agreeable, and engages our approbation. This is a matter\nof fact, confirmed by daily observation. But useful! For what? For\nsomebody's interest, surely! Whose interest then? Not our own only; for\nour approbation frequently extends farther. It must therefore be the\ninterest of those who are served by the character or action approved of;\nand these, we may conclude, however remote, are not totally indifferent\nto us. By opening up this principle, we shall discover one great source\nof moral distinctions.\"\n\nThe origin and mischiefs of Theistic influences is the subject of the\nfollowing passage:--\n\n\"It must necessarily, indeed, be allowed, that in order to carry men's\nattention beyond the present course of things, or lead them into any\ninference concerning invisible intelligent power, they must be actuated\nby some passion which prompts their thought and reflection, some motive\nwhich urges their first inquiry. But what passion shall we here have\nrecourse to, for explaining an effect of such mighty consequence? Not\nspeculative curiosity, surely, or the pure love of truth. That motive\nis too refined for such gross apprehensions; and would lead men into\ninquiries concerning the frame of nature, a subject too large and\ncomprehensive for their narrow capacities. No passions, therefore, can\nbe supposed to work upon such barbarians, but the ordinary affections\nof human life; the anxious concern for happiness, the dread of future\nmisery, the terror of death, the thirst of revenge, the appetite for\nfood and other necessaries. Agitated by hopes and fears of this nature,\nespecially the latter, men scrutinize, with a trembling curiosity, the\ncourse of future causes, and examine the various and contrary events\nof human life. And in this disordered scene, with eyes still more\ndisordered and astonished, they see the first obscure traces of\ndivinity.... We hang in perpetual suspense between life and death,\nhealth and sickness, plenty and want, which are distributed amongst\nthe human species by secret and unknown causes, whose operation is oft\nunexpected, and always unaccountable. These _unknown causes_, then,\nbecome the constant object of hope and fear; and while the passions are\nkept in perpetual alarm by an anxious expectation of the events, the\nimagination is equally employed in forming ideas of those powers on\nwhich we have so entire a dependence. Could men anatomize nature,\naccording to the most probable, at least the most intelligible\nphilosophy, they would find that these causes are nothing but the\nparticular fabric and structure of the minute parts of their own bodies\nand of external objects; and that by a regular and constant machinery,\nall the events are produced, about which they are so much concerned....\nThere is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like\nthemselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities with\nwhich they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately\nconscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and,\nby a natural propensity, it not corrected by experience and reflection,\nascribe malice or good will to everything that hurts or pleases us.\nHence the frequency and beauty of the _prosopopoia_ in poetry; where\ntrees, mountains, and streams are personified, and the inanimate parts\nof nature acquire sentiment and passion. And though these poetical\nfigures and expressions gain not on the belief; they may serve, at\nleast, to prove a certain tendency in the imagination, without which\nthey could neither be beautiful nor natural. Nor is a river-god or\nhamadryad always taken for a mere poetical or imaginary personage, but\nmay sometimes enter into the real creed of the ignorant vulgar; while\neach grove or field is represented as possessed of a particular genius\nor invisible power which inhabits and protects, it. Nay, philosophers\ncannot entirely exempt themselves from this natural frailty; but have\noft ascribed to inanimate matter the horror of a _vacuum_, sympathies,\nantipathies, and other affections of human nature. The absurdity is\nnot less, while we cast our eyes upwards; and, transferring, as is too\nusual, human passions and infirmities to the Deity, represent him as\njealous and revengeful, capricious and partial, and, in short, a\nwicked and foolish man in every respect but his superior power and\nauthority.--No wonder, then, that mankind, being placed in such an\nabsolute ignorance of causes, and being at the same time so anxious\nconcerning their future fortune, should immediately acknowledge a\ndependence on invisible powers, possessed of sentiment and intelligence.\nThe _unknown causes_ which continually employ their thought, appearing\nalways in the same aspect, are all apprehended to be of the same kind or\nspecies. Nor is it long before we ascribe to them thought, and reason,\nand passion, and sometimes even the limbs and figures of men, in\norder to bring them nearer to a resemblance with ourselves.... It is\nremarkable, that the principles of religion have a kind of flux and\nreflux in the human mind, and that men have a natural tendency to rise\nfrom idolatry to Theism, and to sink again from Theism into idolatry.\nThe vulgar--that is, indeed, all mankind, a few excepted--being ignorant\nand uninstructed, never elevate their contemplation to the heavens, or\npenetrate by their disquisitions into the secret structure of vegetable\nor animal bodies; so far as, to discover a Supreme Mind or Original\nProvidence, which bestowed order on every part of nature. They consider\nthese admirable works in a more confined and selfish view; and finding\ntheir own happiness and misery to depend on the secret influence, and\nunforeseen concurrence of external objects, they regard, with perpetual\nattention, the _unknown causes_ which govern all these natural events,\nand distribute pleasure and pain, good and ill, by their powerful but\nsilent operation. The unknown causes are still appealed to on every\nemergency; and in this general appearance or confused image, are the\nperpetual objects of human hopes and fears, wishes and apprehensions.\nBy degrees, the active imagination of men, uneasy in this abstract\nconception of objects, about which it is incessantly employed, begins to\nrender them more particular, and to clothe them in shapes more suitable\nto its natural comprehension. It represents them to be sensible,\nintelligent beings like mankind; actuated by love and hatred, and\nflexible by gifts and entreaties, by prayers and sacrifices. Hence the\norigin of religion: and hence the origin of idolatry or polytheism.\"\n\nMore has been written by theologians in endeavors to refute the\nfollowing passage, than has ever been called forth by the wit of man\nbefore by the same number of words:--\n\n\"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and\nunalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a\nmiracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument\nfrom experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable\nthat all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in\nthe air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless\nit be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature,\nand there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words,\na miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever\nhappen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man,\nseemingly in good health, should die on a sudden; because such a kind\nof death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently\nobserved to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to\nlife; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There\nmust, therefore, be an uniform experience against every miraculous\nevent, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as an\nuniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and\nfull proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any\nmiracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered\ncredible, but by an opposite proof which is superior. The plain\nconsequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention,)\n'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the\ntestimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous\nthan the fact which it endeavors to establish. And even in that case\nthere is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives\nus an assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after\ndeducting the inferior.' When any one tells me that he saw a dead man\nrestored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more\nprobable that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that\nthe fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one\nmiracle against the other; and according to the superiority which\nI discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater\nmiracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than\nthe event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend\nto command my belief or opinion.... There is not to be found, in all\nhistory, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such\nunquestioned good sense, education, and learning, as to secure us\nagainst all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to\nplace them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such\ncredit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to\nlose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same\ntime attesting facts, performed in such a public manner, and in so\ncelebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable;\nall which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance of the\ntestimony of men.... One of the best attested miracles in all profane\nhistory, is that which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind\nman in Alexandria by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere\ntouch of his foot; in obedience to a vision of the god Seraphis, who had\nenjoined them to have recourse to the emperor for these miraculous\ncures. The story may be seen in that fine historian; where every\ncircumstance seems to add weight to the testimony, and might be\ndisplayed at large with all the force of argument and eloquence, if\nany one were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that exploded and\nidolatrous superstition. The gravity, solidity, age, and probity of so\ngreat an emperor, who through the whole course of his life, conversed\nin a familiar manner, with his friends and courtiers, and never affected\nthose extraordinary airs of divinity assumed by Alexander and Demetrius.\nThe historian, a contemporary writer, noted for candor and veracity,\nand, withal, the greatest and most, penetrating genius, perhaps of all\nantiquity; and so free from any tendency to credulity, that he even lies\nunder the contrary imputation of Atheism and profaneness. The persons,\nfrom whose authority he related the miracle of established character\nfor judgment and veracity, as we may-well presume; eye-witnesses of\nthe fact, and confirming their testimony, after the Flavian family was\ndespoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any reward as the\nprice of a lie. _Utrumque, qui interfuere, nunc quoque memorant,\npostquam nullum mendacio pretium_. To which, if we add the public nature\nof the facts, as related, it will appear that no evidence can well be\nsupposed stronger for so gross and so palpable a falsehood.\"\n\nThese extracts will give some idea of the grace, and power, and\npenetration of Hume. The society he kept, the abilities with which he\nwas justly credited, the reputation his works deservedly won for him,\nmade him a man of mark and influence in his day. Read by the learned,\ncourted by statesmen, he taught gentlemen liberality, and governments\ntoleration. The influence of Hume, silent and inappreciable to the\nmultitude, has been of the utmost importance to the nation. His works\nhave been studied by philosophers, politicians, and prelates. The\nwritings of no Freethinker, except Voltaire, have maintained their\nground with continually increasing reputation. Oddly enough, none\nof Hume's works were popular when they first appeared. In fact, his\n\"Treatise on Human Nature\" he had to reprint in the form of Essays, five\nyears after its first publication. It then, for the first time, began to\nbe bought; but not to any great extent. Five years later, he again\nmade it re-appear, under the form of an \"Inquiry Concerning the Human\nUnderstanding.\" It was not until this third publication that he \"began\nto perceive symptoms of its coming into notice.\" The world has since\nmade up for its negligence, by perpetual comment and solid appreciation.\nA king among thinkers, the clergy have in the provinces of politics and\nphilosophical speculation to acknowledge allegiance to him, however they\nmay rebel against his theological heresies.\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n\n\nDR. THOMAS BURNET\n\nIt was only a very narrow accident which prevented Dr. Burnet, an\nultra Freethinker in the Church of England, from becoming Archbishop of\nCanterbury at the death of Tillotson. A combination of clergymen were\nprepared to immolate themselves providing Burnet could be overthrown.\nThey succeeded. Thomas Burnet kept the Charter House, in London, and\nhis conscience--happier, perhaps, in this than if he had enjoyed the\necclesiastical preferment which King William seemed so anxious to give\nhim. Amongst the clergy, Dr. Burnet was, with the single exception of\nDean Swift, the greatest Freethinker of whom we can boast, who held an\ninfluential position in the Church. This position is sometimes claimed\nfor Bishop Berkeley, a man of vast talents, a sincere Christian,\nalthough an innovator in philosophy.\n\nThomas Burnet was born in the year 1635. At the age of forty-five,\nhe published the work, in Latin, with which his name is generally\nassociated, \"The Sacred Theory of the Earth: containing an account of\nthe Original of the Earth, and of all the general changes which it\nhas already undergone, or is to undergo, till the consummation of all\nThings.\" This book gives us an idea, formed by its author, of the origin\nof the world, and is remarkable as one of the first grand prophecies of\ngeology; although of little value to us, it produced an impression upon\nthe age by depicting the various strata of the mountainous regions, and\ncomparing them in different countries, eliminating ideas of the nature\nof the vast changes we see in the universe, tracing the rise of most of\nthe phenomena from the two elements, fire and water. Burnet thought that\nat one time the whole of matter was in a fluid state, revolving round\na central sun, until the heavier particles sunk into the middle, and\nformed the stony strata which supports the earth, over which the lighter\nliquids coalesced until the heat of the sun effectually separated water\nfrom land. This is the foundation of a scheme which is elaborated in\na poetic style, abounding in eloquent descriptions; in fact it is a\nphilosophic prose poem of almost unalloyed beauty. In it there is some\nresemblance to the measured sentences of Shaftesbury, although unequal\nto that fine writer in soundness of judgment or practical usefulness. In\n1691 an English translation was published.\n\nBy far the most interesting work to us of Burnet's (also written in\nLatin) is \"Arch\u00e6ologia Philosophical or, an account of the Opinion of\nthe Ancients on various Philosophical Problems.\" This work created great\nopposition by its free remarks on the Mosaic dispensation, although\nthe writer in this, as in the case of his posthumous works, strongly\nprotested against their being translated into the English language, as\nhe was justly afraid of their influence on the minds of the laity, and\nfrom his high official station, with the influence his vast learning and\nhis connection with Tillotson, and the Court gave him, he was, no\ndoubt, apprehensive that the really religious champions of the Church of\nEngland would denounce him when exposed to the temptation of High Church\npreferment. Fragments of those works were translated by the clergy to\nprove to the unlearned what a dangerous character Thomas Burnet was.\nCharles Blount, writing to Gildon, says, \"I have, according to my\npromise, sent you herewith the seventh and eighth chapters, as also the\nappendix, of the great and learned Dr. Burnet's book, published this\nwinter in Latin, and by him dedicated to our most gracious Sovereign,\nKing William..... As for the piece itself, I think it is one of the\nmost ingenious I have ever read, and full of the most acute as well\nas learned observations. Nor can I find anything worthy an objection\nagainst him, as some of the censorious part of the world pretend; who\nwould have you believe it a mere burlesque upon Moses, and destructive\nto the notion of original sin, wherefore by consequence (say they)\nthere could be no necessity of a Redemption, which, however, I think no\nnecessary consequence; but, for my part, either the great veneration\nI have for the doctor's extraordinary endowments, or else my own\nignorance, has so far bribed me to his interests that I can, by no\nmeans, allow of any of those unjust reflections the wholesale merchants\nof credulity, as well as their unthinking retailers, make against him.\nIt is true, in the seventh chapter he seems to prove that many parts of\nthe Mosaic history of the creation appear inconsistent with reason,\nand in the eighth chapter the same appears no less inconsistent with\nphilosophy; wherefore he concludes (as many fathers of the Church have\ndone before him) that the whole rather seems to have been but a pious\nallegory.\" Dr. Burnet took the meaning of much of the Bible to be but\na \"pious allegory,\" and, as such, he strove to popularize it with the\nclergy. We do not believe that he intended to enlighten any but the\nclergy. He foresaw the \"flood of fierce democracy,\" and, like other\nable men with vested rights in the ignorance of the people, he strove to\ntemporize, to put off still further the day of Christianity's downfall.\nWe place him in this biographical niche not because he dashed into the\nfray, like bold Hobbes or chivalrous Woolston, and took part in the\nbattle of priestcraft because he thought it was right, but rather\nbecause he was a Freethinker in disguise, longing for Episcopal honors;\nyet, by one false step (the publishing of \"Arch\u00e6ologia,\" ) lost an\narchbishopric, and gave the authority of a great name to struggling\nopinion. His accession to our ranks was a brilliant accident. He died,\nat the age of eighty years, in 1715. After his demise, two works were\ntranslated (and published,) both expressive of his liberal views. The\nfirst, \"On Christian Faith and Duties,\" throwing overboard the whole of\nthe speculative tenets of the Bible, and giving practical effect to the\nmorals taught in the New Testament, without striving to refute, or even\napparently to disbelieve, their authority, but advising the clergy to\ntreat them as a dead letter. The other posthumous treatise was, \"On the\nState of the Dead and the Reviving,\" which shadows forth a scheme of\nDeism, inasmuch as Burnet here flatly contradicts the usual ideas of\n\"hell torments\" or \"hell fire,\" while asserting the necessity of those\n\"who have not been as good in this life as they ought to be\" undergoing\na probationary purification before they attained supreme happiness, yet,\neventually, every human being would inhabit a heavenly elysium, where\nperennial pleasure would reign, and sorrow be forever unknown.\n\nThose sentiments indicate a high degree of liberal culture, although\nthey do not sufficiently embody our ideal of one of the great\nFreethinkers of the past. We should have preferred Burnet if he had\nsystematically opposed the Church as Toland or Tindal, or if he had\nboldly entered the breach like William Whiston, whose singular talents\nand faithful honesty separated him alike from the Church, Dissent, and\nDeism, and left him shipwrecked on the world an able yet a visionary\nreformer. With more ability than Chubb, he resembled him in his weak\npolicy; he chose to cut his sneers in slices, and served them up for\na scholarly party rather than hazard the indignation of the ignorant\namongst the clergy. We are, however, certain that although Thomas Burnet\nwas deficient in many points where he might have done effective service,\nyet we honor him for the boldness with which he faced the scholars with\nhis Latin works. He threw an apple of discord amongst their ranks which\nhas served, in a constantly increasing manner, to divide and distract\ntheir attention. The result has been a constant internecine war in the\nChurch, by which Freethought has largely profited.\n\nWe conclude our sketch of Dr. Burnet by quoting some extracts from the\nseventh chapter of the \"Arch\u00e6ologia Philosophica,\" as translated\nby Charles Blount in the \"Oracles of Reason,\" concerning Moses's\ndescription of Paradise and the original of things:--\n\n\"We have (says Burnet) hitherto made our inquiries into the originals\nof things, as well as after a true knowledge of Paradise amongst the\nancients; yet still with reference to sacred writ, where it gave us any\nmanner of light on the subject, but think it altogether unnecessary\nto define the place or situation of Paradise, since in respect to the\ntheory of the earth, it is much the same thing where you place it,\nproviding it be not on our modern earth. Now, if you inquire among the\nancient fathers where the situation of it was, either they will have it\nto be none at all, or else obscure and remote from our understanding;\nsome of them, indeed, term it an intelligible Paradise, but confined\nto no one particular place; whilst others, at the same time make it a\nsensible one, and here it is they first divided about it, etc.... Now,\nthe history of Paradise, according to Moses, is this:--When God had, in\nsix days, finished the creation of the world, the seventh day he rested\nfrom all manner of work. And here Moses relates particularly each day's\noperations: but for the story of mankind, as well male as female, of\nwhich he makes a particular treatise by himself. Wherefore, omitting the\nrest at present, let us consider the Mosaic doctrine upon those three\nsubjects, viz., Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden, together with those\nthings which are interwoven within them. As to the first man, Adam,\nMoses says he was formed not out of stones or dragon's teeth, as other\nCosmists have feigned concerning their men, but out of the dust or\nclay of the earth, and when his body was formed, 'God _blew into his\nnostrils_ the breath of life, and man was made a living soul.'\n\n\"But after another manner, and of another matter, was the woman\nbuilt--viz., with one of Adam's small bones, for as Adam lay asleep, God\ntook away one of his _ribs_, and out of that made Eve. So much for\nthe forming of the first man and woman by the literal text. Moses has\nlikewise given us a large account of their first habitation. He says\nthat God made them in a certain famous garden in the East, and gave it\nto them as a farm to cultivate and to inhabit, which garden was a most\ndelightful place, watered with four several fountains or rivers, planted\nwith trees of every kind.... Amongst the trees, in the midst of the\ngarden, stood two more remarkable than the rest; one was called the tree\nof life, the other the tree of death, or of the knowledge of good and\nevil.... God, upon pain of death, prohibits Adam and Eve from tasting\nthe fruit of this tree; but it happened that Eve sitting solitary under\nthis tree, without her husband, there came to her a serpent or adder,\nwhich (though I know not by what means or power) civilly accosted the\nwoman (if we may judge of the thing by the event) in these words, or to\nthis purpose:-- *\n\n     * We extract this portion not for its merits of buffoonery,\n     but to show the real state of mind which could actuate a\n     dignitary of the Church of England in writing it, as the\n     eighth chapter is by far the most philosophical, but we wish\n     to show Burnet's real sentiments.\n\n\"Serpent.--All hail, most fair one, what are you doing so solitary and\nserious under this shade?\n\n\"Eve.--I am contemplating the beauty of this tree.\n\n\"Serp.--'Tis truly an agreeable sight, but much pleasanter are the\nfruits thereof. Have you tasted them, my lady?\n\n\"Eve.--I have not, because God has forbidden us to eat of this tree.\n\n\"Serp.--What do I hear! What is that God that envies his creatures the\ninnocent delights of nature? Nothing is sweeter, nothing more wholesome\nthan this fruit: why, then, should he forbid it, unless in jest?\n\n\"Eve.--But he has forbid it us on pain of death.\n\n\"Serp.--Undoubtedly you mistake his meaning. This tree has nothing that\nwould prove fatal to you, but rather something divine, and above the\ncommon order of nature.\n\n\"Eve.--I can give you no answer; but will go to my husband, and then do\nas he thinks fit.\n\n\"Serp.--Why should you trouble your husband over such a trifle! Use your\nown judgment.\n\n\"Eve.--Let me see--had I best use it or not? What 'can be more\nbeautiful than this apple? How sweetly it smells! But it may be it\ntastes ill.\n\n\"Serp.--Believe me, it is a bit worthy to be eaten by the angels\nthemselves; do but try, and if it tastes ill, throw it away.\n\n\"Eve.--Well, I'll try. It has, indeed, a most agreeable flavor. Give me\nanother that I may carry it to my husband.\n\n\"Serp.--Very well thought on; here's another for you: go to your husband\nwith it. Farewell, happy young woman. In the meantime I'll go my ways;\nlet her take care of the rest.\n\n\"Accordingly, Eve gave the apple to the too uxorious Adam, when\nimmediately after their eating of it, they became both (I don't know\nhow) ashamed of their nakedness, and sewing fig leaves together, making\nthemselves a sort of aprons, etc. After these transactions, God, in the\nevening, descended into the garden, upon which our first parents fled\nto hide themselves in the thickest of the trees, but in vain, for God\ncalled out, 'Adam, where art thou?' When he, trembling, appeared before\nGod Almighty, and said, Lord, when I heard thee in this garden, I was\nashamed because of my nakedness, and hid myself amongst the most shady\nparts of the thicket. Who told thee, says God, that thou wast naked?\nHave you eaten of the forbidden fruit? That woman thou gavest me brought\nit; 'twas she that made me eat of it. You have, says God, finely ordered\nyour business, you and your wife. Here, you woman, what is this that you\nhave done? Alas! for me, says Adam, thy serpent gave me the apple, and I\ndid eat of it.\n\n\"This apple shall cost you dear, replied God, and not only you, but your\nposterity, and the whole race of mankind. Moreover, for this crime, I\nwill curse and spoil the heavens, the earth, and the whole fabric\nof nature. But thou, in the first place, vile beast, shall bear the\npunishment of thy craftiness and malice. Hereafter shall thou go\ncreeping on thy belly, and instead of eating apples, shall lick the dust\nof the earth. As for you, Mrs. Curious, who so much love delicacies, in\nsorrow-shall you bring forth your children. You shall be subject to\nyour husband, and shall never depart from his side unless having first\nobtained leave. Lastly, as for you, Adam, because you have hearkened\nmore to your wife than to me, with the sweat of your brow shall you\nobtain both food for her and her children. You shall not gather fruits\nwhich, as heretofore, grew of themselves, but shall reap the fruits\nof the earth with labor and trouble. May the earth be, for thy sake,\naccursed--hereafter grow barren. May she produce thistles, thorns,\ntares, with other hurtful and unprofitable herbs, and when thou hast\nhere led a troublesome, laborious life, dust thou art, to dust shalt\nthou return......\n\n\"Great is the force of custom and a preconceived opinion over human\nminds. Wherefore, these short observations of the first originals of men\nor things, which we receive from Moses, are embraced without the least\nexamination of them. But had we read the same doctrine in a Greek\nphilosopher, or in a Rabbinical or Mahometan doctor, we should have\nstopped at every sentence with our mind full of objections and scruples.\nNow, this difference does not arise from the nature of the thing itself,\nbut from the great opinion we have of the authority of the writer 'as\nbeing divinely inspired.' The author here defines his ideas in reference\nto fabulous writings, after which he proceeds in his inquiry. 'But\nout of what matter the first of mankind, whether, male or female, was\ncomposed, is not so easily known. If God had a mind to make a woman\nstart from one of Adam's ribs, it is true it seems to be a matter not\nvery proper; but, however, out of wood, stone, or any other being God\ncan make a woman; and here, by the bye, the curious ask whether this rib\nwas useless to Adam, and beyond the number requisite in a complete\nbody. If not, when it was taken away, Adam would be a maimed person, and\nrobbed of a part of himself that was necessary. I say necessary, for\nas much, as I suppose, that in the fabric of a human body nothing is\nsuperfluous, and that no one bone can be taken away without endangering\nthe whole, or rendering it, in some measure, imperfect. But it, on the\nother side, you say this rib was really useless to Adam, and might be\nspared, so that you make him to have only twelve ribs on one side and\nthirteen on the other, they will reply that this is like a monster,\nas much as if the first man had been created with three feet, or three\nhands, or had had more eyes, or other members, than the use of a human\nbody requires. But in the beginning we cannot but suppose that all\nthings were made with all imaginable exactness.\n\n\"For my part, I do not pretend to decide this dispute, but what more\nperplexes me is, how, out of one rib, the whole mass of a woman's body\ncould be built? For a rib does not, perhaps, equal the thousandth part\nof an entire body. If you answer that the rest of the matter was taken\nfrom elsewhere, certainly, then, Eve might much more truly be said to\nhave been formed out of that borrowed matter, whatever it was, than out\nof Adam's rib. I know that the Rabbinical doctors solve this business\nquite another way, for they say the first man had two bodies, the one\nmale, the other female, who were joined together, and that God having\ncloven them asunder, gave one side to Adam for a wife. Plato has, in his\n'Symposium,' something very like this story, concerning his first man,\nAnoroginus, who was afterwards divided into two parts, male and female.\nLastly, others conjecture that Moses gave out this original of woman to\nthe end that he might inspire a mutual love between the two sexes, as\nparts of one and the same whole, so as more effectually to recommend his\nown institution of marriage.... But leaving this subject, I will hasten\nto something else.\n\n\"Now, the second article treats of God's, garden in Eden, watered with\nfour rivers arising from the same spring.... Those rivers are, by Moses,\ncalled Pishon, Gishon, Hiddekal, and Perath, which the ancient authors\ninterpret by Ganges, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates. Nor do I truly think\nwithout some reason, for Moses seems to have proposed nothing more than\nthe bringing four of the most celebrated rivers of the whole earth to\nthe watering of his garden. Ah! but, say you, these four rivers do not\nspring from the same source, or come from the same place; 'tis true, nor\nany other four rivers that are named by the interpreters. Wherefore\nthis objection will everywhere hold good, as well against the ancient\nas modern writers.--But although you should reduce these rivers to only\ntwo, as some do, to Tigris and Euphrates, yet neither have these two\nrivers the same fountain-head, but this is really and truly an evasion,\ninstead of an explanation, to reduce, contrary to the history of Moses,\na greater number of rivers to a smaller, only that they may the more\nconveniently be reduced to the same spring; for these are the words of\nMoses, 'But there comes a river out of Eden to water the garden, and\nfrom thence it divides itself into four branches, the name of the first\nis Pishon,' etc., whereby it is apparent that either in the exit or in\nthe entrance of the garden there were four rivers, and that these four\nrivers did one and all proceed from the same fountain-head in Eden. Now,\npray tell me in what part of the earth is this country of Eden, where\nfour rivers arise from one and the same spring? But do not go about to\nsay that only two came from that fountain of Eden, and that the other\ntwo arose from the Tigris or the Euphrates, where they split near the\nsea, and make, as it were, a bifrontic figure, since this does by no\nmeans answer the words of Moses. Besides, he mentions in the first place\nPishon and Gishon, and afterwards Tigris and Euphrates as lesser rivers;\nwhereas you, on the contrary, will have those to be derived from these\nlast as rivers of an inferior order, which is a manifest distorting of\nthe historical account. But to end all these difficulties concerning\nthe channels of the rivers which watered Paradise, you will, perhaps, at\nlast say, that the springs, as well as the courses of rivers, have been\nchanged by the universal deluge: and that we cannot now be certain\nwhere it was they burst over the earth, and what countries they passed\nthrough. For my part I am much of your opinion, providing you confess\nthere happened in the deluge such a disruption of the earth as we\nsuppose there did. But from only an inundation of waters such a change\ncould never happen. Besides, what geography will you have Moses to\ndescribe these rivers, ante-diluvian or post-diluvian'?--If the latter,\nthere has happened no considerable alteration of the earth since the\ntime of Moses and the flood. If the former, you then render Moses's\ndescription of the earth totally superfluous and unuseful to discover\nthe situation of Paradise. Lastly, it is hard to conceive that any\nrivers, whether these or others, can have subsisted ever since the first\nbeginning of the world; whether you have regard to their water or their\nchannels. The channels of rivers are made by daily attrition; for if\nthey had been made as ditches and furrows are, by earth dug out and\nheaped on each side, there would certainly have been seen everywhere\ngreat banks of earth. But we plainly see that this is only fortuitous;\nforasmuch as they often run through plains, and the river banks are no\nmore than level with the adjacent fields; besides, whence could there be\nhad water at the beginning of the world to fill these channels? If you\nsay, that on the third day, when the great bed of the ocean was made,\nthe smaller channels of the rivers were also: and as the greatest\npart of the waters of the abyss fell into the gulf of the seas, so the\nremaining part descended into these other channels, and therewith formed\nthe primitive rivers. Admitting this, yet the waters would not only be\nas salt as those of the sea, but there would be no continual springs\nto nourish these rivers; insomuch as when the first stream of water had\nflown off, there being no fresh supplies of water to succeed it, these\nrivers would have been immediately dried up; I say because there were\nno perpetual springs; for whether springs proceed from rain, or from the\nsea, they could neither way have rose in so short a time; not from rain,\nfor it had not as yet rained; neither was it possible, that in the short\nspace of one day, the waters of the abyss should run down from the most\ninland places to the sea, and afterwards returning through ways that\nwere never yet open to them, should strain themselves through the bowels\nof the earth, and ascend to the heads of their rivers. But of rivers we\nhave said enough; let us now proceed to the rest.\n\n\"We have, in the third place, a very strange account of a serpent that\ntalked with Eve, and enticed her to oppose God. I must confess, we have\nnot yet known that this beast could ever speak, or utter any sort\nof voice, beside hissing. But what shall we think Eve knew of this\nbusiness? If she had taken it for a dumb animal, the very speech of it\nwould have so frightened her, that she would have fled from it. If,\non the other side, the serpent had from the beginning been capable of\ntalking and haranguing, and only lost his speech for the crime of having\ncorrupted the faith of Eve, certainly Moses would have been far from\npassing over in silence this sort of punishment, and only mentioning the\ncurse of licking the dust. Besides this, will you have the particular\nspecies of serpents, or all the beasts in Paradise, to have been imbued\nwith the faculty of speaking, like the trees in Dodona's grove? If you\nsay all, pray what offence had the rest been guilty of, that they also\nshould lose the use of their tongues? If only the serpent enjoyed this\nprivilege, how came it about that so vile an animal (by nature the most\nreverse and remote from man) should, before all his other fellow brutes,\ndeserve to be master of so great a favor and benefit as that of speech?\n\n\"Lastly, since all discoursing and arguing includes the use of reason,\nby this very thing you make the serpent a rational creature. But\nI imagine you will solve this difficulty another way; for (say the\nsticklers for a literal interpretation) under the disguise of a serpent\nwas hid the Devil, or an evil spirit, who, using the mouth and organs\nof this animal, spoke to the woman as though it were a human voice. But\nwhat testimony or what authority have they for this? The most literal\nreading of Moses, which they so closely adhere to, does not express\nanything of it; for what else does he seem to say, but that he\nattributes the seducing of Eve to the natural craftiness of the serpent,\nand nothing else? For these are Moses's words:--'Now the serpent was\nmore cunning than any beast of the field that the Lord God had made.'\nAfterwards, continues he:--'The serpent said to the woman, yea, hath God\nsaid,' etc.--But besides, had Eve heard an animal, by nature dumb, speak\nthrough the means of some evil spirit, she would instantly have\nfled with horror from the monster.--When, on the contrary, she very\nfamiliarly received it; they argued very amicably together, as though\nnothing new or astonishing had taken place. Again, if you say that all\nthis proceeded from the ignorance or weakness of a woman, it would on\nthe other side have been but just, that some good angels should have\nsuccoured a poor, ignorant, weak woman; those just guardians of human\naffairs would not have permitted so unequal a conflict; for what if\nan evil spirit, crafty and knowing in business, had, by his subtlety,\noverreached a poor, weak, and silly woman, who had not as yet, either\nseen the sun rise or set, who was but newly born, and thoroughly\ninexperienced. Certainly, a person who had so great a price set upon her\nhead, as the salvation of all mankind, might well have deserved a guard\nof angels. Aye, but perhaps (you will say) the woman ought to have taken\ncare not to violate a law established on pain of death. 'The day you eat\nof it you shall surely die,', both you and yours; this was the law. Die!\nwhat does that mean, says the poor, innocent virgin, who as yet had not\nseen anything dead, no, not so much as a flower; nor had yet with her\neyes or mind perceived the image of death--viz., sleep, or night? But\nwhat you add concerning his posterity and their punishment, that is\nnot all expressed in the law. Now no laws are ever to so distorted,\nespecially those that are penal. The punishment of the serpent will also\nafford no inconsiderable question, if the Devil transacted the whole\nthing under the form of a serpent; or if he compelled the serpent to do,\nor to suffer things, why did he (the serpent) pay for a crime committed\nby the Devil? Moreover, as to the manner and form of the punishment\ninflicted on the serpent, that from that time he should go creeping on\nhis belly, it is not to be explained what that meant. Hardly any one\nwill say, that prior to his catastrophe the serpent walked upright, like\nfour footed beasts; and if, from the beginning, he crept on his belly\nlike other snakes, it may seem ridiculous to impose on this creature as\na punishment for one single crime, a thing which, by nature, he ever had\nbefore. But let this suffice for the woman and serpent; let us now go\non to the trees. I here understand those two trees, which stood in the\nmiddle of the garden, the tree of life, and the tree of good and evil.\nThe former so called, that it would give men a very long life, although,\nby what follows, we find our forefathers, prior to the flood, lived\nto very great ages, independent of the tree of life. Besides, if the\nlongevity, or immortality of man had depended only upon one tree, or its\nfruit, what if Adam had not sinned? how could his posterity, diffused\nthroughout the whole earth, have been able to come and gather fruit out\nof this garden, or from this tree? or how could the product of one tree\nhave been sufficient for all mankind?\"\n\nSuch is a condensed abstract of Dr. Burnet's seventh chapter of\n\"Arch\u00e6ologia.\" The eighth chapter equals the above in boldness; but far\nexceeds it in breadth of logic and critical acumen, without, however,\nappearing so iconoclastic or so vulgar. The next chapter abounds in\nclassical quotations, the Creation of the world and the Deluge is the\ntheme on which so much is advanced, at a time when such language was\ngreeted with the stake and the prison. We cannot calculate the effect of\nBurnet's works on the clerical mind; but this we do know, that since his\nday, there has progressed an internal revolution in the tenets of the\nchurch, which, in the last generation, gave birth to the neology, now so\ndestructive of the internal peace of the churches. Neology has not come\nfrom Deism, for this power assails the outworks of Christianity; while\nthe school of criticism is but a severe pruning knife of internal\nverbiage. Although the language quoted is harsh, the arguments\ncommon-place, which, although true, are now discarded by the educated\nFreethinker; yet if for no stronger language than this men were\nimprisoned only ten years ago, what must we say to the moral courage\nwhich could publish them 150 years ago? There must surely have been\ngreater risks than in our day; and when a man dare hazard the highest\npower of the church for the duty of publishing unpopular sentiments,\nit is clearly our duty to; enshrine him as one of the guardians of that\nliberty of thought, and speech, which have won for us a freedom.\nwe cherish and protect. Let the earth then lie lightly over the\npriest-Freethinker, Thomas Burnet.\n\nA. C.\n\n\n\n\nTHOMAS PAINE.\n\n     \"The wise by some centuries before the crowd,\n          Must, by their novel systems, though correct,\n     Of course offend the wicked, weak, and proud,\n          Must meet with hatred, calumny, neglect.\"\n\n\nThomas Paine, \"the sturdy champion of political and religious liberty,\"\nwas born at Thetford, in the County of Norfolk, (Eng.,) 29th of January,\n1737. Born of religious parents (his father being a Quaker, and his\nmother a member of the Church of England,) Paine received a religious\neducation at Thetford Grammar School, under the Rev. William Knowles.\nAt an early age he gave indications of his great talent, and found\npleasure, when a boy, in studying poetical authors. His parents,\nhowever, endeavored to check his taste for poetry, his father probably\nthinking it would unfit him for the denomination to which _he_ belonged.\nBut Paine did not lose much time before experimenting in poetry himself.\nHence we find him, when eight years of age, composing the following\nepitaph, upon a fly being caught in a spider's web:--\n\n     \"Here lies the body of John Crow,\n     Who once was high, but now is low;\n     Ye brother Crows take warning all,\n     For as you rise, so you must fall.\"\n\nAt the age of thirteen, after receiving a moderate education in reading,\nwriting, and arithmetic, Paine left school, to follow his father's\ntrade (stay-making.) Although disliking the business, he pursued\nthis avocation for nearly five years. When about twenty years of age,\nhowever, he felt--as most enterprising young men do feel--a desire\nto visit London, and enter into the competition and chances of a\nmetropolitan life. His natural dislike to his father's business led him\nto abandon for a period his original occupation, and, after working some\ntime with Mr. Morris, a noted stay-maker, in Long Acre, he resolved upon\na seafaring adventure, of which he thus speaks:--\n\n\"At an early age, raw, adventurous, and heated with the false Heroism\nof a master [Rev. Mr. Knowles, Master of the Grammar School at Thetford]\nwho had served in a man-of-war, I began my fortune, and entered on board\nthe Terrible, Captain Death, from this adventure I was happily prevented\nby the affectionate and moral remonstrances of a good father, who from\nthe habits of his life, being of the Quaker profession, looked on me as\nlost; but the impression, much as it affected me at the time, wore\naway, and I entered afterwards in the King of Prussia privateer, Captain\nMender, and went with her to sea.\"\n\nSea life did not, as may be supposed, long satisfy a mind like Paine's.\nIn April, 1759, after working nearly twelve months at Dover, we find\nhim settled as master stay-maker at Sandwich; marrying, on September\n27, Mary Lambert, daughter of an Exciseman of that place. But his\nmatrimonial happiness was of short duration, his wife dying the\nfollowing year.\n\nDisgusted with the toil and inconvenience of his late occupation,\nPaine now renounced it forever, to apply himself to the profession of\nExciseman. After fourteen months' study he obtained the appointment of\nsupernumerary in the Excise, which he held, with intervals, till 1768,\nwhen he settled as Exciseman at Lewes, in Sussex, and married, 1771,\nElizabeth Olive, daughter of a tobacconist, whose business he succeeded\nto. About this time Paine wrote several little pieces, in prose and\nverse, among which was the celebrated song on the \"Death of General\nWolfe,\" and \"The Trial of Farmer Carter's Dog, Porter.\" The latter is a\ncomposition of \"exquisite wit and humor.\"\n\nIn 1772 the Excise officers throughout the kingdom were dissatisfied\nwith their salaries, and formed a plan to apply to Parliament for an\nincrease. Paine being distinguished among them as a man of great\ntalent, was solicited to draw up and state their case, which he did in a\npamphlet entitled \"The Case of the Salary of the Officers of Excise, and\nThoughts on the Corruption arising from the Poverty of Excise Officers.\"\nFour thousand copies of this pamphlet were printed and circulated. Some\ntime after this publication, Paine, being in the grocery business, was\n_suspected_ of unfair practices, and was dismissed the Excise, after\nbeing in it twelve years. This _suspicion_, however, was never shown\nto be just. But to show how _very vigorous_ the authorities were in\n_suppressing_ smuggling, we will quote the following letter from Clio\nRickman to the Editor of the Independent Whig, in October, 1807:--\n\n\"Sir,--If there are any characters more to be abhorred than others,\nit is those who inflict severe punishments against offenders, and yet\nthemselves commit the same crimes.\n\n\"If any characters more than others deserve execration, exposure, and\nto be driven from among mankind, it is those governors of the people who\nbreak the laws they themselves make, and punish others for breaking.\n\n\"Suffer me, Mr. Editor, thus to preface the following fact; fact, I say,\nbecause I stand ready to prove it so.\n\n\"When Admiral Duncan rendezvoused in the Downs with his fleet, on the\n8th of January, 1806, the Spider lugger, Daniel Falara, master, was sent\nto Guernsey to smuggle articles for the fleet, such as wine, spirits,\nhair powder, playing cards, tobacco, etc., for the supply of the\ndifferent ships.\n\n\"At her arrival in the Downs, the ships' boats flocked round her\nto unload her and her contraband cargo. A Custom House extra boat,\ncommanded by William Wallace, seeing the lugger, followed and took her;\nin doing which he did his duty.\n\n\"On his inspecting the smuggled articles with which she was laden, he\nfound a number of cases directed to Admiral Duncan, the Right Honorable\nWilliam Pitt, the heaven-born Minister of England, and to the Right\nHonorable Henry Dundas, Walmer Castle. In a few days, Wallace, the\nmaster of the Custom House cutter, received orders from Government to\ngive the lugger and her smuggled cargo up, on penalty of being dismissed\nthe service; and these cases of smuggled goods were afterwards delivered\nat the Prime Ministers, Mr. Pitt, at Walmer Castle.\n\n\"Mr. Editor, read what follows, and repress your indignation if you can.\n\n\"There are now in Deal jail fourteen persons for trifling acts of\nsmuggling compared to the above of the Right Honorable William Pitt and\nthe now Right Honorable Lord Melville.\n\n\"The former were poor, and knew not how to live, the latter were most\naffluently and splendidly supported by the people--that is, they were\npaupers upon the generous public, towards whom they thus scandalously\nand infamously conducted themselves.\n\n\"I am, Sir, your humble servant,\n\n\"Clio Rickman.\"\n\n\nTo those opponents of Thomas Paine who attach any weight to his\ndismissal from the Excise on suspicion of smuggling, we would mention\nthe fact, that during Paine's service at Lewes, Mr. Jenner, the\nprincipal clerk in the Excise Office, London, wrote several letters\nfrom the Board of Excise, \"thanking Mr. Paine for his assiduity in his\nprofession, and for his information and calculations forwarded to the\noffice.\" Shortly-after his dismissal, Mr. Paine and his wife, by mutual\nagreement, separated. Many tales have been put in circulation respecting\nthe separation. Clio Rickman, in his \"Life of Paine,\" has the following\npassage:---\n\n\"That he did not cohabit with her from the moment they left the altar\ntill the day of their separation, a space of three years, although they\nlived in the same house together, is an indubitable truth. It is also\ntrue, that no physical defect, on the part of Mr. Paine, can be adduced\nas a reason for such conduct.... Mr. Paine's answer, upon my once\nreferring to this subject, was, 'It is nobody's business but my own: I\nhad cause for it, but I will name it to no one.'.... This I can assert,\nthat Mr. Paine always spoke tenderly and respectfully of his wife; and\nsent her several times pecuniary aid, without her knowing even whence it\ncame.\"\n\nIn 1774 Paine left England, and arrived at Philadelphia a few months\nbefore the battle of Lexington. He made his appearance in the New World\nas editor of the Pennsylvanian Magazine; and it would appear that he\nthen had in view the coming struggle, in which he took so prominent a\npart, for in his introduction to the first number of the above Magazine\nhe states:--\"Thus encompassed with difficulties, this first number of\nthe Pennsylvanian Magazine entreats a favorable reception; of which we\nshall only say, that like the early snowdrop, it comes forth in a barren\nseason, and contents itself with foretelling the reader that choicer\nflowers are preparing to appear.\" Upon the foreign supply of gunpowder\nbeing prohibited, he proposed a plan, in the Pennsylvanian Journal, of\na saltpetre association for the voluntary supply of that article of\ndestruction.\n\nOn the 10th of January, 1776, \"Common Sense\" was published, its\ncirculation soon reaching 100,000 copies. The effect this remarkable\npamphlet produced upon the minds of the American people, and the share\nit had in bringing to a successful issue the then pending struggle, may\nbe gathered even from Paine's bitterest enemies. Mr. Cheetham, in his\n\"Life of Paine,\" while endeavoring to damage the author of \"Common\nSense,\" admits the value of this pamphlet. He says:--\"This pamphlet of\nforty octavo pages, holding out relief by proposing Independence to\nan oppressed and despairing people, was published in January, 1776;\nspeaking a language which the colonists had felt, but not thought of.\nIts popularity, terrible in its consequences to the parent country,\nwas unexampled in the history of the press. At first involving the\ncolonists, in the crime of rebellion, and pointing to a road leading\ninevitably to ruin, it was read with indignation and alarm; but when\nthe reader--and every one read it--recovering from the first shock,\nre-perused it, its arguments nourishing his feelings and appealing to\nhis pride, re-animated his hopes, and satisfied his understanding that\n'Common Sense,' backed by the resources and force of the colonies, poor\nand feeble as they were, could alone rescue them from the unqualified\noppression with which they were threatened. The unknown author, in the\nmoments of enthusiasm which succeeded, was an angel sent from heaven\nto save from all the horrors of slavery by his timely, powerful, and\nunerring councils, a faithful but abused, a brave but misrepresented\npeople.\" Another of Paine's enemies and slanderers--Elkanah Watson--in\na volume recently published, entitled \"Men and Times of the Revolution,\"\nafter speaking in very disparaging terms of Paine's appearance, habits,\nand disposition (which is proved false by the best of testimony,) admits\nthe service rendered to America by \"Common Sense.\" He says:--\"Yet I\ncould not repress the deepest emotions of gratitude towards him, as\nthe instrument of Providence in accelerating the declaration of our\nIndependence. He certainly was a prominent agent in preparing the public\nsentiment of America for that glorious event. The idea of Independence\nhad not occupied the popular mind, and when guardedly approached on the\ntopic, it shrunk from the conception, as fraught with doubt, with peril,\nand with suffering. In 1776 I was present at Providence, Rhode Island,\nin a social assembly of most of the prominent leaders of the State. I\nrecollect that the subject of Independence was cautiously introduced by\nan ardent Whig, and the thought seemed to excite the abhorrence of the\nwhole circle. A few weeks after, Paine's 'Common Sense' appeared, and\npassed through the continent like an electric spark. It everywhere\nflashed conviction, and aroused a determined spirit, which resulted in\nthe Declaration of Independence, upon the 4th of July ensuing. The name\nof Paine was precious to every Whig heart, and had resounded throughout\nEurope.\" Other testimony could be given to Paine's influence in the\nAmerican struggle for Independence; but after the two already mentioned\nfrom his opponents, it is unnecessary to give further proof.\n\nIn the same year that \"Common Sense\" appeared, Paine accompanied General\nWashington and his army, being with him in his retreat from Hudson River\nto the Delaware. Although great terror prevailed, Paine stood brave and\nundismayed, conscious he was advocating a just cause, and determined to\nbring it to a successful issue. He occupied himself in inspiring hope\nin the Americans, showing them their strength and their weakness. This\nobject drew from his pen \"The Crisis,\" a continuation of the\n\"Common Sense,\" which was issued at intervals till the cessation of\nhostilities.\n\nIn 1777 Paine was unanimously, and unknown to himself, appointed\nSecretary in the Foreign Department, where he formed a close friendship\nwith Dr. Franklin. He did not retain his office, however, long, as\nhe refused to become a party to the fraudulent demands of a Mr. Silas\nDeane, one of the American Commissioners, then in Europe; and he\nresigned the office.\n\nIn 1780 he was chosen member of the American Philosophical Society,\nhaving previously received the degree of Master of Arts from the\nUniversity of Philadelphia.\n\nWhen the Independence of America was attained, and when oppression had\nreceived a severe and lasting check in that rising country, we find that\nPaine, so far from being satisfied with his success in the New World,\nbegan to look for a fresh field where he might render good service to\nthe cause of right and freedom. Accordingly, in 1787. he visited Paris,\nhis famous services to America giving him a welcome by those who knew\nthe benefit arising from the establishment of human rights. His stay in\nParis, at this time, was of short duration, as he returned to England\nafter an absence of thirteen years, on September 3rd. After visiting\nhis mother, and settling an allowance of nine shillings per week for her\nsupport, he resided for a short time at Rotherham, in Yorkshire, where\nan iron bridge was cast and erected upon a model of his invention, which\nobtained him great reputation for his mathematical skill.\n\nThe publication of \"Mr. Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution\"\ncalled from Paine his \"Rights of Man,\" a book that created great\nattraction, and sold nearly a million and a half of copies. In politics\nPaine was clear and decided, and, from his moderation, what is called\n\"sound.\" For the perusal of those who may not have read it, we give the\nfollowing quotations, to show the principles upon which it is based:--\n\n\"Mr. Burke talks about what he calls an hereditary crown, as if it\nwere some production of nature; or as if, like time, it had a power to\noperate, not only independently, but in spite of man; or as if it were a\nthing or a subject universally consented to. Alas! it has none of\nthose properties, but is the reverse of them all. It is a thing in\nimagination, the property of which is more than doubted, and the\nlegality of which in a few years will be denied. But, to arrange this\nmatter in a clearer view than what general expressions can convey,\nit will be necessary to state the distinct heads under which (what is\ncalled) an hereditary crown, or, more properly speaking, an hereditary\nsuccession to the government of a nation, can be considered; which are,\nfirst, the right of a particular family to establish itself; secondly,\nthe right of a nation to establish a particular family. With respect to\nthe _first_ of these heads, that of a family establishing itself with\nheredity powers on its own authority, and independent of the consent of\na nation, all men will concur in calling it despotism: and it would\nbe trespassing on their understanding to attempt to prove it. But the\n_second_ head, that of a nation establishing a particular family with\n_hereditary powers_, does not present itself as despotism on the first\nreflection; but if men will permit a second reflection to take place,\nand carry that reflection forward but one remove out of their own\npersons to that of their offspring, they will then see that hereditary\nsuccession becomes in its consequences the same despotism to others,\nwhich they reprobated for themselves. It operates to preclude the\nconsent of the succeeding generations; and the preclusion of consent is\ndespotism. When the person who at any time shall be in possession of\na government, or those who stand in succession to him, shall say to a\nnation, I hold this power in 'contempt' of you, it signifies not on what\nauthority he pretends to say it. It is no relief, but an aggravation to\na person in slavery, to reflect that he was sold by his parent; and as\nthat which heightens the criminality of an act cannot be produced to\nprove the legality of it, hereditary succession cannot be established as\na legal thing.... Notwithstanding the taxes of England amount to almost\nseventeen millions a year, said to be for the expenses of Government, it\nis still evident that the sense of the nation is left to govern itself\nby magistrates and jurors, almost at its own charge, on Republican\nprinciples, exclusive of the expense of taxes. The salaries of the\njudges are almost the only charge that is paid out of the revenue.\nConsidering that all the internal government is executed by the people,\nthe taxes of England ought to be the lightest of any nation in Europe;\ninstead of which they are the contrary. As this cannot be accounted for\non the score of civil government, the subject necessarily extends itself\nto the monarchical part..... If a law be bad, it is one thing to oppose\nthe practice of it, but it is quite a different thing to expose its\nerrors, to reason on its defects, and show cause why it should be\nrepealed, or why another ought to be substituted in its place. I have\nalways held it an opinion (making it also my practice) that it is better\nto obey a bad law, making use at the same time of every argument to show\nits errors and procure its repeal, than forcibly to violate it; because\nthe precedent of breaking a bad law might weaken the force, and lead to\na discretionary violation, of those which are good.\"\n\nAs may be supposed, such a work as \"The Rights of Man,\" aiming directly\nat all oppression, regardless of party, could not be allowed to escape\nthe Attorney-General's _answer_. Accordingly, we find a prosecution\ninstituted against it. But instead of prosecuting the author, the\npublishers were selected. This drew from Paine a long Letter to the\nAttorney-General, suggesting the justice of _his_ answering for the book\nhe wrote. On the trial, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Erskine thus spoke of\nthe author of \"The Rights of Man:\"--\"The defendant's whole deportment\nprevious to the publication has been wholly unexceptionable; he properly\ndesired to be given up as the author of the book, if any inquiry should\ntake place concerning it; and he is not affected in evidence, directly\nor indirectly, with any illegal or suspicious conduct, not even with\nuttering an indiscreet or taunting expression, nor with any one matter\nor thing inconsistent with the best subject in England.\"\n\nOn the 12th of September, 1792, Mr. Achilles Audibert came expressly to\nEngland, from the French Convention, to solicit Paine to attend and aid\nthem, by his advice, in their deliberations. \"On his arrival at Calais\na public dinner was provided, a royal salute was fired from the battery,\nthe troops were drawn out, and there was a general rejoicing throughout\nthe town.... Paine was escorted to the house of his friend, Mr.\nAudibert, the Chief Magistrate of the place, where he was visited by the\nCommandant, and all the Municipal Officers in forms, who afterwards gave\nhim a sumptuous entertainment in the Town Hall. The same honor was also\npaid him on his departure for Paris.\" Upon his arrival in Paris all\nwas confusion. There were the King's friends mortified and subdued,\nthe Jacobins split up into cavilling faction, some wishing a federative\ngovernment, some desiring the King's death, and the death of all the\nnobility; while a portion were more discreet, wishing liberty without\nlicentiousness, and having a desire to redress wrongs without revenge.\nThese few accepted Paine as their leader, and renounced all connection\nwith the Jacobin Club.\n\nPaine, on all occasions, advocated the preservation of the King's life\nbut his efforts were thwarted by the appointment, by Robespierre, of\nBarrere to office. So anxiously was Paine sought after, that both Calais\nand Versailles returned him as Deputy. To show how the author of \"The\nRights of Man\" opposed all physical force where reason may be used, it\nis only necessary to state, that when the Letter of Dumourier reached\nParis with the threat of restoring the King, Paine wrote a letter to\nthe Convention, stating a plan for re-adjustment, and was taking it\npersonally, when he was informed \"that a decree had just been passed\noffering one hundred thousand crowns for Dumourier's head; and another,\nmaking it high treason to propose anything in his favor.\" Whilst Deputy\nfor Calais, Paine was sought and admired by all classes. He dined every\nFriday, for a long period, with the Earl of Lauderdale and Dr. Moore;\nand so frequent were his visitors, that he set apart two mornings a\nweek for his _levee_ days.--He soon, however, changed his residence,\npreferring less formality and a more select circle. His \"History of the\nFrench Revolution\" we are deprived of by his imprisonment, which Gibbon\nthought would prove a great loss. The historian often applied for the\nMS., believing it to be of great worth. The opinion Paine held of the\nRevolution may be gathered from the following:--\n\n\"With respect to the Revolution, it was begun by good men, on good\nprinciples, and I have ever believed it would have gone on so, had\nnot the provocative interference of foreign powers distracted it into\nmadness, and sown jealousies among the leaders. The people of England\nhave now two Revolutions, the American and the French before them. Their\nown wisdom will direct them what to _choose_ and what to _avoid_, and\nin everything which relates to their happiness, combined with the common\ngood of mankind, I wish them honor and success.\"\n\nHis speech against the death of the King, shows how far he was removed\nfrom party spirit or any feeling of revenge. Whilst he protested against\nthe King being re-enthroned, he equally protested against his death,\nwishing him removed from the seat of his corruption, and placed in\na more elevating atmosphere.--Entreating for the King's safety, he\nsays:--\"Let then the United States be the safeguard and the asylum of\nLouis Capet. There, hereafter, far removed from the miseries and crimes\nof royalty, he may learn, from the constant aspect of public prosperity,\nthat the true system of government consists in fair, equal, and\nhonora-able representation. In relating this circumstance, and in\nsubmitting this proposition, I consider myself as a citizen of both\ncountries.\"\n\nThe policy pursued by Paine was not consonant with the views of\nRobespierre. Consequently, he was seized in the night and imprisoned\nin the Luxembourg eleven months, without any reason being assigned. The\nreaders are doubtless aware of the many _Providential_ escapes he had\nfrom the death for which he was seized. While in prison he wrote part of\nhis \"Age of Reason,\" (having commenced it just previous to his arrest)\nnot Knowing one hour but he might be executed, and once being on the\nverge of death from fever. He knew the prejudice the \"Age of Reason\"\nwould create, so he left its production to the latter part of his\nlife, not wishing to make _that_ an impediment to the good he sought to\naccomplish in the Political world.\n\nAfter toiling in France to bring the Revolution to a _just_ termination,\nand finding his efforts rendered abortive by that feeling which _former\noppression had created_, he resolved to return to America, a country he\nsaw thriving by a policy he wished to institute in France.\n\nIn 1802, Jefferson, then President of America, knowing his wish to\nreturn, wrote him the following letter:--\n\n\n\"You express a wish in your letter to return to America by a national\nship. Mr. Dawson, who brings over the treaty, and who will present you\nwith this letter, is charged with orders to the captain of the Maryland,\nto receive and accommodate you back if you can be ready to return at\nsuch a short warning. You will in general find us returned to sentiments\nworthy of former times; in these it will be your glory to have steadily\nlabored, and with as much effect as any man living. That you may\nlive long to continue your useful labors, and reap the reward in the\nthankfulness of nations, is my sin cere prayer.\n\n\"Accept the assurance of my high esteem and affectionate attachment,\n\n\"Thomas Jefferson.\"\n\n\nBut circumstances prevented Paine going by the Maryland. He sailed,\nhowever, on the 1st of September, 1802, in the London Pacquet. He\nhad often previously arranged to return to America, but luckily,\n_Providence_ prevented him. One ship that he intended to sail by, was\nsearched by English frigates for Thomas Paine, and another sunk at sea,\nwhilst at other times British frigates were cruising off the ports from\nwhich he was to sail, knowing him to be there.\n\nSo much religious misrepresentation has been circulated about Paine's\nlife and death, that it becomes a duty to restate the _facts_. The\nmanner of life Paine pursued may be gathered from the _reliable_\ntestimony of Clio Rickman. He says, \"Mr. Paine's life in London was a\nquiet round of philosophical leisure and enjoyment. It was occupied in\nwriting, in a small epistolary correspondence, in walking about with me\nto visit different friends, occasionally lounging at coffeehouses and\npublic places, or being visited by a select few. Lord Edward Fitzgerald,\nthe French and American ambassadors, Mr. Sharp the engraver, Romney, the\npainter, Mrs. Wolstonecraft, Joel Barlow, Mr. Hull, Mr. Christie, Dr.\nPriestley, Dr. Towers, Colonel Oswald, the walking Stewart, Captain\nSampson Perry, Mr. Tuffin, Mr. William Choppin, Captain De Stark,\nMr. Home Tooke, etc., were among the number of his friends and\nacquaintances.\" His manner of living in France and America has already\nbeen noticed.\n\nThe perverted tales of Carver and Cheetham may be utterly disproved by\nreferring to Clio Rickman's \"Life of Paine.\" As his life, so was his\ndeath. When he became feeble and infirm (in Jan. 1809) he was often\nvisited by those \"good people\" who so often intrude upon the domestic\nquiet of the afflicted. After the visit of an old woman, \"come from the\nAlmighty,\" (whom Paine soon sent back again) he was troubled with the\nRev. Mr. Milledollar, and the Rev. Mr. Cunningham. The latter reverend\nsaid, \"Mr. Paine, we visit you as friends and neighbors; you have now a\nfull view of death, you cannot live long; and whoever does not believe\nin Jesus Christ, will assuredly be damned.\" \"Let me,\" said Paine,\n\"have none of your Popish stuff; get away with you; good morning,\ngood morning.\" Another visitor was the Rev. Mr. Hargrove, with this\nstatement:--\"My name is Hargrove, Sir; I am minister of the new\nJerusalem church; we, Sir, explain the scripture in its true meaning;\nthe key has been lost these four thousand years, and we have found It.\"\n\"Then,\" said Paine, in his own neat way, \"it must have been very rusty.\"\nShortly before his death, he stated to Mr. Hicks, to whom he had sent\nto arrange his burial? that his sentiments in reference to the Christian\nreligion were precisely the same as when he wrote the \"Age of Reason.\"\nOn the 8th of June, (in the words of Clio Rickman) 1809. about nine in\nthe morning, he placidly, and almost without a struggle, died as he had\nlived, a Deist, aged seventy-two years and five months. He was interred\nat New Rochelle, upon his own farm; a handsome monument being now\nerected where he was buried.\n\nIt has been the object in the present sketch rather to give, in a brief\nmanner, an account of Paine's life and services, than an elucidation\nof his writings. His works are well known, and _they_ will speak for\nthemselves but much wrong is done to his memory by the perversions and\nmisrepresentations of the religious publications. No doubt had his views\nbeen different on \"religious\" subjects, he would have been held up as\na model of genius, perseverance, courage, disinterestedness of purpose,\nand purity of life, by the men who now find him no better name than the\n\"Blasphemer.\" We hope that those not previously acquainted with the\nfacts of his life, will find in the present sketch sufficient reason to\nthink and speak otherwise of a man who made the world his country, and\nthe doing good his religion.\n\n     \"As Euclid near his various writings shone,\n     His pen inspired by glorious truth alone,\n     O'er all the earth diffusing light and life,\n     Subduing error, ignorance, and strife;\n     Raised man to just pursuits, to thinking right,\n     And yet will free the world from woe and falsehood's night;\n     To this immortal man, to Paine 'twas given,\n     To metamorphose earth from hell to heaven.\"\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n\n\nBAPTISTE DE MIRABAUD\n\nJean Baptiste de Mirabaud was born at Paris, in the year 1675. Of his\nearly life we can glean but very scanty information. He appears first to\nhave embraced the military profession, but it not being consonant with\nhis general character, he soon quitted the army, and devoted himself to\nliterature. He was, however, nearly forty-nine years of age before\nhe became known in the literary world. He then published a French\ntranslation of Tasso's \"Jerusalem,\" which brought him much fame; and\nmany of the contributors to the French Encyclopaedia appear to have\nassociated with him, and courted his friendship. He was afterwards\nelected a member of the French Academy of which he became the Secretary\nin 1742. Mirabaud was a constant visitor at the house of his friend, the\nBaron d'Holbach, down to the period of his death. He wrote \"The World:\nits Origin and its Antiquity,\" \"Opinions of the Ancients upon the Jews,\"\n\"Sentiments of the Philosophers upon the Nature of the Soul,\" and other\nminor works. The \"System of Nature\" was also for many years attributed\nto Mirabaud, but it appears now to be extremely doubtful whether he ever\nwrote a single line of the work. The Abbe Galiani was one of the first\nwho pointed out D'Holbach as the author. In the memoirs of M. Suard,\nedited by M. Garat, the same hypothesis is supported with additional\nfirmness. Dugald Stewart seems to put much faith in the latter\nauthority, as fixing the authorship of the \"System of Nature\" upon\nD'Holbach. Voltaire attributes the work to Damilaville, in a somewhat\npositive manner, for which he is sharply criticised in the \"Biographie\nUniverselle,\" published in 1817. The \"System of Nature\" is a book of\nwhich Dugald Stewart speaks, as \"the boldest, if not the ablest work of\nthe Parisian Atheists,\" and it has undoubtedly obtained great\npopularity. Voltaire, who has written against the \"System of Nature\" in\na tone of bitter sarcasm, and who complains of its general dullness and\nprolixity, yet admits that it is \"often humorous, sometimes eloquent.\"\nIt certainly is not written in that lively, but rather superficial\nstyle, which has characterized many of the French writers, but it speaks\nin plain yet powerful language, evincing an extensive acquaintance with\nthe works of previous philosophers, and much thought in relation to the\nsubjects treated upon. Some of its pages exhibiting more vivacity than\nthe rest of the book, have been attributed to Diderot, who (it is\nalleged by Marmontel and others) aided, by his pen and counsel, many of\nthe Freethinking works issued during his life.\n\nThe \"System of Nature\" was not published during the life-time of\nMirabaud, and it is therefore impossible to use any argument which might\nhave been based upon Mirabaud's conduct in relation to it.\n\nMirabaud died in Paris in 1760, at the advanced age of nearly eighty-six\nyears. Contemporary with him were D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Voltaire,\nDiderot, Helvetius, Condorcet, Buffon, Rousseau, Frederick II. of\nPrussia, Montesquieu, Grimm, Sir William Tempte, Toland, Tindel, Edmund\nHalley, Hume, Gibbon, Adam Smith, Franklin, and Darwin, forming a _role_\nof names, whose fame will be handed down to posterity for centuries to\ncome, as workers in the cause of man's redemption from mental slavery.\nIf (as it appears very probably) it be the fact that Mirabaud had but\nlittle part in the authorship of \"La Syst\u00e8me de la Nature,\" D'Holbach,\nin using the name of his deceased friend, only associated him with a\nwork which (judging from his other writings, the tenor of his life, and\nthe noble character of his associates) Mirabaud would have issued with\npride himself, had the book been really written by him.\n\n\n\n\nBARON D'HOLBACH.\n\nPaul Thyry, Baron D'Holbach, was born at Heidesheim, in the Palatinate,\nin the month of January, 1723. His father appears to have been a\nvery wealthy man, and brought his son to Paris, for the purpose of\nsuperintending his education, but died white he was still a child. In\nhis youth, D'Holbach appears to have been noted for his studious habits\nand retentive faculties, and ultimately attained to some eminence in\nchemistry and mineralogy. He married when very young, and he had not\nbeen married one year when his wife died. He afterwards obtained a\ndispensation from the Pope, and married his deceased wife's sister, by\nwhom he had four children, two sons and two daughters.\n\nD'Holbach appeared to have spent the greater part of his life in Paris,\nand for forty years he assembled around his table, every Sunday, the\n_elite_ of the literary world, including nearly the whole of those who\ntook part in the first Encyclopedia. If that table were only in the\nhands of some of our spirit friends of the present day, what brilliant\nanecdotes might it not rap out--the sparkling wit of Diderot, the good\nhumor of out host, the hospitable and generous D'Holbach, the occasional\nbitterness of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the cautious expression of opinion\nby D'Alembert, the agreeable variety of Montesquieu, and the bold\nenthusiasm of the youthful but hardworking Naigeon! If ever a table were\ninclined to turn, this table should have been; but perhaps it may be\nthat tables never turn when reason is the ruler of those who sit around.\n\nIt seems more than probable that D'Holbach at first held opinions\ndiffering widely from those entertained by him during the later periods\nof his life, and it is asserted that Diderot contributed much to this\nchange of opinion. D'Holbach was an amiable man of the world, fond of\namusement, and without pretension; he was, notwithstanding, well versed\nin Roman and Grecian literature, mathematics, chemistry, botany, and\nmodern languages. He was generous to every one. \"I content myself,\" he\nsaid, \"with performing the disagreeable character of benefactor, when I\nam forced to it. I do not wish to be repaid my money; but I am pleased\nwhen I meet with some little gratitude, if it be only as proving that\nthe persons I have assisted were such sort of men as I desired.\"\n\nAlthough about forty-five works are now ascribed to D'Holbach, not\none of them was published during his life-time in his own name. The\nmanuscripts were taken to Amsterdam by Naigeon, and there printed by\nMichael Rey. D'Holbach never talked publicly of his literary productions\nhimself and his secrets seem to have been well kept by his friends.\nSeveral of the works were condemned and suppressed by the government;\nbut D'Holbach lived unsuspected and unmolested. The expression used by\nthe Avocat, General Seguier, in his r\u00e9quisitoire against the \"System\nof Nature\" is worthy of notice. The Avocat General said--\"The restless\nspirit of Infidelity, inimical to all dependence, endeavors to overthrow\nall political constitutions. Its wishes will not be satisfied until\nit has destroyed the _necessary_ inequality of rank and condition, and\nuntil it has degraded the majesty of kings, and rendered their authority\nsubordinate to the _caprices_ of the _mob_.\" Note the three words we\nhave italicised. For the first read unnecessary; for the second,\nvoice; for the third, peoples. We trust that Free-thought never will be\nsatisfied until it has destroyed the unnecessary inequalities of rank\nand condition, and rendered it impossible for the authority of kings to\nbe enforced in opposition to the voice of the people.\n\nThe following description of D'Holbach is given in a little\nsketch, published by Mr. Watson in 1834, as taken from Grimm's\n\"Correspondence:\"--\"D'Hol-bach's features were, taken separately,\nregular, and even handsome, yet he was not a handsome man. His forehead,\nlarge and open, like that of Diderot, indicated a vast and capacious\nmind; but his forehead having fewer sinuosities, less roundness than\nDiderot's, announced less warmth, less energy, and less fecundity of\nideas. A craniologist would say that in both D'Holbach and Diderot, the\nphilosophical organs were largely developed, but that Diderot excelled\nin ideality; D'Holbach's countenance only indicated mildness, and the\nhabitual sincerity of his mind. He was incapable of personal hatred.\nThough he detested priests and Jesuits, and all other supporters of\ndespotism and superstition; and though when speaking of such people, his\nmildness and good temper were sometimes transformed into bitterness and\nirritability; yet it is affirmed that when the Jesuits were expelled\nfrom France, D'Holbach regarded them as objects of commiseration and of\npity, and afforded them pecuniary assistance.\"\n\nThe titles of D'Holbach's works may be found in Barbier's \"Dictionary\nof Anonymous Works,\" and in St. Surins's article in the \"Biographie\nUniverselle,\" so in the little tract before mentioned as published by J.\nWatson. D'Holbach contributed largely to the first French Encyclopaedia,\nand other works of a like character. Of the \"System of Nature\" we have\nalready spoken, and shall rather leave our readers to the work itself\nthan take up more space in discussing its authorship.\n\nAfter having lived a life of comfort, in affluent circumstances,\nand always surrounded by a large circle of the best men of the day,\nD'Holbach died on January the 21st, 1789, being, then sixty-six years\nof age. The priests have never pictured to us any scene of horror\nin relation to his dying moments. The good old man died cheered and\nsupported in his last struggle by those men whom he had many times\nassisted in the hard fighting of the battle of life. J. A. Naigeon,\nwho had been his friend for thirty years; paid an eloquent tribute\nto D'Holbach's memory, in an article which appeared in the \"Journal de\nParis\" of February the 9th, 1789, and we are not aware that any man has\never written anything against D'Hol-bach's personal character.\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM \"THE SYSTEM OF NATURE.\"\n\nAlthough we may not attempt to express a decided opinion as to the\nauthorship of \"Le Syst\u00e8me de la Nature,\" we feel it our duty to present\nsome of its principal arguments to the consideration of our readers. The\nauthor opens his work with this passage:--\n\n\"Man always deceives himself when he abandons experience to follow\nimaginary systems. He is the work of nature. He exists in nature. He is\nsubmitted to her laws. He cannot deliver himself from them. He cannot\nstep beyond them even in thought. It is in vain his mind would spring\nforward beyond the visible world: an imperious necessity ever compels\nhis return--for a being formed by Nature, who is circumscribed by her\nlaws, there exists nothing beyond the great whole of which he forms a\npart, of which be experiences the influence. The beings his imagination\npictures as above Nature, or distinguished from her, are always\nchimeras formed after that which he has, already seen, but of which it\nis utterly impossible he should ever form any correct idea, either as to\nthe place they occupy, or their manner of acting--for him there is\nnot, there can be nothing out of that nature which includes all beings.\nInstead, therefore, of seeking out of the world he inhabits for beings\nwho can procure him a happiness denied by Nature, let him study this\nnature, learn her laws, contemplate her energies, observe the immutable\nrules by which she acts.\"\n\nSpeaking of the theological delusions under which many men labor, and of\nthe mode in which man has been surrounded by those delusions, he says:--\n\n\"His ignorance made him credulous: his curiosity made him swallow large\ndraughts of the marvellous: time confirmed him in his opinions, and he\npassed his conjectures from race to race, for realities; a tyrannical\npower maintained him in his notions, because by those alone could\nsociety be enslaved. It was in vain, that some faint glimmerings of\nNature occasionally attempted, the recall of his reason; that slight\ncorruscations of experience sometimes threw his darkness into light; the\ninterest of the few was bottomed on his enthusiasm; their pre-eminence\ndepended on his love of the wonderful; their very existence rested on\nthe solidity of his ignorance they consequently suffered no opportunity\nto escape, of smothering even the lambent flame. The many were thus\nfirst deceived into credulity, then coerced into submission. At length,\nthe whole science of man became a confused mass of darkness, falsehood,\nand contradictions, with here and there a feeble ray of truth, furnished\nby that Nature of which he can never entirely divest himself, because,\nwithout his knowledge, his necessities are continually bringing him back\nto her resources.\"\n\nHaving stated that by \"nature\" he means the \"great whole,\" our author\ncomplains of those who assert that matter is senseless, inanimate,\nunintelligent, etc., and says, \"Experience proves to us that the matter\nwhich we regard as inert or dead, assumes action, intelligence, and\nlife, when it is combined in a certain way:\"--\n\n\"If flour be wetted with water, and the mixture closed up, it will be\nfound, after some little lapse of time, by the aid of a microscope, to\nhave produced organized beings that enjoy life, of which the water and\nthe flour were believed incapable: it is thus that inanimate matter can\npass into life, or animate matter, which is in itself only an assemblage\nof motion. Reasoning from analogy, which the philosophers of the present\nday hold perfectly compatible, the production of a man, independent of\nthe ordinary means, would not be more marvellous than that of an insect\nwith flour and water. Fermentation and putrefaction evidently produce\nliving animals. We have here the principle; with proper materials,\nprinciples can always be brought into action. That generation which is\nstyled _equivocal_ is only so for those who do not reflect, or who\ndo not permit themselves, attentively, to observe the operations of\nNature.\"\n\nThis passage is much ridiculed by Voltaire, who asserts that it is\nfounded on some experiments made by one Needham, who placed some\nrye-meal in well-corked bottles, and some boiled mutton gravy in other\nbottles, and found that eels were produced in each. We do not know\nsufficient of the history of Needham's experiments, either to affirm or\ndeny their authenticity, but we feel bound to remind our readers of\nthe much-decried experiments conducted by Mr. Crosse, and which were\nafterwards verified by Mr. Weekes, of Sandwich. In these cases, insects\nwere produced by the action of a powerful voltaic battery upon a\nsaturated solution of silicate of potash, and upon ferro cyanuret\nof potassium. The insects were a species of acarus, minute and\nsemi-transparent, and furnished with long bristles, which could only be\nseen by the aid of the microscope. The sixth chapter treats of man, and\nthe author thus answers the question, \"What is man?\":--\n\n\"We say he is a material being, organized after a peculiar manner,\nconformed to a certain mode of thinking, of feeling, capable of\nmodification in certain modes peculiar to himself, to his organization,\nto that particular combination of matter which is found assembled in\nhim. If again it be asked, What origin we give to beings of the human\nspecies? We reply, that like all other beings, man is a production of\nnature, who resembles them in some respects, and finds himself submitted\nto the same laws; who differs from them in other respects, and follows\nparticular laws determined by the diversity of his conformation. If then\nit be demanded, Whence came man? We answer, our experience on this\nhead does not capacitate us to resolve the question; but that it cannot\ninterest us, as it suffices for us to know that man exists, that he is\nso constituted as to be competent to the effects we witness.\"\n\nIn the seventh chapter the author, treating of the soul and spirit\nsays:--\n\n\"The doctrine of spirituality, such as it now exists, offers nothing\nbut vague ideas, or, rather, is the absence of all ideas. What does it\npresent to the mind but a substance which possesses nothing of which our\nsenses enable us to have a knowledge? Can it be truth, that man is able\nto figure to himself a being not material, having neither extent nor\nparts; which, nevertheless, acts upon matter without having any point\nof contact, any kind of analogy with it; and which itself receives the\nimpulse of matter by means of material organs, which announce to it the\npresence of other beings? Is it possible to conceive the union of the\nsoul with the body; to comprehend how this material body can bind,\nenclose, constrain, determine a fugitive being, which escapes all our\nsenses? Is it honest, is it plain dealing, to solve these difficulties,\nby saying there is a mystery in them, that they are the effects of a\npower more inconceivable than the human soul, than its mode of acting,\nhowever concealed from our view? When to resolve these problems, man is\nobliged to have recourse to miracles, to make the Divinity interfere,\ndoes he not avow his own ignorance? When notwithstanding the ignorance\nhe is thus obliged to avow by availing himself of the divine agency,\nhe tells us, this immaterial substance, this soul, shall experience the\naction of the element of fire, which he allows to be material; when\nhe confidently says, this soul shall be burnt; shall suffer in\npurgatory--have we not a right to believe, that either he has a design\nto deceive us, or else that he does not himself understand that which he\nis so anxious we shall take upon his word?\"\n\nThe ninth chapter, after treating of the diversity of the intellectual\nfaculties, proceeds, \"Man at his birth brings with him into the world\nnothing but the necessity of conserving himself, of rendering his\nexistence happy; instruction, examples, the custom of the world, present\nhim with the means, either real or imaginary, of achieving it; habit\nprocures for him the facility of employing these means:\"--\n\n\"In order that man may become virtuous, it is absolutely requisite that\nhe should have an interest, that he should find advantages in practicing\nvirtue. For this end, it is necessary that education should implant in\nhim reasonable ideas; that public opinion should lean towards virtue, as\nthe most desirable good; that example should point it out as the object\nmost worthy of esteem; that government should faithfully recompense,\nshould regularly reward it; that honor should always accompany its\npractice; that vice should constantly be despised; that crime should\ninvariably be punished. Is virtue in this situation amongst men!\nDoes the education of man infuse into him just, faithful ideas of\nhappiness--true notions of virtue---dispositions really favorable to the\nbeings with whom he is to live? The examples spread before him, are\nthey suitable to innocence of manners? Are they calculated to make him\nrespect decency, to cause him to love probity, to practice honesty,\nto value good faith, to esteem equity, to revere conjugal fidelity,\nto observe exactitude in fulfilling his duties? Religion, which alone\npretends to regulate his manners, does it render him sociable? does\nit make him pacific? does it teach him to be humane? The arbiters, the\nsovereigns of society, are they faithful in recompensing punctual in\nrewarding, those who have best served their country, in punishing\nthose who have pillaged, who have robbed, who have plundered, who have\ndivided, who have ruined it? Justice, does she hold her scales with\na firm, with an even hand, between all the citizens of the state? The\nlaws, do they never support the strong against the weak, favor the rich\nagainst the poor, uphold the happy against the miserable? In short, is\nit an uncommon spectacle to behold crime frequently justified, often\napplauded, sometimes crowned with success, insolently triumphing,\narrogantly striding over that merit which it disdains, over that virtue\nwhich it outrages? Well, then, in societies thus constituted, virtue\ncan only be heard by a very small number of peaceable citizens, a few\ngenerous souls, who know how to estimate its value, who enjoy it in\nsecret. For the others, it is only a disgusting object; they see in\nit nothing but the supposed enemy to their happiness, or the censor of\ntheir individual conduct.\"\n\nIn the tenth chapter, which is upon the soul, the author says:--\n\n\"The diversity in the temperament of man, is natural, the necessary\nsource of the diversity of passions, of his taste, of his ideas of\nhappiness, of his opinions of every kind. Thus this same diversity\nwill be the fatal source of his disputes--of his hatreds--of his\ninjustice--every time he shall reason upon unknown objects, but to which\nhe shall attach the greatest importance. He will never understand either\nhimself or others, in speaking of a spiritual soul, or of immaterial\nsubstances distinguished from nature; he will, from that moment, cease\nto speak the same language, and he will never attach the same ideas to\nthe same words. What then shall be the common standard that shall decide\nwhich is the man that thinks with the greatest justice?\n\n\"Propose to a man to change his religion for yours, he will believe you\na madman; you will only excite his indignation, elicit his contempt; he\nwill propose to you, in his turn, to adopt his own peculiar opinions;\nafter much reasoning, you will treat each other as absurd beings,\nridiculously opinionated, pertinaciously stubborn; and he will display\nthe least folly who shall first yield. But if the adversaries become\nheated in the dispute, which always happens, when they suppose the\nmatter important, or when they would defend the cause of their own\nself-love, from thence their passions sharpen, they grow angry, quarrels\nare provoked, they hate each other, and end by reciprocal injury. It\nis thus that for opinions, which no man can demonstrate, we see the\nBrachman despised; the Mahomedan hated; the Pagan held in contempt; that\nthey oppress and disdain each with the most raucorous animosity: the\nChristian burns the Jew at what is called an _Auto-da-fe_, because he\nclings to the faith of his fathers; the Roman Catholic condemns the\nProtestant to the flames, and makes a conscience of massacreing(sp.) him\nin cold blood; this re-acts in his turn; sometimes the various sects\nof Christians league together against the incredulous Turk, and for\na moment suspend their own bloody disputes that they may chastise the\nenemies to the true faith: then, having glutted their revenge, return\nwith redoubied fury, to wreak over again their infuriated vengeance on\neach other.\"\n\nThe thirteenth chapter argues as follows, against the doctrine of the\nimmortality of the soul and a future state:--\n\n\"In old age, man extinguishes entirely, his fibres become rigid, his\nnerves lose their elasticity, his senses are obtunded, his sight grows\ndim, his ears lose their quickness, his ideas become unconnected, his\nmemory fails, his imagination cools,--what, then, becomes of his soul.\nAlas! it sinks down with the body, it gets benumbed as this loses its\nfeeling, becomes sluggish as this decays in activity; like it, when\nenfeebled by years, it fulfils its functions with pain; this substance,\nwhich is deemed spiritual, which is considered immaterial, which it is\nendeavored to distinguish from matter, undergoes the same revolutions,\nexperiences the same vicissitudes, submits to the name modifications as\ndoes the body itself. In despite of this proof of the materiality of the\nsoul, of its identity with the body so convincing to the unprejudiced,\nsome thinkers have supposed that although the latter is perishable, the\nformer does not perish; that this portion of man enjoys the especial\nprivilege of immortality; that it is exempt from dissolution; free from\nthose changes of form all the beings in nature undergo: in consequence\nof this, man is persuaded himself that this privileged soul does not\ndie.\n\n\"It will be asked, perhaps, by what road has man been conducted to form\nto himself gratuitous ideas of another world. I reply, that it is a\ntruth man has no idea of a future life; they are the ideas of the past\nand the present, that furnish his imagination with the materials of\nwhich he constructs the edifice of the regions of futurity. Hobbes says,\n'We believe that, that which is will always be, and that the same causes\nwill have the same effects.' Man in his actual state has two modes\nof feeling--one, that he approves; another, that he disapproves: thus\npersuaded that these two modes of feeling must accompany him even\nbeyond his present existence, he placed in the regions of eternity two\ndistinguished abodes; one destined to felicity; the other to misery: the\none must contain those who obey the calls of superstition, who believe\nin its dogmas; the other is a prison, destined to avenge the cause\nof heaven on all those who shall not faithfully believe the doctrines\npromulgated by the ministers of a vast variety of superstitions. Has\nsufficient attention been paid to the fact that results as a necessary\nconsequence from this reasoning; which on examination will be found\nto have rendered the first place entirely useless, seeing, that by\nthe number and contradiction of these various systems, let man believe\nwhichever he may, let him follow it in the most faithful manner, still\nhe must be ranked as an Infidel, as a rebel to the divinity; because\nhe cannot believe in all; and those from which he dissents, by a\nconsequence of their own creed, condemn him to the prison-house?--Such\nis the origin of the ideas upon a future life, so diffused among\nmankind. Everywhere may be seen an Elysium, and a Tartarus, a Paradise\nand a Hell; in a word, two distinguished abodes, constructed according\nto the imagination of the enthusiasts who have invented them; who have\naccommodated them to their own peculiar prejudices, to the hopes, to the\nfears of the people who believe in them. The Indian figures the first of\nthese abodes as one of inaction, of permanent repose, because, being the\ninhabitant of a hot climate, he has learned to contemplate rest as the\nextreme of felicity: the Mussulman promises himself corporeal pleasures,\nsimilar to those that actually constitute the object of his research in\nthis life: each figures to himself that on which he has learned to set\nthe greatest value.\"\n\n\"As for the miserable abode of souls, the imagination of fanatics,\nwho were desirous of governing the people, strove to assemble the most\nfrightful images to render it still more terrible; fire is of all things\nthat which produces in man the most pungent sensation; not finding\nanything more cruel, the enemies to the several dogmas were to be\neverlastingly punished with this torturing element: fire, therefore, was\nthe point at which their imagination was obliged to stop; the ministers\nof the various systems agreed pretty generally, that fire would one day\navenge their offended divinities; thus, they painted the victims to the\nanger of the gods, or rather those who questioned their own creeds,\nas confined in fiery dungeons; as perpetually rolling into a vortex of\nbituminous flames; as plunged in unfathomable gulfs of liquid sulphur;\nmaking the infernal caverns resound with their useless groanings, with\ntheir unavailing gnashing of teeth. But it will, perhaps, be inquired,\nhow could man reconcile himself to the belief of an existence\naccompanied with eternal torments; above all, as many according to their\nown superstitions had reason to fear it for themselves--Many causes\nhave concurred to make him adopt so revolting an opinion: in the first\nplace, very few thinking men have ever believed such an absurdity,\nwhen they have deigned to make use of their reason; or, when they have\naccredited it, this notion was always counterbalanced by the idea of\nthe goodness, by a reliance on the mercy, which they attributed to their\nrespective divinities: in the second place, those who were blinded by\ntheir fears never rendered to themselves any account of these strange\ndoctrines which they either received with awe from their legislators,\nor which were transmitted to them by their fathers; in the third place,\neach sees the object of his terrors only at a favorable distance;\nmoreover, superstition promises him the means of escaping the tortures\nhe believes he has merited.\"\n\nWe conclude by quoting the following eloquent passage:--\n\n\"Oh! Nature! sovereign of all beings! and ye, her adorable daughters,\nVirtue, Reason, and Truth! remain forever our reverend protectors. It is\nto you that belong the praises of the human race; to you appertains the\nhomage of the earth. Show us, then, oh! Nature! that which man ought\nto do, in order to obtain the happiness which thou makest him\ndesire.--Virtue! animate him with thy beneficent fire! Reason! conduct\nhis uncertain steps through the paths of life. Truth! let thy torch\nillumine his intellect, dissipate the darkness of his road.... Banish\nerror from our mind, wickedness from our hearts, confusion from our\nfootsteps. Cause knowledge to extend its salubrious reign, goodness to\noccupy our souls, serenity to dwell in our bosoms.... Let our eyes,\nso long either dazzled or blindfolded, be at length fixed upon those\nobjects we ought to seek. Dispel forever those mists of ignorance, those\nhideous phantoms, together with those seducing chimeras, which only\nserve to lead us astray. Extricate us from that dark abyss into which\nwe are plunged by superstition, overthrow the fatal empire of delusion,\ncrumble the throne of falsehood, wrest from their polluted hands the\npower they have usurped.\"\n\n\n\n\nROBERT TAYLOR.\n\nMany of the readers of this number will, from their own memories, be\nbetter able to do justice to him, whom Henry Hunt named \"The Devil's\nChaplain,\" than we shall in our limited space. Robert Taylor was born at\nEdmonton, in the county of Middlesex, on the 18th of August, 1784.\nHis family was highly respectable, and his parents were in affluent\ncircumstances; but, being a younger son in a family of eleven children,\nit was necessary that Robert Taylor should follow some profession. His\nfather died when he was about seven years old, leaving him under the\nguardianship of a paternal uncle. When seventeen years of age, he was\napprenticed to a surgeon, at Birmingham, and studied medicine afterwards\nunder Sir Astley Cooper and Mr. Clive, passing the College of Surgeons\nwith considerable _eclat_. When about twenty-three, he became acquainted\nwith the Rev. Thomas Cotterell, a clergyman of the Established Church,\nof high evangelical principles, who induced him to quit physic for\nmetaphysics, and in 1809 Robert Taylor entered Saint John's College,\nCambridge, and in 1813 took his degree of Bachelor of Arts. He was\npublicly complimented by the Master of the College as a singular honor\nto the University in his scholarship, and was ordained on the 14th of\nMarch, 1813, by the bishop of Chichester; from that time until 1818,\nTaylor officiated as curate at Midhurst. Here he became acquainted with\na person named Ayling who held Deistical opinions, and who induced\nTaylor to read various Free-thinking works; this soon resulted in an\navowal of Deism on the part of Taylor, who tendered his resignation to\nhis Bishop. His friends and family were much alarmed, and much pressure\nwas brought to bear upon him, and we regret to state that it had the\neffect of producing a temporary recantation. This, however, brought\nTaylor no relief; he found himself in distress, and shunned by his\nfamily. Through the kindness of an old friend, he obtained the curacy of\nYardley, near Birmingham, but his previous apostacy having reached the\nears of the Bishop, the necessary license was refused, and the rector\nreceived a peremptory notice to dismiss Taylor. This harsh treatment\ncaused a reaction, and while the rector sought another curate, Taylor\npreached a series of sermons, by means of which he shook the faith of\nnearly the whole of his congregation. The following is an abstract of\nhis last sermon at Yardley:--\n\n\"The text was, 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the\nwhale's belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in\nthe heart of the earth.'--Matt, xii., 40. He began, 'Then this glorious\nmiracle of the man having been swallowed alive by a fish, and remaining\nalive for seventy-two hours, undigested and unhurt, in the fish's\nbowels, and being vomited up unhurt and safe upon the dry land, was as\ntrue as the gospel; and consequently the gospel was as true, but not\nmore true, than this sea-sick miracle. He inferred that no person could\nhave a right to pretend to believe in the death and resurrection of\nChrist, who had the least doubt as to the reality of the deglutition and\nevomition of the prophet Jonah. As to the natural improbabilities and\nphysical impossibilities of this very wonderful Bible miracle, these\nwere nothing in the way of a true and lively faith. Where miracles of\nany sort were concerned, there could be no distinction into the greater\nand the less, since infinite power was as necessary to the reality of\nthe least as to the greatest. We should never forget that it was the\nLord who prepared the fish, and prepared him for the express purpose of\nswallowing the man, and probably gave him a little opening physic, to\ncleanse the apartment for the accommodation of its intended tenant; and\nhad the purpose been, that the whole ship and all the crew should have\nbeen swallowed as well as he, there's no doubt that they could have been\nequally well accommodated. But as to what some wicked Infidels objected,\nabout the swallow of the whale being too narrow to admit the passage of\nthe man, it only required a little stretching, and even a herring or\na sprat might have gulped him. He enlarged, most copiously, on the\ncircumstance of the Lord speaking to the fish, in order to cause him to\nvomit; and insisted on the natural efficacy of the Lord, which was\nquite enough to make anybody sick. He pointed out the many interesting\nexamples of faith and obedience which had been set by the scaly race,\nwho were not only at all times easy to be caught in the gospel net, when\nthrown over them by the preaching of the word, but were always ready to\nsurrender their existence to the Almighty, whenever he pleased to drop\n'em a line. That as the first preachers of the gospel were fishermen,\nso the preachers of the gospel, to this day, might truly be said to\nbe looking after the loaves and fishes, and they who, as the Scripture\nsays, are 'wise to catch soles,' speak to them for no other purpose than\nthat for which the Lord spake unto the whale--that is, to ascertain how\nmuch they can swallow. The moral of this pungent persiflage, aimed\nto admonish the proud and uncharitable believer, who expected his\nacceptance with the deity on the score of his credulity, that when his\ncredulity was fairly put to trial, it might be found that he was in\nreality as far from believing what he did not take to be true as the\nmost honest and avowed Infidel. 'Thou then who wouldst put a trick\nupon infinite wisdom, and preferest the imagined merit of a weak\nunderstanding to the real utility of an honest heart--thou who wouldst\n\n     'Compound for sins thou art inclined to,\n     By damning those thou hast no mind to;'\n\nhast thou no fears for thy presumptuous self? Thou believest only that\nwhich seemeth to thee to be true; what does the Atheist less? And that\nwhich appeareth to be a lie thou rejectest; what does the Atheist more?\nCan we think that God has given us reason only to betray us, and made\nus so much superior to the brute creation, only to deal with us so much\nworse than they, to punish us for making the best use we could of the\nfaculties he has given us, and to make the very excellence of our nature\nthe cause of our damnation?'\"\n\nThis concluded his connection with the Church of England, and his\nbrother having consented to make him an allowance of one pound per week\nif he would quit England, he retired to the Isle of Man. After nine\nweeks his brother ceased to remit; and to support himself, Taylor wrote\nfor the two newspapers then published in the island, but his articles\nattracting attention, he was summoned before the Bishop, and compelled\nto quit the island under a threat of imprisonment. In deep distress, he\nwent to Dublin, where he lectured on Deism until 1824, when he came to\nLondon, and founded the Christian Evidence Society.\n\nMany of the discourses delivered by him were printed in \"The Lion.\"\nwhich was first published in 1828. In 1827 Mr. Taylor was tried at\nGuildhall for blasphemy, and was sentenced to imprisonment in Oakham\ngaol for one year. In Oakham he wrote \"The Diegesis\" and \"Syntagma.\"\nAfter his release from prison in 1829, he, together with Richard\nCarlile, made a tour through England on an Infidel mission, commencing\nwith a challenge to the Cambridge University. In 1830 and 1831 he\ndelivered a series of discourses, which are printed together under the\ntitle of \"The Devil's Pulpit.\" On the 4th July, 1831, he was again\ntried for blasphemy and sentenced to two years' imprisonment In 1833\nhe delivered a number of discourses, which were printed in the\n\"Philalethean.\" He was the friend and companion of Richard Carlile for\nseveral years. It is difficult to quote from Robert Taylor's works,\nunless at the risk of doing him great injustice, and we must therefore\nrefer our readers to the works we have named. The following is from\n\"The Devil's Pulpit:\"--\n\n\"The gentlemen who distribute religious tracts, the general body of\ndissenting preachers, and almost all persons engaged in the trade\nof religion, imagine themselves to have a mighty advantage against\nInfidels, upon the strength of that last and reckless argument--that\nwhether the Christian religion be true or false, there can be no harm in\nbelieving; and that belief is, at any rate, the safe side. Now, to say\nnothing of this old Popish argument, which a sensible man must see\nis the very essence of Popery, and would oblige us to believe all the\nabsurdities and nonsense in the world: inasmuch as if there be no harm\nin believing, and there be some harm and danger in not believing, the\nmore we believe the better: and all the argument necessary for any\nreligion whatever would be, that it should frighten us out of our wits:\nthe more terrible, the more true: and it would be our duty to become\nthe converts of that religion whatever it might be, whose priests could\nswear the loudest, and damn and curse the fiercest. But I am here to\ngrapple with this Popery in disguise, this wolfish argument in sheepish\nclothing, upon Scriptural ground, and on Scriptural ground only; taking\nthe Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, for this argument's sake,\nto be divine authority. The question proposed is, 'Whether is the\nbeliever or the unbeliever the more likely to be saved, taking the\nScriptures to be of divine authority!' And I stand here, on this divine\nauthority, to prove that the unbeliever is the more likely to be saved:\nthat unbelief, and not belief, is the safe side, and that a man is more\nlikely to be damned for believing the gospel, and because of his having\nbelieved it, than for rejecting and despising it, as I do.... But, if a\npatient hearing be more than good Christians be minded to give us, when\nthus advance to meet them on their own ground, their impatience and\nintolerance itself will supply the evidence and demonstration of the\nfact, that, after all, they dare not stand to the text of their own\nbook, that it is not the Bible that they go by, nor God whom they\nregard: but that they want to be God-a'-mighties themselves, and would\nhave us take their words for God's words; you must read it as they read\nit, and understand it as they understand it: you must 'skip, and go on,'\njust where a hard word comes in the way of the sense they choose to put\nupon it: you must believe what the book contains, what you see with your\nown eyes that it does not contain: you must shut your eyes, and not see\nwhat it does contain; or you'll be none the nearer the mark of their\nliking.... Taking the authority of Scripture, for this argument's sake,\nto be decisive, I address the believer who would give himself airs of\nsuperiority, would chuckle in an imaginary safety in believing, and\npresume to threaten the unbeliever as being in a worse case, or more\ndangerous plight, than he. 'Hast thou no fears for thy presumptuous\nself?' when on the showing of thine own book, the safety (if safety\nthere be) is all on the unbelieving side? When for any one text that can\nbe produced, seeming to hold out any advantage or safety in believing,\nwe can produce two in which the better hope is held out to the\nunbeliever? For any one apparent exhortation to believe, we can produce\ntwo forbiddances to believe, and many threaten-ings of God's vengeance\nto, and for the crime and folly of, believing. To this proof I proceed,\nby showing you:--1st. What the denunciations of God's vengeance are:\nwith no comment of mine, but in the words of the text itself. 2d. That\nthese dreadful denunciations are threatened to believers: and that they\nare not threatened to unbelievers. And 3d. That all possible advantages\nand safety, which believing could confer on any man, are likely, and\nmore likely to be conferred on the unbeliever than on the believer. That\nthe danger of the believer is so extreme, that no greater danger can\npossibly be. 1st. What are the denunciations of God's vengeance! 'There\nare' (says the holy Revelation, xiv. 10,) 'who shall drink of the wine\nof the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of\nhis indignation, and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, and the\nsmoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever: and they have no\nrest day or night.' There's 'glad tidings of great joy' for you! The\nChristian may get, over the terror of this denunciation by the selfish\nand ungenerous chuckle of his 'Ah! well, these were very wicked people,\nand must have deserved their doom; it need not alarm us: it doesn't\napply to us.' But good-hearted men would rather say, 'It does apply.\nWe cannot be indifferent to the misery of our fellow-creatures. The\nself-same Heaven that frowns on them, looks lowering upon us.' And who\nwere they? and what was their offence? Was it Atheism! was it Deism'\nwas it Infidelity? No! It was for church and chapel-going; it was for\nadoring, believing, and worshipping. They worshipped the beast: I know\nnot what beast they worshipped; but I know that if you go into any of\nour churches and chapels at this day, you will find them worshipping the\nLamb; and if worshipping a lamb be not most suspiciously like worshiping\na beast, you may keep the color in your cheeks, while mine are blanched\nwith fear. The unbeliever only can be absolutely safe from this danger.\nHe only who has no religion at all, is sure not to be of the wrong\nreligion. He who worships neither God nor Devil, is sure not to mistake\none of those gentlemen for the other. But will it be pretended, that\nthese are only metaphors of speech, that the thing said is not the\nthing that's meant? Why, then, they are very ugly metaphors. And what is\nsaying that which you don't mean, and meaning the contrary to what you\nsay, but lying? And what worse can become of the Infidel, who makes it\nthe rule of his life 'to hear and speak the plain and simple truth,'\nthan of the Christian, whose religion itself is a system of metaphors\nand allegories, of double meanings, of quirk and quiddities in dread\ndefiance of the text that warns him, that 'All liars shall have their\npart in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone?' Rev. xxi. 8.\n\n\"Is it a parable that a man may merely entertain his imagination withal,\nand think no more on't,--though not a word be hinted about a parabolical\nsignification, and the text stands in the mouth of him who, we are told,\nwas the truth itself? And he it is who brought life and immortality to\nlight, that hath described in the 16th of Luke, such an immortality as\nthat of one who was a sincere believer, a son of Abraham, who took the\nBible for the rule of his life, and was anxious to promote the salvation\nof his brethren, yet found for himself no Saviour, no salvation; but,\n'In Hell he lifted up his eyes being in torment: and saith Father\nAbraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip\nof his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in\nthis flame.' But that request was refused. 'Then he said, I pray thee,\ntherefore, Father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house; for\nI have five brethren, that he may testify unto them, lest they also come\nto this place of torment.' But that request was refused. There's 'glad\ntidings of great joy' for you! That the believer's danger of coming\nor going into that place of torment is so great, that greater cannot\npossibly be: and that his belief will stand him in no stead at all,\nbut make his plight a thousand times worse than if he had not been a\nbeliever; and that unbelief is the safer side--Christ himself being\njudge--I quote no words but his to prove. Is the believer concerned\nto save his soul, then shall he most assuredly be damned for being so\nconcerned: for Christ hath said, 'Whosoever will save his soul shall\nlose it.' Matthew xvi. 25. Is the believer a complete beggar? If he be\nnot so, if he hath a rag that he doth call his own, he will be damned\nto all eternity. For Christ hath said, 'Whosoever he be of you who\nforsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.' Luke xiv.\n33. Is the believer a rich man? and dreams he of going to Heaven? It is\neasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.' Matthew xix. 24.\nIs he a man at all, then he cannot be saved, for Christ hath said, 'Thou\nbelievest that there is one God;' saith St. James, 'Thou dost well, the\nDevils also believe and tremble.' 2 James xix. And so much good, and\nno more, than comes to damned spirits in the flames of Hell, is all the\ngood that ever did and can come of believing. 'For though thou hadst\nall faith, so that thou couldst remove mountains,' saith St. Paul, 'It\nshould profit thee nothing.' 1 Cor. xiii. 2. Well, then! let the good\nChristian try what saving his prayers will do for him: this is the good\nthat they'!! do for him; and he hath Christ's own word to comfort him\nin't, 'He shall receive the greater damnation.' Luke xx. 47. Well, then,\nsince believing will not save him, since faith will not save him, since\nprayer will not save him, but all so positively make things all the\nworse, and none the better, there's one other chance for him. Let him go\nand receive the Sacrament, the most comfortable Sacrament, you know,\n'of the body and blood of Christ,' remembering, as all good communicants\nshould, 'that he is not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs that\nfall from that table.' 'Truth, Lord! But the dogs eat of the crumbs that\nfall from their master's table!' O what happy dogs! But let those dogs\nremember, that it is also truth, that 'He that eateth and drinketh\nunworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.' 1 Cor. xvi. 29. O\nwhat precious eating and drinking!\n\n     \"'My God! and is thy table spread;\n     And doth thy cup with love o'erflow?\n     Thither be all the children led,\n     And let them all thy sweetness know.'\n\n\"That table is a snare, that cup is deadly poison that bread shall\nsend thy soul to Hell. Well, then! try again, believer: perhaps you had\nbetter join the Missionary Society, and subscribe to send these glad\ntidings of these blessed privileges, and this jolly eating and drinking,\nto the Heathen. Why, then; you have Christ's own assurance, that when\nyou shall have made one proselyte, you shall just have done him the\nkindness of making him twofold more the child of Hell than yourself.\nMat. xxiii. 15. Is the believer liable to the ordinary gusts of passion,\nand in a passion shall he drop the hasty word, 'thou fool!' for that one\nword 'he shall be in danger of Hell fire.' Mat. v. 22. Nay, Sirs! this\nisn't the worst of the believer's danger. Would he but keep his legs and\narms together, and spare his own eyes and limbs; he doth by that very\nmercy to himself damn his eyes and limbs--and hath Christ's assurance\nthat it would have been profitable for him rather to have plucked out\nhis eyes, and chopt off his limbs, and so to have wriggled and groped\nhis way through the 'Straight gate and the narrow way that leadeth unto\nlife,' than having two eyes and two arms, or two legs, to be cast into\nHell, into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their 'worm\ndieth not, and the fire is not quenched.' Mark ix. 43. Well, then! will\nthe believer say, what were all the miracles and prophecies of both\nthe Old and the New Testament for those unquestionable miracles, and\nclearly-accomplished prophecies, if it were not that men should believe?\nWhy, absolutely, they were the very arguments appointed by God himself\nto show us that men should not believe, but that damnation should be\ntheir punishment if they did believe. 'To the law and the testimony.'\"\nSirs! These are the very words:--'Of miracles, saith God's word, 'They\nare the spirits of devils, that work miracles.' Rev. xvi. 14. And it\nis the Devil who 'deceiveih them which dwell on the earth, by means of\nthose miracles which he hath power to do.' Rev. xiii. 14. So much for\nmiracles. Is it on the score of prophets and of prophecies, then, that\nyou will take believing to be the safe side? Then 'thus saith the Lord\nof Hosts, the God of Israel, the prophets prophesy falsely and the\npriests bear rule by their means.' Jer. v. 31. 'The prophet is a fool:\nthe spiritual man is mad.' Hosea i. 7. 'Thus saith the Lord of Hosts:\nhearken not unto the prophets.' Jer. xxiii. 15. 'O Israel, thy prophets\nare like the foxes of the desert.' Ezekiel xiii. 4. 'They lie unto\nthee.' Jerem. xiv. 14. 'And they shall be tormented day and night\nforever and ever.' Rev. xx. 10. 'And the punishment of the prophet shall\nbe even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.' Ezekiel xiv.\n10. Nay more, then, it is, when God hath determined to damn men, that\nhe, in every instance, causeth them to become believers, and to have\nfaith in divine Revelation, in order that they may be damned. Believers,\nand none but believers, becoming liable to damnation; believers and none\nbut believers, being capable of committing that unpardonable sin against\nthe Holy Ghost, which hath never forgiveness, neither in this world nor\nin that which is to come. 'Whereas all other kinds of blasphemy shall\nbe forgiven unto men, and all sorts of blasphemy wherewith soever they\nshall blaspheme. But there is no forgiveness for believers.' Mark\niii. 28. For it is written, 'For this cause God shall send them strong\ndelusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be\ndamned.' 2 Thessal. ii. 11. So when it was determined by God that the\nwicked Ahab should perish, the means to bring him to destruction, both\nof body and soul, was to make him become a believer.\n\n\"I offer no comment of my own on words so sacred; but these are the\nwords: 'Hear thou, therefore, the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord\nsitting upon his throne, and all the hosts of Heaven standing by him on\nhis right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, who shall persuade\nAhab that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? and one said on this\nmanner, and another said on that manner. And there stood forth a spirit,\nand stood before the Lord, and said: I will persuade him. And the\nLord said unto him wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will\nbe a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said,\nthou shalt persuade him, and prevail also. Go forth and do so. Now,\ntherefore, behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all\nthy prophets.' 1 kings xxii. 22. There were 400 of 'em; they were 'the\ngoodly-fellowship of the prophets for you; all of them inspired by the\nspirit from on high, and all of them lying as fast as they could lie.'\nSo much for getting on the safe side by believing. Had Ahab been an\nInfidel, he would have saved his soul alive. As it was, we may address\nhim in the words of St. Paul to just such another fool, 'King Ahab,\nbelievest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest: but no better\nthan I know, that for that very belief, fell slaughter on thy soul: and\nwhere thou soughtest to be saved by believing, it was by believing\nthou wert damned.' So when Elijah had succeeded in converting the 450\nworshippers of Baal, who had been safe enough while they were Infidels,\nand they began crying, 'the Lord He is God, the Lord He is God:' the\nmoment they got into the right faith, they found themselves in the\nwrong box; and the prophet, by the command of God, put a stop to their\nLord-Godding, by cutting their throats for 'em, 'Elijah brought them\ndown to the brook of Kishon, and slew them there.' 1 Kings xviii. 40.\nOh! what a blessed thing, you see, to be converted to the true faith!\nThus all the sins and crimes that have been committed in the world, and\nall God's judgments upon sin and sinners have been the consequence of\nreligion, and faith, and believing. What was the first sin committed\nin the world? It was believing. Had our great mother Eve not been a\nbelieving credulous fool, she would not have been in the transgression.\nWho was the first reverend divine that began preaching about God and\nimmortality? It was the Devil. What was the first lie that was ever\ntold, the very damning and damnable lie? It was the lie told to make\nfolks believe that they would not be dead when they were dead, that they\nshould not surely die, but that they should be as gods, and live in a\nfuture state of existence. 'When God himself hath declared, that there\nis no future state of existence: that 'Dust thou art, and unto dust\nshalt thou return.' Who is it, then, that prefers believing in the Devil\nrather than in God, but the believer?--And from whom is the hope of a\nfuture state derived, but from the father of lies--the Devil? But if in\ndefiance of so positive a declaration of Almighty God, men will have it\nthat there is a future state of existence after death, who are they who\nshall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven,\nbut unbelievers, let them come from the north, from the south, from the\neast, or from the west? And who are they that shall be cast out, but\nbelievers, 'the children of the kingdom?' As St. Peter very charitably\ncalls them, 'cursed children.' 2 Peter ii. 14. That is, I suppose,\nchildren with beards, children that never grew to sense enough to put\naway childish things, but did in gawky manhood, like new-born babes,\ndesire the pure milk and lollipop of the gospel. 'For of such is the\nkingdom of Heaven.' And who are they whom Christ will set upon his\nright hand, and to whom he will say, 'Come ye blessed of my father!' but\nunbelievers, who never troubled their minds about religion, and never\ndarkened the doors of a gospel shop? But who are they to whom he will\nsay, 'Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and\nhis angels,' but believers, every one of them believers, chapel-going\nfolks, Christ's blood men, and incorrigible bigots, that had been\nbothering him all their days with their 'Lord! Lord!' to come off at\nlast with no better reward of their faith than that he will protest unto\nthem, I never knew ye.\n\n\"One text there is, and only one, against ten thousand of a contrary\nsignificancy: which, being garbled and torn from its context, seems,\nfor a moment, to give the advantage to the believer; the celebrated 19th\nchapter of Mark, v. 16:--'He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be\nsaved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.' But little will this\nserve the deceitful hope of the Christian, for it is immediately added.\nAnd these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they\ncast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up\nserpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;\nthey shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.' Can the\nChristian show these signs, or any of them? Will he dare to take-up a\nserpent, or drink prussic acid? If he hesitate, he is not a believer,\nand his profession of belief is a falsehood. Let belief confer what\nprivilege it may, he hath no part nor lot in the matter; the threat\nwhich he denounces against Infidels hangs over himself, and he hath no\nsign of salvation to show. Believing the gospel, then, (or rather,\nI should say, professing to believe it, for I need not tell you that\nthere's a great deal more professing to believe, than believing,)\ninstead of making a man the more likely to be saved, doubles his danger\nof damnation, inasmuch as Christ hath said, that 'the last state of that\nman shall be worse than the first.' Luke xi. 26. And his holy apostle\nPeter addeth, 'It would have been better for them not to have known the\nway (2 Peter ii. 21) of righteousness.' The sin of believing makes all\nother sins that a man can commit so much the more heinous and offensive\nin the sight of God, inasmuch as they are sins against light and\nknowledge: and 'the servant who knew his Lord's will, and did it not, he\nshall be beaten with many stripes.' Luke xii. 47. While unbelief is not\nonly innocent in itself, but so highly pleasing to Almighty God, that it\nis represented as the cause of his forgiveness of things which otherwise\nwould not be forgiven. Thus St. Paul, who had been a blasphemer, a\npersecutor, and injurious, assures us that it was for this cause he\nobtained mercy, 'because he did it ignorantly in unbelief.' 1 Tim. i.\n13. Had he been a believer, he would as surely have been damned as his\nname was Paul. And 'tis the gist of his whole argument, and the express\nwords of the 11th of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'God included them\nall in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.' Unbelief being the\nessential qualification and recommendation to God's mercy: not without\ngood reason was it that the pious father of the boy that had the devil\nin him, when he had need of Christ's mercy, and knew that unbelief\nwould be the best title to it, cried out and said with tears, 'Lord,\nI believe, help thou mine unbelief!' Mark ix. 24. While the Apostles\nthemselves, who were most immediately near and dear to Christ, no more\nbelieved the Gospel than I do; and for all they have said and preached\nabout it, they never believed it themselves, as Christ told 'em that\nthey hadn't so much faith as a grain of mustard seed. And the evangelist\nJohn bears them record, to their immortal honor; that 'though Christ had\ndone so many miracles among them, yet believed they not.' John xii. 37.\nAnd the same divine authority assures us that 'neither did his brethren\nbelieve in him.' John vii. 5. Which then is 'the safe side.' Sirs, on\nthe showing of the record itself? On the unbelieving side, the Infidel\nstands in the glorious company of the Apostles, in the immediate family\nof Christ, and hath no fear; while the believer doth as well and no\nbetter than the devils in hell, who believe and tremble.\"\n\n\"I.\"\n\n\n\n\nJOSEPH BARKER.\n\nIn any work, purporting to be a true record of Freethinkers, the name of\nJoseph Barker cannot be omitted. We find in him, from the commencement\nof his public life till the present time, an ardent desire for, and\na determination to achieve, freedom of thought and ex-pression on all\nsubjects appertaining to theology, politics, and sociology. Possessing\na vigorous intellect, a constitution naturally strong, great oratorical\nability, and an unrivalled command oi the Saxon language, he has made\nhimself a power among each party with whom the transitory state of his\nmind has brought him in contact. It is seldom we find men with equal\nboldness, when once connected with Wesleyan Methodism, rising superior\nin thought to its narrow, selfish, dogmatic, unnatural, and humiliating\nviews, and claiming for human nature a more dignified and exalted\nposition; gradually advancing to Unitarianism; ultimately to land safely\non the shore of Materialism. Joseph Barker has passed, amid persecution\nand privation, through these different phases of theology, to arrive at\n\"Infidelity,\" to be, he states, a better, wiser, and happier man. In his\nautobiography, we read that he was born in Bramley, an old country town\nin the West Riding of Yorkshire, in 1806, the _day_ of his birth being\nforgotten. His parents, and his ancestors, so far as is known of them,\nwere of humble means. His grandfather was addicted to drinking freely\nof those beverages which meet with so much opposition from Mr. Barker\nhimself. His aunt also was unfortunate, having married a man who was\na minister, a drunkard, and a cock-fighter. His parents appear to have\nbeen uneducated and pious; belonging to the old school of Methodists,\nthose who look on this life merely as a state of trial and probation;\nalways looking forward to enjoy their mansion in the skies--the house\nnot made with hands eternal in the heavens, thinking nothing\n\n .... Worth a thought beneath,\n     But how _they_ may escape the death\n     That never, never dies.\n\nAlthough living _in_ this world, they were not _of it_. It was to them,\nall vanity and vexation of spirit. They attended their chapel, their\nlove feasts, their class-meetings, their prayer meetings, and their\nrevival meetings, where they would lament over the wickedness and\ndepravity of human nature, where they would \"speak their experience,\"\ntell of their temptations, pray for the conversion of the world, and\nsing their hymns, such as the following, which was a favorite with Mr.\nBarker's family:--\n\n     \"Refining fire, go through my heart,\n          Illuminate my soul;\n     Scatter my life through every part,\n          And sanctify the whole.\"\n\nSuch being the character of Mr. Barker's parents, it is no wonder that\n_he_ was \"brought up\" under the same influence, with the same false\nnotions of life, of humanity, and of the world; and we cannot prize\ntoo highly the man who had the industry to investigate, the ability to\ndiscern, and the courage to expose the falsity of such doctrines and the\ndisastrous effects of such teaching.\n\nIn the extracts we shall give from Mr. Barker's works will be found that\nsimplicity of style and force of argument peculiar to himself. The first\nextract we take shows the falsity of the orthodox doctrine of the total\ndepravity of human nature:--\n\n\"On looking back on the earlier periods of my life, I first see\nproofs that the orthodox doctrine of original sin, or of natural total\ndepravity, is a falsehood. I was _not_ born totally depraved. I never\nrecollect the time, since I began to think and feel at all, when I had\nnot good thoughts, and good feelings. I never recollect the time since\nI began to think and feel at all, when I had not many good thoughts, and\nstrong inclinations to goodness. So far was my heart from being utterly\ndepraved or hardened, that I sympathised, even in my childhood, with the\nhumblest of God's creatures, and was filled to overflowing with sorrow\nat the sight of distress. I recollect one Sunday, while I was searching\nabout for something in one of the windows upstairs, I found a butterfly\nthat had been starved to death, as I supposed. When I laid hold of it,\nit crumbled to pieces. My feelings were such at the thought of the\npoor butterfly's sufferings, that I wept. And for all that day I could\nscarcely open my lips to say a word to any one without bursting into\ntears.... And I recollect well what a struggle I had when I first told a\nlie. A school in the neighborhood had a feast, ours had not, so I played\nthe truant, after a serious struggle, to have an opportunity of seeing\nthe scholars walk. I had a miserable afternoon; for I felt that I was\ndoing wrong, and I was afraid lest my mother should find me out. My\nsister found me out and told my mother, but my mother was loth to\nbelieve her till she had asked me myself. When I went home my mother\nasked me if I had been to school, and I said yes, and my mother, as she\nhad never found me out in a lie before, believed me. But I was sadly\ndistressed afterwards when I thought of what I had done. That lie\ncaused me days of remorse, and my sufferings were all the severer in\nconsequence of my mother having so readily believed what I said.\"\n\nThe unhappy and unnatural effects of theology on the minds of earnest,\ntruth-seeking men--the total prostration of manly dignity, the\nperversion of the mental faculties, and the debasement of human nature,\nis truly stated by Mr. Barker in the following extract:--\n\n\"I also recollect being very much troubled with dreadful and\nindescribably awful dreams, and for several months during certain parts\nof the year I was accustomed to rise during my sleep, and walk about the\nhouse in a state of sleep for hours together. I say in a state of sleep:\nbut I cannot exactly describe the state in which I was. It was not\n_perfect_ sleep, and yet I was not properly awake. My eyes were open,\nand I saw, as far as I can remember, the things around me, and 1 could\nhear what was said to me. But neither what I saw nor what I heard seemed\nto have power to penetrate far enough into my soul to awake me properly.\nDuring those occasions, I was frequently very unhappy, dreadfully\nunhappy, most horribly miserable. Sometimes I fancied I had been doing\nsomething wrong, and my fancied offence seemed horrible beyond all\nexpression, and alarmed and overwhelmed me with unutterable terrors and\ndistress. On one occasion I fancied that both I and my father had\nboth been doing something wrong, and this seemed most horrible and\ndistressing of all; and as I wandered about in my mysterious state, I\nhowled most piteously, and cried and wept as if my heart would break. I\nnever recollect being roused from that dismal state while I was walking\nabout the house, except twice. Once when I struck my shins violently\nagainst a large earthenware bowl and hurt myself sadly; and another was\nwhen I was attempting to go up the chimney: I put my foot upon fire\nand burnt myself, and that awoke me. I suffered in this way for several\nyears. After I went to bed at night I soon fell asleep, and slept\nperhaps an hour or nearly two. I would then begin to cry, or moan,\nor howl, and at times to sing. One night I sang a whole hymn of eight\nverses through; the hymn in Wesley's Hymn Book, beginning\n\n     With glorious clouds encompassed round\n          Whom angels dimly see,\n     Will the unsearchable be found\n          Or God appear to me?'\"\n\nFew persons who have not attended the \"class-meetings\" of the Wesleyan\nMethodists can form an adequate idea of the stereotyped phrases and\nabsurd sayings indulged in by those who \"speak their experience,\"\netc., at those meetings. Certain sentences are learned, and uttered\nindiscriminately, without reference to time, place, or other conditions.\nMr. Barker, after speaking of the recklessness of speech thus indulged\nin, says:--\n\n\"In many cases this false way of speaking is the result of mere\nthoughtlessness perhaps, or of ignorance, joined with the notion that it\nis their duty to pray, or to say something in public. The parties have\nno _intention_ to deceive: but being called on to speak, or invited to\npray, they begin, and catch hold of such words as they can find, whether\nright or wrong, whether true or false. And their words are oftener\nfoolish or false, than wise or true. Their talk is at times most foolish\nand ridiculous. I will give an example or two. It is customary for\npeople, when praying for preachers, to say, 'Lord, bless thy servants\nwhen they stand up to declare thy word: be thou _mouth matter, and\nwisdom_ to them.' This has some meaning in it when offered in reference\nto a preacher, especially a preacher about to preach. In other cases\nit would be most foolish and ridiculous. Yet I once heard a person in a\nprayer-meeting at Chester use this same form of expression in behalf\nof the sick and the dying. 'O Lord,' said he, 'bless the sick and the\nafflicted, and those that are in the article of death;--be thou mouth,\nmatter, and wisdom to them.' At another prayer-meeting at Chester, on a\n_Friday_ evening, one of the leaders gave out the following lines:--\n\n     'Another six days' work is done;\n     Another _Sabbath_ is begun.' etc.\n\nI once heard a woman say in class, 'I do thank God that he ever gave me\na desire to see that _death_ that never, never _dies._'\"\n\nSoon after Mr. Barker became \"religious\" and attended his\nclass-meetings, he awaited the usual \"call\" to preach the gospel.\nAccordingly, having received the \"call,\" he became a Methodist preacher,\nbelonging to the Old Connexion, the New Connexion, and then advancing to\nUnitarianism, ultimately arriving at the climax of Freethought, in\nwhich cause he is now so distinguished an advocate. While a Methodist\npreacher, he was induced by a neighbor, an Atheist, to read Carlile's\n\"Republican.\" We can readily understand why Christians are taught not\nto read \"Infidel\" works. The effect the \"Republican\" produced on Mr.\nBarker's mind would be augmented, did those Christians investigate what\nthey so often ignorantly denounce. In reference to the \"Republican,\"\nMr. Barker says:--\n\n\"I was very much struck in reading some portions of the work\n[Carlile's], and agitated and shaken by its arguments on some points.\nThe object of many of its articles was to prove Christianity irrational\nand false. The principal doctrines which it assailed were such as the\ntrinity--the common notion about the fall of man, and its effects upon\nthe human race--the Calvinistic notions of eternal, universal, and\nabsolute predestination, unconditional election and reprobation--the\nCalvinistic notion of God's sovereignty or partiality--the utter\ndepravity of every human being born into the world, and yet the\nobligation of those utterly depraved beings to steer clear of all evil,\nand to do all that is right and good, on pain of eternal damnation. The\ndoctrine of satisfaction to justice, was also assailed, and the doctrine\nof the immortality of the human soul, and the notion that because it is\nimmaterial, it must, as a consequence, be immortal.... The consequence\nwas, that my mind was thrown into a state of doubt and suspense. I\ncannot say that I doubted the truth of the Christian religion exactly,\nbut still I doubted the truth of certain doctrines which I had been\ntaught to regard as parts of that religion. I can briefly describe the\ndoubts I had. I neither saw clearly that those doctrines to which he\nobjected were no part of the Christian religion, nor could I see any way\nby which these doctrines could be defended and proved to be rational and\ntrue. One thing began to seem almost certain, either that Christianity\nwas not true, or that those doctrines as generally laid down, were\nno parts of the Christian religion. This led to investigation. I was\nwishful to ascertain whether those doctrines which were assailed as\nirrational, were parts of Christianity or not. I began to converse on\nthe subject with one of my religious companions, and I began to read on\nthe subject as I had opportunity. My companion was rather troubled and\nalarmed at the doubts I expressed with respect to the correctness of\nsome of the common doctrines of what was considered orthodoxy; still,\nwhat I had said had some influence on his mind, for he told me shortly\nafter, that he wished he had never heard my doubts, for what I had said\nhad spoiled some of his best sermons; he would never be able to preach\nthem with comfort more.... During my residence in that [Newcastle]\ncircuit, my views on many subjects became anti-Methodistical to a very\ngreat extent indeed. I now no longer held the prevailing views with\nrespect to the nature of justifying faith, the witness of the Spirit,\nregeneration, sanctification, and the like. In reading Wesley's works,\nI was astonished at the great number of unmeaning and inconsistent\npassages which I met with. In many of his views I perfectly agreed with\nhim? but with a vast amount of what he said on other subjects, I could\nnot help but disagree.... About this time, finding that there was little\nlikelihood that I should be tolerated in the New Connexion unless I\ncould allow my mind to be enslaved, and feeling that I should be obliged\nsooner or later to break loose from Methodistical restraint, and speak\nand act with freedom, I thought of visiting Mr. Turner, the Unitarian\nminister of Newcastle, and seeking an interview with him. I had\nheard something to the effect that Unitarians were great lovers of\nfreedom--that they did not bind their ministers and members by any human\ncreeds, but left them at liberty to investigate the whole system of\nChristianity thoroughly, and to judge as to what were its doctrines\nand duties for themselves, and to preach what they believe to be true\nwithout restraint and persecution, and I thought if this was the case,\nthey must be a very happy people. But from other things which I had\nheard respecting them, I was led to regard them with something\nof horror--to look, on them as persons who trifled with Scripture\nauthority, as persons who had rushed from the extremes of false\northodoxy into the extremes of Infidelity. I was in consequence\nprevented from visiting Mr. Turner, and I remained in comparative\nignorance of the Unitarian body, in ignorance both of their principles\nand of their character, still shut up in the dungeons of orthodox\nslavery.\"\n\n\"The dungeons of orthodox slavery\" did not long contain Mr. Barker; for\nhe afterwards became better acquainted with the Unitarians, and formed\none of their most energetic preachers. But Unitarianism, appearing to\nhim at first true in its doctrine and free in its advocacy, shortly\nbecame insufficient for the cravings of his mind; and, at length, he\nfound himself outside all the churches. The Bible, which at one period\nof his life seemed to him a perfect revelation from \"God\" now appeared\nonly the production of erring and half-informed men; and having a\nthorough knowledge of its contents, he resolved to employ the remainder\nof his life in confuting the false notions of its \"divine authority.\"\nAmerica presenting a congenial residence, he resolved to visit that\ncountry and purchase some land, upon which he might occupy his leisure\nfrom lecturing and writing. Having settled in the country, he considered\nsomething should be said on the Bible. Accordingly, in November, 1852,\na Bible Convention was held at Salem, Ohio, Mr. Barker being appointed\nPresident, he extract the following from his speech, as illustrating the\nuncertainty of the Bible translations, the character of the translators,\nand the nature of the manuscripts from which the translations are\nmade:--\n\n\"We say, that the Bible bears on its very face the marks of human\nimperfection and error. This is true of every Bible in existence.\nWe will begin with the Bible in common use, and what do we find! The\ntitle-page tells us it is a _translation_ from the original tongues, by\nthe special command of one of the kings of England. Does any one pretend\nthat the translators were infallible--men above the possibility of\nerror? Nothing of the kind. Even those who contend that the original\n_writers_ of the Bible were infallible, do not pretend that the king's\ntranslators were so. The sects and priesthoods themselves show that they\nregard the common translation as imperfect. They all take the liberty\nto alter it. They alter it in thousands and tens of thousands of places.\nNothing is more common than for theological disputants to appeal from\nthe common translation of the Bible to what they call the original Greek\nand Hebrew. Every commentator takes the same liberty. The leaders of the\nsects and priesthoods of the day have testified their belief that\nthe Bibles in common use are imperfect and erroneous by making _new_\ntranslations. There is scarcely an English sect or priesthood of\nany note in existence that has not produced a new translation of the\nScriptures. John Wesley translated both the Old and New Testament. His\ntranslation of the New Testament continues to be used in the Methodist\nbody to this day. Adam Clarke, in his 'Commentary,' translates afresh\nalmost every important passage in the book. Many passages he translates\nin such a way as to give them meanings quite contrary to the meaning\ngiven them in the common Bible. Richard Watson, a Methodist\npreacher, commenced a new translation of the Bible. Dr. Boothroyd, a\nCongregationalist minister of England, published another translation.\nDr. Conquest, a layman of the same denomination, published another, in\nwhich he says he made twenty thousand emendations, or improvements.\nHe must, therefore, have thought the common Bible had twenty thousand\nimperfections or errors. Mr. Belsham, and other English Unitarians,\npublished a new translation of the New Testament. Mr. Wellbeloved, a\nUnitarian minister, published a new translation of a great part of\nthe Old testament, intending to publish a new translation of the whole\nBible. Even ministers of the Established Church have spoken strongly\nagainst the common translation, and some of them have gone so far as\nto _publish_ new translations _of portions_ of the Bible. Alexander\nCampbell, the founder of the denomination which bears his name, has\npublished a new translation of the New Testament. A Mr. Taylor published\na new translation of the New Testament from Griesbach's Greek New\nTestament. A Mr. Sharp published another translation from Griesbach's\nGreek text. The Baptists have published a new translation of the Bible,\nI am told.... We are not alone, therefore, in believing that the Bibles\nin common use bear marks of human imperfection and error. The leading\nmen in all the religious sects and priesthoods of Great Britain and\nAmerica believe the same. We add, if the translators of the Bible had\nbeen the best and wisest men that ever lived, their work would not have\nbeen perfect. A translation from Greek and Hebrew cannot be perfect. But\nthe translators employed by King James were not the best or wisest men\nthat ever lived. They were, in some respects, exceedingly ignorant,\nprejudiced, and immoral.... They were liars and false-swearers.\nThese dignitaries of the Church of England knew, as well as you know,\nthat kings and queens are often vicious, profligate, and godless. They\nknew that among the kings and queens of England there had been some of\nthe most loathsome lumps of filthiness--some of the most adulterous\nand lecherous sensualists--some of the most heartless and cruel\ntyrants--some of the most inhuman and bloody wretches that ever cursed\nthe earth. They knew, too, that English kings and queens generally were\nunder strong temptations to be thus cruel and profligate, and that\nit was too much to expect any of them to be strictly religious and\nvirtuous. Yet they bound themselves on oath to call their kings\nand queens, whatever their characters might be, most gracious and\nreligious.' They _did_ call the monarch then living, 'most gracious and\nreligious,' and they handed it down as a duty to their successors to\ngive the same high titles to all their future monarchs, though they\nshould be as filthy as that unwieldy, waddling mass of lust and\nrottenness, King Henry the Eighth, or at false and treacherous as the\nperjured Charles the First. These translators of the Bible also knew\nthat many who were brought to them to be buried were godless,\nwicked men. They knew that some of them were drunkards, adulterers,\nfalse-swearers. Yet they bound themselves to call them all, as they\nlowered them into their graves, their 'beloved brethren,' and to declare\nthat they committed them to the dust 'in sure and curtain hope of a\nresurrection to eternal life,' though they believed in their hearts that\nthey would rise to eternal damnation.... They were the hirelings of the\nking and government. They regarded the king as the head of the church,\nand were sworn to obey him in all things. They were sworn to obey him in\ntranslating the Bible. The king gave them the rules by which they were\nto be guided in the work of translation, and they were sworn to follow\nthese rules. These rules were intended to prevent them from putting\nanything into their translation of the Bible that was at variance with\nthe established priesthoods, and to keep them from leaving out anything\nthat was favorable to the Established Church and government. And they\n_kept_ to their rules, and they were influenced by their interests,\ntheir situation, and their prejudices. It would be foolish to think\notherwise. To make the Bible agree with their creed, they put into their\ntranslation things which were not in the Greek or Hebrew Bibles, and\nmistranslated vast multitudes of things which were in the Greek and\nHebrew Bibles. I will give you an instance or two. Their creed taught\nthat God once died, or laid down his life. There was nothing in the\nGreek or Hebrew Bibles to uphold this doctrine, so in translating the\nBible they so altered a passage as to make it to teach the doctrine.\nYou may find the passage in 1 John, iii. 16. It is as follows:--'Hereby\nperceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us.' Now\nthe word 'God' is not in the Greek; it was put into the passage by the\ntranslators. In one place in the Old Testament it is said that Elhanan\nslew Goliath the Gittite. The translators have altered the passage so as\nto make it say that it was the _brother_ of Goliath that Elhanan slew.\nSee 2 Samuel xxi. 19.... Before a man can give a perfect translation of\nthe Bible, he must have a perfect knowledge of both the Greek and Hebrew\nBible, and of the language into which he would translate it. But no man\nhas that knowledge. The Greek and Hebrew languages, from which the Bible\nhas to be translated, are dead languages--languages which are no longer\nspoken or written by any people--languages which exist only in ancient\nwritings. The meaning of many of the words of those languages is, in\nconsequence, lost. The writings of the Old Testament are the only books\nremaining in the Hebrew language. There are no Hebrew books to throw\nlight on dark passages, or to settle the meaning of doubtful words and\nphrases. True, we have Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammars, but\nthese dictionaries and grammars are the work of imperfect and erring\nmen, who had no other means oi understanding the meaning of the Greek\nand Hebrew languages than ourselves. These dictionaries and grammars\ndiffer from each other. None of them are perfect. The best abound with\nerrors. We have better means of obtaining a knowledge of the Greek\nlanguage than of the Hebrew--but the Greek of the New Testament is a\npeculiar dialect, not to be found in any other book. It is, therefore,\nas difficult to translate the New Testament as the Old. If, herefore, we\nwould find a Bible that does _not_ bear the marks of human imperfection\nand error, we must look for it in what are called the original Greek and\nHebrew. But there is no such Bible. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles are\nas really imperfect as the English translations. The Greek and Hebrew\nBibles are as really the work of imperfect and erring men as the English\ntranslations are. Many people imagine that there is only _one_ Greek and\nHebrew Bible, and that that one was written by Moses and the prophets,\nand by the evangelists and the apostles. But this is not the case.\nThere are _several_ Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and all of them are the\ncompilations of fallible men. We have several Hebrew Old Testaments,\nand quite a number of Greek New Testaments, all compiled by different\npersons, but drawn, to some extent, from different sources. It should\nbe understood, that the oldest Greek and Hebrew Bibles are not printed\nbooks, but written ones. They were written before the art of printing\nwas known among Jews or Christians. Those written or manuscript Bibles\nare more numerous than the Greek and Hebrew printed Bibles. They are the\nwork of different men, in different countries, and different ages. And\nno two of them are alike. They differ from each other almost endlessly.\nSome contain more, some less. Some have passages in one form, others\nhave them in other forms. John Mills compared a number of those\nmanuscripts of the New Testament, and found that they differed from each\nother in thirty thousand places. He marked and collated thirty thousand\nvarious readings. Other men have compared the Greek manuscripts of the\nNew Testament, and discovered upwards of a hundred thousand various\nreadings--a hundred thousand places or particulars in which they differ\nfrom each other. A similar diversity of readings is to be found in the\nHebrew manuscripts of the Old Testaments. Now it is from these imperfect\nand discordant manuscripts that men have to make their Greek and Hebrew\nBibles. They have nothing else from which to make them. And those Greek\nand Hebrew Bible makers have no means of knowing which of the various\nand contradictory manuscripts are the best.... You must understand\nthat the original writings from which the manuscripts now in existence\noriginated, have perished many ages ago. It is probable that the last of\nthem perished more than sixteen hundred years ago. We have, therefore,\nno opportunity of comparing existing manuscripts with the original\nwritings, in order to and out which are the true, the original readings.\nThe discordant and contradictory manuscripts, therefore, can never be\ncorrected.... It is not only of the common English Bible, therefore,\nthat the words of the resolution are true, but of every Bible known,\nwhether printed or written, whether in Greek and Hebrew, or in modern\nlanguages.\"\n\nSince Mr. Baker has resided in America, he has visited England, and\nlectured for the Secular and Freethought Societies in England and\nScotland; the total number of lectures he delivered during his visit\namounted to 153, besides engaging in several debates, the principal one\nbeing with the Rey. Brewin Grant, at Halifax, during ten nights, on the\n\"Divine Authority of the Bible,\" which is now published. The views\nnow held by Mr. Barker on \"God\" and Secularism may be seen from the\nfollowing extract of a letter addressed to the Editor of the Reasoner,\nwritten by Mr. Barker from America, on February 22, 1853:--\n\n\"I confess I know nothing of God, but as he is revealed in his works.\nWith me, the word God stands for the unseen cause of all natural\nphenomena. I attribute to God no quality but what seems necessary to\naccount for what I see in nature. My Jewish and Christian notions of\nGod are all gone, except so far as they appear to be the utterances of\nnature.... As to Secularism, I think our business is with the seen, the\nworldly, the physical, the secular. Our whole duty seems to me to be\ntruly and fully to unfold ourselves, and truly and fully to unfold\nothers: to secure the greatest possible perfection of being and\ncondition, and the largest possible share of life and enjoyment to all\nmankind in this present world. The machinery of sects and priesthoods\nfor saving souls and fitting men for heaven, I regard as wasteful and\ninjurious folly, except so far as it may tend to better men and improve\ntheir condition here. I have a hope of future life, but whatever is best\nfor this life must be best for another life; whatever is best for the\npresent, must be best for the eternal future. To reveal to men the laws\nof their own being, and to unfold to them the laws of nature generally,\nand to bring them into harmony with those laws, is, therefore, with\nme, the whole business of man. If there be another world, as 1 hope, it\nwill, I suppose, be governed by the same laws as this. If men live on\nfor ever, they will have all the better start in a future life, for\nhaving got well on in this. As an _art_, therefore, I believe in\nSecularism.\"\n\nJ. W.\n\n\n_Note by the American Publisher_.--Soon after Mr. Barker's return from\nEngland, he resumed his lecturing in various towns and cities in the\nUnited States, giving great satisfaction, by his able addresses, to\nlarge and intelligent audiences. He still labors occasionally in the\nsame pursuit, though at present he is residing on his farm at Omaha\nCity, in the Territory of Nebraska. Much might be said in praise of his\nefforts to promote Liberalism in this country; but his greatest triumph,\nas we consider it, was his public debate with the Rev. Dr. Berg of\nPhiladelphia. This took place on the 9th of January, 1854, and continued\nno less than _eight evenings_. The question was on \"the origin,\nauthority, and tendency of the Bible\"--Dr. Berg affirming, and Mr.\nBarker opposing. This famous discussion was attended by thousands, and\nwas probably the greatest affair of the kind that ever occurred. The\nspeeches on both sides were published, making a large pamphlet of 190\npages. Of course, each of the debaters was victorious, in the opinion of\nhis friends; but the trick played by the Christian party, in the closing\nscene, showed a determination on their part to claim the victory whether\nor no! For, as soon as Dr. Berg (who made the last speech) had finished,\none of his friends took the platform, and, while the audience were\nseparating, read some resolutions in favor of the Doctor and the Bible.\n\"Less than one fourth of the audience,\" says the Philadelphia Register,\n\"voted for them. The more serious part of the audience did not vote at\nall. The great majority seemed to take the thing as a farce. The result\nof the vote made a good many long faces on the stage and front seats. A\nshort silence ensued, followed by a burst of obstreporous laughter,\nand cries of '_the Infidels have it!_' And so ended the most remarkable\ndebate ever held in America.\"\n\nThe following correct and candid report of the above discussion,\nappeared at the time in the columns of the Pennsylvania Freeman:--\n\nThe Bible Discussion.--The discussion on the authority of the Bible, at\nConcert Hall, between Rev. J. F. Berg, of this city and Joseph Barker,\nof Ohio, closed on Thursday evening last, after a continuance of eight\nevenings. During the whole time, the vast hall was crowded with an\neager multitude--numbering from 2000 to 2500 persons--each paying an\nadmittance of 12 1-2 cents every evening, and on some evenings it is\nsaid that hundreds went away, unable to approach the door; nor did the\ninterest appear to flag among the hearers to the last.\n\nOf the merits of the question or the argument, it does not come within\nthe scope of a strictly anti-slavery paper to speak, but we cannot\nforbear to notice the contrast in the manner and bearing of the two\ndebaters, and the two parties among the audience. Mr. Barker uniformly\nbore himself as a gentleman, courteously and respectfully towards his\nopponent, and with the dignity becoming his position, and the solemnity\nand importance of the question. We regret that we cannot say the same of\nDr. Berg, who at times seemed to forget the obligations of the gentleman\nin his zeal as a controversialist. He is an able and skillful debater,\nthough less logical than Mr. Barker, but he wasted his time and\nstrength too often on personalities and irrelevant matters. His personal\ninuendoes and epithets, his coarse witticisms, and a bearing that seemed\nto us more arrogant than Christian, may have suited the vulgar and\nthe intolerant among his party, but we believe these things won him no\nrespect from the calm and thinking portion of the audience, while we\nknow that they grieved and offended some intelligent and candid men who\nthoroughly agreed with his views. It is surely time that all Christians\nand clergymen had learned that men whom they regard as heretics and\nInfidels have not forfeited their claims to the respect and courtesies\nof social life, by their errors of opinion, and that insolence and\narrogance, contemptuous sneers and impeachment of motives and\ncharacter, toward such men, are not effective means of grace for their\nenlightenment and conversion.\n\nAmong the audience, there was a large number of men, who also lost their\nself-control in their dislike to Mr. Barker's views, and he was often\ninterrupted, and sometimes checked in his argument, by hisses, groans,\nsneers, vulgar cries, and clamor, though through all these annoyances\nand repeated provocations, he maintained his wonted composure of manner\nand clearness of thought. On the other hand, Dr. Berg was heard with\ngeneral quiet by his opponents, and greeted with clamorous applause by\nhis friends, who seemed to constitute a large majority of the audience,\nand to feel that the triumph of their cause, like the capture of Jericho\nof old, depended upon the amount of noise made.\n\nMr. Barker, in giving an account of the origin of the discussion,\nsays:--\n\n\"In December, [1853] in compliance with a request from the Sunday\nInstitute, I began a course of lectures in Philadelphia, on the origin,\nauthority and influence of the Scriptures. The object of the lectures\nwas to show that the Bible is of _human_ origin, that its teachings are\nnot of divine authority, and that the doctrine that the Bible is God's\nword is injurious in its tendency.\n\n\"When I sent the Sunday Institute a programme of my lectures, I\nauthorised the Secretary to announce, through the papers, that I was\nwilling to meet any clergyman, of good standing in any of the leading\nchurches, in public discussion on the Bible question.\"\n\n[The Rev. Mr. McCalla, a Presbyterian clergyman, accepted the offer,\nand arrangements were made for a six nights debate; but, on the fifth\nevening, after trying to raise a mob, he withdrew from the contest.]\n\n\"The clergy, or a portion of the clergy, of Philadelphia, unwilling to\nleave their cause in this plight, demanded that I should discuss the\nquestion with Dr. Berg, a minister in whom they had fuller confidence.\nBeing assured that Dr. Berg was a gentleman and a scholar, and that he\nwas the ablest debater the clergy of Philadelphia could boast, I agreed\nto meet him, and the discussion was fixed for the 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th,\n16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of January.\"....\n\n\"Though the Doctor did not prove himself so much of a gentleman as I\nhad been encouraged to expect, I was sorry he declined to continue the\ndiscussion four nights longer, as we had not got more than half through\nthe question when the eighth night closed. I wished for an opportunity\nof laying the whole subject before the public. Perhaps some other\nclergyman will take the matter in hand--one disposed and able to discuss\nthe subject thoroughly.\"","title":"Ancient and Modern Celebrated Freethinkers: Reprinted From an English Work, Entitled \"Half-Hours With The Freethinkers.\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":108905}