{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36269/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36269","id":"gutenberg_36269","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36269","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nA FEW WORDS ABOUT THE DEVIL,\n\nAND OTHER BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES AND ESSAYS\n\nBy Charles Bradlaugh\n\nNew York:\n\nA. K. Butts & Co., 36 Dey Street.\n\n1874.\n\n\n\n\nAUTOBIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\nA PAGE OF HIS LIFE.\n\nAt the request of many friends, and by way of farewell address on\nleaving for America, I, for the first time in my life, pen a partial\nautobiographical sketch. I do not pretend that the narrative will be a\ncomplete picture of my life, I only vouch the accuracy of the facts\nso far as I state them. I have not the right in some cases to state\npolitical occurrences in which others now living are involved, nor have\nI the courage of Jean Jacques Rousseau, to photograph my inner life. I\nshall therefore state little the public may not already know. I was born\non the 26th September, 1833, in a small house in Bacchus Walk, Hoxton.\nMy father was a solicitor's clerk with a very poor salary, which he\nsupplemented by law writing. He was an extremely industrious man, and\na splendid penman. I never had the opportunity of judging his tastes or\nthoughts, outside his daily labors, except in one respect, in which I\nhave followed in his footsteps. He was passionately fond of angling.\nUntil 1848 my life needs little relation. My schooling, like that of\nmost poor men's children, was small in quantity, and, except as to the\nthree R's, indifferent in quality. I remember at seven years of age\nbeing at a national school in Abbey Street, Bethnel Green; between seven\nand nine I was at another small private school in the same neighborhood,\nand my \"education\" was completed before I was eleven years of age at a\nboys' school in Coalharbor Street, Hackney Road. When about twelve years\nof age I was first employed as errand lad in the solicitor's office\nwhere my father remained his whole life through. After a little more\nthan two years in this occupation, I became wharf clerk and cashier to\na firm of coal merchants in Britannia Fields, City Road. While in their\nemployment the excitement of the Chartist movement was at its height in\nEngland, and the authorities, frightened by the then huge continental\nrevolution wave, were preparing for the prosecution of some of\nthe leaders among the Chartists. Meetings used to be held almost\ncontinuously all day on Sunday, and every week-night in the open air on\nBonner's Fields, near where the Consumption Hospital now stands. These\nmeetings were in knots from fifty to five hundred, sometimes many more,\nand were occupied chiefly in discussions on theological, social, and\npolitical questions, any bystander taking part. The curiosity of a\nlad took me occasionally in the week evenings to the Bonner's Fields\ngatherings. On the Sunday I, as a member of the Church of England, was\nfully occupied as a Sunday-school teacher. This last-named fashion of\npassing Sunday was broken suddenly. The Bishop of London was announced\nto hold a confirmation in Bethnal Green. The incumbent of St. Peter's,\nHackney Road, the district in which I resided, was one John Graham\nPacker, and he, desiring to make a good figure when the Bishop came,\npressed me to prepare for confirmation, so as to answer any question\nthe Bishop might put. I studied a little the Thirty-nine Articles of the\nChurch of England, and the four Gospels, and came to the conclusion\nthat they differed. I ventured to write the Rev. Mr. Packer a respectful\nletter, asking him for aid and explanation. All he did was to denounce\nmy letter to my parents as Atheistical, although at that time I should\nhave shuddered at the very notion of becoming an Atheist, and he\nsuspended me for three months from my office of Sunday-school teacher.\nThis left me my Sundays free, for I did not like to go to church while\nsuspended from my teacher's duty, and I, instead, went to Bonner's\nFields, at first to listen, but soon to take part in some of the\ndiscussions which were then always pending there.\n\nAt the commencement I spoke on the orthodox Christian side, but after\na debate with Mr. J. Savage, in the Warner Place Hall, in 1849, on the\n\"Inspiration of the bible,\" I found that my views were getting very\nmuch tinged with Freethought, and in the winter of that year, at the\ninstigation of Mr. Packer, to whom I had submitted the \"Diegesis\" of\nRobert Taylor, I--having become a teetotaler, which in his view brought\nout my infidel tendencies still more vigorously--had three days given\nme by my employers, after consultation with my father, to \"change my\nopinions or lose my situation.\" I am inclined to think now that the\nthreat was never intended to have been enforced, but was used to terrify\nme into submission. At that time I hardly knew what, if any, opinions\nI had, but the result was that sooner than make a show of recanting, I\nleft home and situation on the third day, and never returned to either.\n\nI was always a very fluent speaker, and now lectured frequently at\nthe Temperance Hall, Warner Place, Hackney Road, at the small Hall in\nPhilpot Street, and in the open air in Bonner's Fields, where at last\non Sunday afternoons scores of hundreds congregated to hear me. My views\nwere then Deistical, but rapidly tending to the more extreme phase in\nwhich they ultimately settled. I now took part in all the gatherings\nheld in London on behalf of the Poles and Hungarians, and actually\nfancied that I could write poetry on Kossuth and Mazzini.\n\nIt was at this time I made the acquaintance of my friend and co-worker,\nMr. Austin Holyoake, at his printing office in Queen's Head Passage, and\nI remember him taking me to John Street Institution, where, at one\nof the pleasant Saturday evening gatherings, I met the late Mrs. Emma\nMartin. At Mr. Austin Holyoake's request, Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, to\nmy great delight, presided at one of my lectures in Philpot Street, and\nI felt special interest in the number of the _Reasoner_ which contained\na brief reference to myself and that lecture.\n\nI wrote my first pamphlet, \"A Few Words on the Christian's Creed,\" about\nthe middle of 1850, and was honored by Dr. Campbell of the _British\nBanner_ with a leading article vigorously assailing me for the lectures\nI had then delivered. After leaving home I was chiefly sheltered by Mrs.\nSharpies Carlile, with whose children, Hypatia, Theophila, and Julian,\nI shared such comforts as were at her disposal. Here I studied hard\neverything which came in my way, picking up a little Hebrew and an\nimperfect smattering of other tongues. I tried to earn my living as a\ncoal merchant, but at sixteen, and without one farthing in my pocket,\nthe business was not extensive enough to be profitable. I got very poor,\nand at that time was also very proud. A subscription offered me by a few\nFreethinkers shocked me, and awakened me to a sense of my poverty;\nso telling no one where I was going, I went away, and on the 17th of\nDecember, 1850, was, after some difficulty, enlisted in the Seventh\nDragoon Guards. With this corps I remained until October, 1853, being\nultimately appointed orderly-room clerk; the regiment, during the whole\nof the time I remained in it, being quartered in Ireland. While I was in\nthe regiment I was a teetotaler, and used often to lecture to the men\nin the barrack-room at night, and I have more than once broken out of\nPortobello barracks to deliver teetotal speeches in the small French\nStreet Hall, Dublin. Many times have I spoken there in my scarlet\njacket, between James Haughton and the good old father, the Rev. Dr.\nSpratt, a Roman Catholic priest, then very active in the cause of\ntemperance. While I was in the regiment my father died, and in the\nsummer of 1853 an aunt's death left me a small sum, out of which\nI purchased my discharge, and returned to England, to aid in the\nmaintenance of my mother and family.\n\nI have now no time for the full story of my army life, which, however,\nI may tell some day. Before I left the regiment I had won the esteem\nof most of the privates, and of some of the officers. I quitted the\nregiment with a \"very good character\" from the Colonel, but I am bound\nto add, that the Captain would not have concurred in this character had\nhe had any voice in the matter. The Lieutenant-Colonel, C. P. Ainslie,\nearned an eternal right to grateful mention at my hands by his\ngentlemanly and considerate treatment. I can not say the same for my\nCaptain, who did his best to send me to jail, and whom I have not yet\nquite forgiven.\n\nOn returning to civilian life I obtained employment in the daytime with\na solicitor named Rogers, and in the evening as clerk to a Building\nSociety; and soon after entering this employ I began again to write and\nspeak, and it was then I, to in some degree avoid the efforts which were\nafterward made to ruin me, took the name \"Iconoclast,\" under which all\nmy anti-theological work down to 1868 was done. I give Mr. Rogers'\nname now for he is dead, and malice can not injure him. Many anonymous\nletters were sent to him to warn him of my irreligious opinions; he\ntreated them all with contempt, only asking me not to let my propaganda\nbecome an injury to his business.\n\nSoon after my discharge from the army I had a curious adventure. While\nI was away a number of poor men had subscribed their funds together and\nhad erected a Working Man's Hall, in Goldsmith's Row, Hackney Road. Not\nhaving any legal advice, it turned out that they had been entrapped\ninto erecting their building on freehold ground without any lease or\nconveyance from the freeholder, who asserted his legal right to the\nbuilding. The men consulted me, and finding that under the Statute of\nFrauds they had no remedy, I recommended them to offer a penalty rent of\n\u00a320 a year. This being refused, I constituted myself into a law court,\nand without any riot or breach of the peace, I, with the assistance of\na hundred stout men, took every brick of the building bodily away, and\ndivided the materials, so far as was possible, among the proper owners.\nI think I can see now the disappointed rascal of a freeholder when he\nonly had his bare soil left once more. He did not escape unpunished, for\nto encourage the others to contribute, he had invested some few pounds\nin the building. He had been too clever; he had relied on the letter of\nthe law, and I beat him with a version of common-sense justice.\n\nI lectured once or twice a week in the small Philpot Street Hall, very\noften then in the Hall of Science, City Road, and then in the old John\nStreet Institution, until I won myself a name in the party throughout\nthe country. In 1855 had my first notable adventure with the authorities\nin reference to the right of meeting in Hyde Park, and subsequently gave\nevidence before the Royal Commission ordered by the House of Commons,\npresided over by the Right Hon. Stuart Wortley. I was very proud that\nday at Westminster, when, at the conclusion of my testimony against the\nauthorities, the Commissioner publicly thanked me, and the people who\ncrowded the Court of Exchequer cheered me, for the manner in which I\ndenied the right of Sir Richard Mayne, the then Chief Commissioner of\nPolice, to issue the notices forbidding the people to meet in the Park.\nThis was the first step in a course in which I have never flinched or\nwavered.\n\nIn 1855 I undertook, with others, the publication of a series of papers,\nentitled \"Half-Hours with Freethinkers,\" the late John Watts being\none of my co-workers. I also by myself commenced the publication of my\n\"Commentary on the Pentateuch,\" which has since been entirely re-written\nand now forms my \"Bible: what it is.\"\n\nDuring the autumn of 18571 paid my first lecture visit to Northampton.\nEarly in 1858, when Mr. Edward Truelove was suddenly arrested for\npublishing the pamphlet, \"Is Tyrannicide Justifiable?\" I became\nHonorary Secretary to the Defense, and was at the same time associated\nwith the conduct of the defense of Simon Bernard, who was arrested at\nthe instigation of the French Government for alleged complicity in the\nOrsini tragedy. It was at this period I gained the friendship of poor\nBernard, which, without diminution, retained until he died; and also\nthe valued frendship of Thomas Allsop, which I still preserve. My\nassociations were from thenceforward such as to encourage in me a strong\nand bitter feeling against the late Emperor Napoleon. While he was in\npower I hated him, and never lost an opportunity of working against him\nuntil the _decheance_ came. I am not sure now that I always judged him\nfairly; but nothing, I think, could have tempted me to either write\nor speak of him with friendliness during his life. _Le sang de mes amis\netait sur son ame_. Now that the tomb covers his remains, my hatred has\nceased; but no other feeling has arisen in its place. Should any of his\nfamily seek to resume the Imperial purple, I should remain true to my\npolitical declarations of sixteen years since, and should exert myself\nto the uttermost to prevent France falling under another Empire. I\nwrite this with much sadness, as 1870 to 1873 have dispelled some of\nmy illusions held firmly during the fifteen years which preceded. I\nhad believed in such men as Louis Blanc, Lodru Rollin, Victor Hugo,\nas possible statesmen of France. I was mistaken. They were writers,\ntalkers, and poets; good men to ride on the stream, or to drown in\nhonest protest, but lacking force to swim against, or turn back, the\ntide by the might of their will. I had believed too in a Republican\nFrance, which is yet only in the womb of time, to be born after many\npangs and sore travailing.\n\nIn 1859 I saw Joseph Mazzini for the first time, and remained on terms\nof communication with the great Italian patriot until the year 1869,\nfrom time to time bringing him correspondence from Italy, where my\nbusiness sometimes took me. After 1869 we found ourselves holding\ndiverse opinions on the Franco-Prussian question--Mazzini went for\nPrussia, I for France--and I never saw him again.\n\nIn June, 1858, I held my first public formal theological debate with\nthe Rev. Brewin Grant, B.A., at that time a Dissenting Minister at\nSheffield. Mr. Grant was then a man of some ability, and if he could\nhave forgotten his aptitudes as a circus jester, would have been a\nredoubtable antagonist. During this year I was elected President of the\nLondon Secular Society, in lieu of Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, who had\ntheretofore led the English Free-thought party, but who has of late\nyears devoted himself more completely to general journalistic work.\n\nIn November, 1858, I commenced editorial duties with the _Investigator_,\nformerly conducted by the late Robert Cooper, which I continued until\nAugust, 1859. It had but a small circulation, and was financially a very\ngreat failure. For the encouragement of young propagandists, I may\nhere insert a little anecdote of my early lecturing experience. I had\nlectured in Edinburgh in mid-winter, the audience was small, the profits\nmicroscopical. I, alter paying my bill at the Temperance Hotel, where I\nthen stayed, had only a few shillings more than my Parliamentary fare\nto Bolton, where I was next to lecture. I was out of bed at five on a\nfreezing morning, and could have no breakfast, as the people were not\nup. I carried my luggage (a big tin box, corded round, which then held\nbooks and clothes, and a small black bag), for I could not spare any\nof my scanty cash for a conveyance or porter. The train from Edinburgh\nbeing delayed by a severe snow-storm, the corresponding Parliamentary\nhad left Carlisle long before our arrival. In order to reach Bolton in\ntime for my lecture, I had to book by a quick train, starting in about\nthree-quarters of an hour, but could only book to Preston, as the\nincreased fare took all my money, except 4 1/2d. With this small sum\nI could get no refreshment in the station, but in a little shop in\nthe street outside I got a mug of tea and a little hot meat pie. From\nPreston, I got with great difficulty on to Bolton, handing my black bag\nto the station-master there as security for my fare from Preston, until\nthe morning. I arrived in Bolton about quarter to eight; the lecture\ncommenced at eight, and I, having barely time to run to my lodgings, and\nwash and change, went onto the platform cold and hungry. I shall never\nforget that lecture; it was in an old Unitarian Chapel. We had no gas,\nthe building seemed full of a foggy mist, and was imperfectly lit with\ncandles. Everything appeared cold, cheerless, and gloomy. The most\namusing feature was that an opponent, endowed with extra piety\nand forbearance, chose that evening to specially attack me for the\nmoney-making and easy life I was leading. Peace to that opponent's\nmemory, I have never seen him since. It was while in Scotland on this\njourney I made the acquaintance, and ultimately won the frendship, of\nthe late Alexander Campbell, of Glasgow--a generous, kindly-hearted old\nSocialist Missionary, who, at a time when others were hostile, spoke\nencouragingly to me, and who afterward worked with me for a long period\non this journal [_The National Reformer_]. Occasionally the lectures\nwere interfered with by the authorities, but this happened oftener in\nthe provinces than in London. In March, 1859, I was to have lectured\nin Saint Martin's Hall on \"Louis Napoleon,\" but the Government--on\na remonstrance by Count Walewski, as to language used at a previous\nmeeting, at which I had presided for Dr. Bernard--interfered; the hall\nwas garrisoned by police, and the lecture prevented. Mr. Hullah, the\nthen proprietor, being indemnified by the authorities, paid damages\nfor his breach of contract, to avoid a suit which I at once commenced\nagainst him. Later in the same month I held a debate in Northampton with\nMr. John Bowes, a rather heavy, but well-meaning, old gentleman, utterly\nunfitted for platform controversy. The press now began to deal with\nme tolerably freely, and I find \"boy,\" \"young man,\" and \"juvenile\nappearance\" very frequent in the comments. My want of education was an\nespecial matter for hostile criticism, the more particularly so when the\nwriter had neither heard nor seen me.\n\nDiscussions now grew on me so thick and fast that even some of the\nmost important debates may perhaps escape notice in this imperfect\nchronicling. At Sheffield I debated with a Reverend Dr. Mensor, who\nstyled himself a Jewish Rabbi. He was then in the process of gaining\nadmission to the Church of England, and had been put forward to show my\nwant of scholarship. We both scrawled Hebrew characters for four nights\non a black board, to the delight and mystification of the audience,\nwho gave me credit for erudition, because I chalked the square letter\ncharacters with tolerable rapidity and clearness. At Glasgow I debated\nwith a Mr. Court, representing the Glasgow Protestant Association, a\nglib-tongued missionary, who has since gone to the bad; at Paisley with\na Mr. Smart, a very gentlemanly antagonist; and at Halifax with the Rev.\nT. D. Matthias, a Welsh Baptist Minister, unquestionably very sincere.\nAll these were formal debates, and were reported with tolerable fullness\nin the various journals. In the early part of 1860 I, aided by my\nfriends at Sheffield, Halifax, and other parts of England, projected the\n_National Reformer_ in small shares. Unfortunately just after the\nissue of its prospectus, Joseph Barker returned from America, and was\nassociated with me in the editorship. The arrangement was peculiar, Mr.\nBarker editing the first half of the paper and I the second. It was not\nprecisely a happy union, and the unnatural alliance came to an end in\na very brief period. In August.1861, I officially parted company with\nJoseph Barker as editor. We had been practically divorced for months\nbefore: the first part of the paper usually contained abuse of those\nwho wrote in the second half. He came to me originally at Sheffield,\npretending to be an Atheist and a Republican, and soon after pretended\nto be a Christian, and spoke in favor of slavery. I am sometimes\ndoubtful as to how far Mr. Barker deluded himself, as well as others,\nin his various changes of theological and political opinions. If he\nhad had the slightest thoroughness in his character, he would have been\na great man; as it is, he is only a great turn-coat.\n\nIn June, 1860, I debated again with the Reverend Brewin Grant, every\nMonday for four weeks, at Bradford, and during this debate had a narrow\nescape of my life. In one of my journeys to London, the great Northern\ntrain ran through the station at King's Cross, and many persons were\nseriously injured. I got off with some trifling bruises and a severe\nshaking.\n\nGaribaldi having at this time made his famous Marsala effort, I\ndelivered a series of lectures in his aid, and am happy to be able\nto record that, though at that time very poor, I sent him one hundred\nguineas as my contribution by my tongue. This money was chiefly sent\nthrough W. H. Ashurst, Esq., now Solicitor to the General Post\nOffice, and among the letters I preserve I have one of thanks from \"G.\nGaribaldi,\" for what I was then doing for Italy.\n\nIn this year I debated for four nights with Dr. Brindley, an old\nantagonist of the Socialists, at Oldham; for two nights with the Rev.\nDr. Baylee, the President of St. Aidan's College, at Birkenhead, where\na Church of England curate manufactory was for some time carried on;\nand for two nights with the Rev. Dr. Rutherford, of Newcastle. Dr.\nRutherford has since so identified himself with the cause of the\nTyneside workers, that I read with regret any harsh words that escaped\nme in that debate. Although during late years I have managed to keep all\nmy meetings free from violence or disorder, this was not always so. In\nOctober, 1860, I paid my first visit to Wigan, and certainly lectured\nthere under considerable difficulty, and incurred personal clanger, the\nresident clergy actually inciting the populace to physical violence, and\npart destruction of the building I lectured in. I, however, supported by\none courageous woman and her husband, persevered, and despite bricks\nand kicks, visited Wigan again and again, until I had, _bon gre malgre_\nimproved the manners and customs of the people, so that now 1 am a\nwelcome speaker there. I could not improve the morals of the clergy, as\nthe public journals have recently shown, but that was their misfortune\nnot my fault. In the winter of 1860, I held two formal debates in Wigan,\nall of which were fully reported in the local journals; one with Mr.\nHutchings, a respectable Nonconformist layman, and the other with the\nRev. Woodville Woodman, a Swedenborgian divine.\n\nEarly in 1861 I visited Guernsey in consequence of an attempt made by\nthe Law Courts of the Island to enforce the blasphemy laws against a\nMr. Stephen Bendall, who had distributed some or my pamphlets to the\nGuernseyites, and had been condemned to imprisonment in default of\nfinding sureties not to repeat the offense. Not daring to prosecute\nme, although challenged in writing, the authorities permitted drink and\nleave of absence to be given to soldiers in the garrison on condition\nthey would try to prevent the lecture, and the house in which I lectured\nwas broken into by a drunken and pious mob, shouting \"Kill the Infidel.\"\nMy antagonists were fortunately as cowardly as they were intolerant, and\nI succeeded in quelling the riot, delivering my lecture in spite of all\nopposition, although considerable damage was done to the building.\n\nShortly after this I visited Plymouth, where the Young Men's Christian\nAssociation arranged to prosecute me. They were, however, a little too\nhasty, and had me arrested at an open air meeting when I had scarcely\ncommenced my speech, having only uttered the words: \"Friends, I am about\nto address you on the bible.\" Having locked me up all night, and refused\nbail, it was found by their legal adviser that a blunder had been\ncommitted, and a charge of \"exciting a breach of the peace,\nand assaulting the constable in the execution of his duty,\" was\nmanufactured. It was tolerably amusing to see the number of dinners,\nsuppers, and breakfasts, all accompanied with pots or cups of Devonshire\ncream, sent in to the Devonport Lock-up, where I was confined, by\nvarious friends who wanted to show their sympathy. The invented charge,\nthough well sworn to, broke down after two days' hearing, under the\nsevere cross-examination to which I subjected the witnesses. I defended\nmyself, two lawyers appeared against me, and seven magistrates sat on\nthe bench, predetermined to convict me. Finding that the evidence of\nthe whole of the witnesses whom I wished to call was to be objected\nto, because un-believers in hell were then incompetent as witnesses\naccording to English law, I am pleased to say that several\nNonconformists, disgusted with the bigotry and pious perjury of my\nprosecutors, came forward. The result was a triumphant victory, and\na certificate of dismissal, which I wrung from the reluctant bench of\ngreat unpaid. I was not yet satisfied; some of the magistrates had\ntried to browbeat me, and I announced in court that I would deliver the\nlecture I had been prevented from delivering to an audience assembled in\nthe borough, and that I should sue at law the Superintendent of Police\nwho had arrested me. The first portion of my defiance was the most\ndifficult to give effect to; not a hall could be hired in Devonport,\nand nearly all the convenient open land being under military\njurisdiction, it was impossible to procure the tenancy of a field for\nan open-air meeting. I, however, fulfilled my promise, and despite the\npolice and military authorities combined, delivered my lecture to an\naudience assembled in their very teeth. Devonport, Stonehouse, and\nPlymouth form one garrisoned and fortified town, divided by the River\nTamar. All the water to the sea is under the separate jurisdiction\nof Saltash, some miles distant. I obtained a large boat on which a\ntemporary platform was built, and this boat was quietly moored in the\nRiver Tamar on the Devonport side, about two fathoms from the shore.\nPlacards were issued stating that, acting under legal advice, I should\naddress the meeting and deliver the prevented lecture \"near to the\nDevonport Park Gates.\" Overwhelming force was prepared by the Devonport\nauthorities, and having already erred by too great haste, this time they\ndetermined to let me fairly commence my lecture before they arrested me.\nTo their horror I quietly walked past the Park Gates where the crowd was\nwaiting, and passing down a by-lane to the river side, stepped into a\nlittle boat, was rowed to the large one, and then delivered my lecture,\nthe audience who had followed me standing on an open wharf, all within\nthe jurisdiction of the Borough of Devonport, and I being about 9 feet\noutside the borough. The face of the Mayor ready to read the riot act,\nthe superintendent with twenty-eight picked policemen to make sure or my\narrest, and a military force in readiness to overawe any popular\ndemonstration--all these were sights to remember. I am afraid the\nDevonport Young Men's Christian Association did not limit themselves to\nprayers and blessings on that famous Sunday.\n\nAs I had promised, the authorities refusing any apology for the wrongful\narrest, I commenced an action against Superintendent Edwards, by whom I\nhad been taken into custody. The borough magistrates indemnified their\nofficer and found funds to resist me. I fought with very little help\nsave from one tried, though anonymous friend, for Joseph Barker,\nmy co-editor, but not co-worker, in our own paper, discouraged any\npecuniary support. The cause was made a special jury one, and came on\nfor trial at Exeter Assizes. Unfortunately I was persuaded to brief\ncounsel, and Sir Robert Collier, my leader, commenced his speech with\nan expression of sorrow for my opinions. This damaged me very much,\nalthough I won the case easily after a long trial. The jury, composed\nof Devonshire landowners, only gave me a farthing damages, and Mr. Baron\nChannell refused to certify for costs. I was determined not to let the\nmatter rest here, and myself carried it to the Court _in Banco_, where\nI argued it in person for two whole days, before Lord Chief Justice Erie\nand a full bench of Judges. Although I did not succeed in improving my\nown position, I raised public opinion in favor of free speech, and the\nenormous costs incurred by the borough authorities, and which they had\nto bear, have deterred them from ever again interfering either with my\nlectures or those of any other speaker, and I now have crowded audiences\nin the finest hall whenever I visit the three towns. These proceedings\ncost me several hundred pounds, and burdened me with a debt which took\nlong clearing off.\n\nIn 1802, I held a four nights' discussion with a Dissenting clergyman,\nthe Rev. W. Barker. My opponent was probably one of the most able and\nstraightforward among my numerous antagonists. About this time a severe\nattack of acute rheumatism prostrated me, and having soon after to visit\nItaly, I, at first under medical advice, adopted the habit of drinking\nthe light Continental wines, and although continuing an advocate of\nsobriety, I naturally ceased to take part in any teetotal gatherings.\n\nIn the struggle between the Northern and Southern States of America, my\nadvocacy and sympathies went with what I am glad to say was the feeling\nof the great mass of the English people--in favor of the North; and\nmy esteemed friend, and then contributor, W. E. Adams, furnished most\nvaluable aid with his pen in the enlightenment of public opinion, at\na time when many of our aristocracy were openly exulting in what they\nconceived to be the probable break-up of the United States Republic.\nDuring the Lancashire cotton famine I lectured several times in aid of\nthe fund.\n\nI began now also to assume a much more prominent position in the various\nEnglish political movements, and especially to speak on the Irish Church\nand Irish Land questions. On the Irish questions, I owe much to my late\nco-worker and contributor, poor Peter Fox Andre, a thoroughly honest\nand whole-souled man, whose pen was always on the side of struggling\nnationalities.\n\nOne of the disadvantages connected with a public career is, that every\nvile scoundrel who is too cowardly to face you openly can libel\nyou anonymously. I have had, I think, my full share of this kind of\nannoyance. Most of the slanders I have treated with utter contempt, and\nif I had alone consulted my own feelings, should probably never have\npursued any other course. Twice, however, I have had recourse to the\njudgment of the law--once in the case of a clergyman of the Church of\nEngland, who indulged in a foul libel affecting my wife and children.\nThis fellow I compelled to retract every word he had uttered, and to\npay \u00a3100, which, after deducting the costs, was divided among various\ncharitable institutions. The reverend libeler wrote me an abject letter,\nbegging me not to ruin his prospects in the Church by publishing his\nname; I consented, and he has since repaid my mercy by losing no\nopportunity of being offensive. He is a prominent contributor to the\n_Rock_, and a fierce ultra-Protestant. He must have greater confidence\nin my honor than in his own, or fear of exposure would compel him to\ngreater reticence. The other case arose during the election, and will be\ndealt with in its proper order.\n\nIt was my fortune to be associated with the Reform League from its\nearliest moments until its dissolution. It is hardly worth while to\nrepeat the almost stereotyped story of the successful struggle made by\nthe League for Parliamentary Reform. E. Beales, Esq., was the President\nof the League, and I was one of its Vice-Presidents, and continued\nnearly the whole time of its existence a member of its executive. The\nwhole of my services and journeys were given to the League without the\nslightest remuneration, and I repeatedly, and according to my means,\ncontributed to its funds. When I resigned my position on the executive I\nreceived from Mr. George Howell, the Secretary, and from Mr. Beales,\nthe President, the most touching and flattering letters as to what Mr.\nBeales was pleased to describe as the loyalty and utility of my services\nto the League. Mr. George Howell concluded a long letter as follows:\n\"Be pleased to accept my assurance of sincere regards for your manly\ncourage, consistent and honorable conduct in our cause, and for your\nkindly consideration for myself as Secretary of this great movement on\nall occasions.\" These letters have additional value from the fact that\nMr. Beales, whom I sincerely respect, differs widely from me in matters\nof faith, and Mr. Howell is, fortunately, far from having any friendly\nfeeling toward me. It was while on the Executive of this League that I\nfirst became intimately acquainted with Mr. George Odger, and had reason\nto be pleased with the straightforward course he pursued, and the honest\nwork he did as one of the Executive Committee. Mr. John Baxter Langley\nand Mr. R. A. Cooper were also among my most prominent co-workers.\n\nMy sympathy with Ireland, and open advocacy of justice for the Irish,\nnearly brought me into serious trouble. Some who were afterward indicted\nas the chiefs of the so-called Fenian movement, came to me for advice.\nSo much I see others have written, and the rest of this portion of my\nautobiography I may write some day. At present there are men not out of\ndanger whom careless words might imperil, and as regards myself I shall\nnot be guilty of the folly of printing language which a government might\nuse against me. My pamphlet on the Irish Question, published in 1866,\nwon a voluntary letter of warm approval from Mr. Gladstone, the only\nfriendly writing I ever received from him in my life.\n\nAt Huddersfield, the Philosophical Hall having been duly hired for my\nlectures, pious influence was brought to bear on the lessee to\ninduce him to break the contract. Fortunately what in law amounted to\npossession had been given, and on the doors being locked against me, I\nbroke them open, and delivered my lecture to a crowded and most orderly\naudience. I was arrested, and an attempt was made to prosecute me before\nthe Huddersfield magistrates; but I defended myself with success, and\ndefeated with ease the Conservative solicitor, N. Learoyd, who had been\nspecially retained to insure my committal to jail.\n\nIn 1868 I entered into a contest with the Conservative Government which,\nhaving been continued by the Gladstone Government, finished in 1869 with\na complete victory for myself. According to the then law every newspaper\nwas required to give sureties to the extent of \u00a3800 against blasphemous\nor seditious libel. I had never offered to give these sureties, as they\nwould have probably been liable to forfeiture about once a month. In\nMarch, 1868, the Disraeli Government insisted on my compliance with\nthe law. I refused. The Government then required me to stop my paper.\nI printed on the next issue, \"Printed in Defiance of Her Majesty's\nGovernment.\" I was then served with an Attorney-General's information,\ncontaining numerous counts, and seeking to recover enormous penalties.\nI determined to be my own barrister, and while availing myself in\nconsultation of the best legal advice, I always argued my own case. The\ninterlocutory hearings before the Judges in Chambers were numerous,\nfor I took objection to nearly every step made by the government, and\nI nearly always succeeded. I also brought the matter before Parliament,\nbeing specially backed in this by Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. John Stuart\nMill, and Mr. E. H. J. Crawford. When the information was called on for\ntrial in a crowded court before Mr. Baron Martin, the Government backed\nout, and declined to make a jury; so the prosecution fell to the ground.\nStrange to say, it was renewed by the Gladstone Government, who had the\ncoolness to offer me, by the mouth of Attorney-General Collier, that\nthey would not enforce any penalties if I would stop the paper, and\nadmit that I was in the wrong. This I declined, and the prosecution now\ncame on for trial before Baron Bramwell and a special jury. Against me\nwere the Attorney-General, Sir R. Collier, the Solicitor-General, Sir J.\nD. Coleridge, and Mr. Crompton Hutton. I found that these legal worthies\nwere blundering in their conduct of the trial, and at _nisi prius_ I\nlet them obtain a verdict, which however, I reversed on purely technical\ngrounds, after a long argument, which I sustained before Lord Chief\nBaron Kelly and a full court sitting in Banco. Having miserably failed\nto enforce the law against me, the Government repealed the statute, and\nI can boast that I got rid of the last shackle of the obnoxious English\npress laws. Mr. J. S. Mill wrote me: \"You have gained a very honorable\nsuccess in obtaining a repeal of the mischievous Act by your persevering\nresistance.\" The Government, although beaten, refused to reimburse me\nany portion of the large outlay incurred in fighting them.\n\nIt has always been my ambition to enter Parliament, and at the General\nElection for 1808 I, for the first time, entered the arena as a\ncandidate. I was beaten; but this is scarcely wonderful. I had all the\njournals in England except three against me. Every idle or virulent tale\nwhich folly could distort or calumny invent was used against me. Despite\nall, I polled nearly 1,100 votes, and I obtained unasked, but not\nungratefully listened to, the public acknowledgments from the Mayor of\nthe borough, also from one of my competitors, Mr. Charles Gilpin, as to\nthe loyal manner in which I had fought the contest through.\n\nDuring the election struggle libels rained from all sides. One by the\nlate Mr Capper, M. P., seeking reelection at Sandwich, was the monstrous\nstory, that in the open square at Northampton I had taken out my watch\nand defied God to show his power by striking me dead in five minutes.\nChallenged for his authority Mr. Capper pretended to have heard the\nstory from Mr. C. Gilpin, M. P., who indignantly denied being any party\nto the falsehood. I insisted on an apology from Mr. Capper, which being\nrefused I sued him, but he died soon after the writ was served. The\nstory was not an original invention by Mr. Capper; it had been reported\nof Abner Kneeland thirty years before, and is still a favorite one with\npious missionaries at street corners. A still more outrageous slander\nwas inserted in the _Razor_, a pseudo-comic weekly. I compelled\nthis journal to give a full apology, but not until after two years'\nlitigation, and a new trial had been ordered. When obliged to recant,\nthe Christian proprietor became insolvent, to avoid payment of the\ncosts. Unfortunately born poor, my life had been one continued struggle,\nand the burden of my indebtedness was sorely swollen in this and similar\ncontests.\n\nProbably the most severe, and to me certainly the most costly, struggle\nhas been on the oath question. Formerly it was a fatal objection against\nthe competency of a witness who did not believe in a Deity and in a\nfuture state of rewards and punishments. Several attempts had been made\nto alter the law, but they had all failed; and indeed Sir J. Trevelyan's\nmeasures only provided for affirmation, and did not seek to abolish the\nincompetency. In a case in which I was plaintiff in the Court of Common\nPleas, my evidence was objected to, and I determined to fight the matter\nthrough every possible court, and to get the law changed if possible.\n\nI personally argued the case before Lord Chief Justice Bovill and a full\nBench, in the Court of Common Pleas, and with the aid of the present Mr.\nJustice Denman and the late Lord Chancellor Hatherly, the law was twice\naltered in Parliament. Before victory was ultimately obtained I had to\ncarry the case into the Court of Error, and I prepared and sent out at\nmy own cost more than two hundred petitions to Parliament. Ultimately\nthe Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Further Amendment\nAct, 1870, gave Freethinkers the right to enter the witness box, and I\nwon my suit. The Christian defendant finished by becoming bankrupt, and\nI lost a terribly large sum in debt and costs. The original debt and\ninterest were over \u00a3300, and the costs of the various proceedings were\nvery heavy.\n\nIn the winter of 1870 the Mirfield Town Hall, which had been properly\ntaken and paid for for two nights' lectures, was refused by the\nproprietors, who barricaded the hall, and obtained a great force of\npolice from the neighborhood. In order that the law might be clearly\nsettled on this matter, I brought an action to try the question, and\nalthough the late Mr. Justice Willis expressed himself strongly in my\nfavor, it was held by Mr. Justice Mellor at _nisi prius_ that nothing,\nexcept a deed under seal or an actual demise, would avail. A mere\nagreement for a user of a hall was a license revocable at will, even\nwhen for a valuable consideration. This convinced me that when hall\nproprietors break their contracts, I must enforce my rights as I did at\nHuddersfield, and have done in other places.\n\nDuring the Franco-Prussian struggle I remained neutral until the 4th of\nSeptember. I was against Bismark and his blood-and-iron theory, but I\nwas also against the Empire and the Emperor; so I took no part\nwith either. I was lecturing at Plymouth the day the _decheance_ was\nproclaimed, and immediately after wrote my first article in favor of\nRepublican France. I now set to work and organized a series of meetings\nin London and the provinces, some of which were cooperated in by\nDr. Congreve, Professor Beesly, and other prominent members of the\nPositivist party. These meetings exercised some little effect on the\npublic opinion in this country, but unfortunately the collapse on the\npart of France was so complete, and the resources commanded by Bismark\nand Moltke so vast, that, except as expressing sympathy, the results\nwere barren. In October, 1870, I, without any previous communication\nfrom myself to them, received from the Republican Government at Tours a\nlong and flattering letter, signed by Leon Gambetta, Adolphe Cremieux,\nAl Glais Bizoin, and Admiral Fourichon, declaring that they, as members\nof the \"Gouvernement de la Defense Nationale, reunis en delegation a\nTours,\" \"tiennent a honneur de vous remercier chalereusement du noble\nconcours que vous apportez a la cause de la France.\" On the 2d of\nFebruary, 1871, M. Tissot, the Charge d'Affaires of France in England,\nwrote me: \"Quant a moi, mon cher ami, le ne puis que constater ici,\ncomme je l'ai deja fait, comme je le feraien toute occasion, la dette\nque nous avons contracted envers vous. Vous nous avez donne votre temps,\nvotre activite, votre eloquence, votre ame, la meilleure partie de\nvous meme, en un mot; la France que vous avez ete seule a defendre ne\nl'oubliera jamais.\" This is probably a too flattering estimate of my\nservices to France, but coming from the official representative of\nthe French Republic, I feel entitled to insert it. In September, 1871,\nMonsieur Emmanuel Arago, member of the Provisional Government of the 4th\nof September, wrote the following words upon the letter which had\nbeen sent me, as above mentioned, in October, 1870, by the Delegate\nGovernment of Tours: \"En lisant cette lettre, j'eprouve tres vivement le\nregret de n'avoir pu, en-ferme dans Paris, joindre ma signature a celles\nde mes collegues de la delegation de Tours. Mr. Bradlaugh est et sera\ntoujours dans la Republique notre concitoyen.\"\n\nDuring 1870, 1871, and 1872, 1 held several debates with the Rev. A.\nJ. Harrison, formerly of Huddersfield. The first at Newcastle, in the\nsplendid Town Hall of that place, was attended by about 5,000 persons.\nThe second debate at Bristol, was notable from being presided over by\nProfessor Newman. The third discussion was at Birmingham, and was an\nattempt at the Socratic method, and the last platform encounter, was in\nthe New Hall of Science, London. Of the Rev. Mr. Harrison it is enough I\nshould say that, a few weeks since, when rumor put my life in danger, he\nwas one of the first to write a kindly and unaffected letter of sympathy\nto Mrs. Bradlaugh.\n\nWhen the great cry of thanksgiving was raised for the recovery of the\nPrince of Wales, I could not let it pass without protest. While he lay\ndangerously ill I had ceased to make any attack on himself or family,\nbut I made no pretense of a grief I did not feel. When the thanksgiving\nday was fixed, and tickets for St. Paul's were sent by the Lord\nChamberlain to working men representatives, I felt it right to hold a\nmeeting of protest, which was attended by a crowded audience in the New\nHall of Science.\n\nThe \"right of meeting\" has given me three important occasions of\nmeasuring swords with the Government during the last few years, and\neach time defeat has attended the Government. The first, the Hyde Park\nmeeting, where I acted in accord with Mr. Beales, to whom as chief, let\nthe honor go of this conflict. The second was on the 31st July, 1871,\nunder the following circumstances. A meeting had been held by Mr. G.\nOdger and some of his friends in Hyde Park, on Sunday the 30th of\nJuly, to protest against the grant to Prince Arthur; this meeting was\nadjourned until the following evening. Late on the Sunday afternoon,\nthe adjourned meeting was forbidden by the Government. Early on Monday\nmorning Mr. Odger applied to me to give the friends the benefit of my\nlegal knowledge and personal influence. I consented, and the Government\npersevering, I took my share of the responsibility of the gathering,\nand signed with Mr. Odger a new notice convening the meeting. The\nHome Office not only served us also with a written prohibition, but\nthreatened and prepared to use force. I immediately gave Mr. Bruce\nnotice that the force would be illegal, and that it would be resisted.\nAt the last moment, and in fact only some half hour before the meeting\ncommenced, the Government abandoned its prohibition, and an enormous\nmeeting of a most orderly character was held in absolute defiance of the\nauthorities.\n\nThe more recent case was in December, 1872, when finding that Mr. Odger,\nMr. Bailey, and others, had been prosecuted under some monstrous\nand ridiculous regulations invented by Mr. Ayrton, I, on my own\nresponsibility, determined to throw down the gauntlet to the Government.\nI did this most successfully, and soon after the opening of Parliament\nthe obnoxious regulations were annulled.\n\nIt is at present too early to speak of the Republican movement in\nEngland, which I have sought, and not entirely without success,\nto organize on a thoroughly legal basis. It is a fair matter for\nobservation that my lectures on \"The Impeachment of the House of\nBrunswick,\" have been delivered to crowded audiences assembled in some\nof the finest halls in England and Scotland, notably the Free Trade\nHall, Manchester, the Town Hall, Birmingham, the Town Hall, Northampton,\nand the City Hall, Glasgow. It is, as far as I am aware, the first time\nany English citizen has, without tumult or disorder and in buildings\nbelonging to various Municipalities, directly challenged the\nhereditary right of the reigning family.\n\nIn penning the foregoing sketch I had purposely to omit many facts\nconnected with branches of Italian, Irish, and French politics. I have\nalso entirely omitted my own struggles for existence. The political\nparts are left out because there are secrets which are not my own alone,\nand which may not bear full telling for many years to come. The second,\nbecause I hope that another year or two of hard work may enable me to\nfree myself from the debt load which for some time has hung heavily\nround me.\n\n\n\n\nA FEW WORDS ABOUT THE DEVIL\n\nTo have written under this head in the reign of James Rex, of pious\nmemory, would have, probably, procured for me, without even the perusal\nof my pamphlet, the reputation of Dr. Faustus, and a too intimate\nacquaintance with some of the pleasant plans of torturing to death\npracticed by the clever witch-finders of that day. I profess, however,\nno knowledge of the black art, and am entirely unskilled in _diablerie_,\nand feel quite convinced that the few words I shall say about his\nSatanic Majesty will not be cause of any unholy compacts in which bodies\nor souls are signed away in ink suspiciously red.\n\nIn many countries, dealing with the Devil has been a perilous\nexperiment. In 1790, an unfortunate named Andre Dubuisson was confined\nin the Bastile, charged with raising the Devil. To prevent even the\nslightest apprehension on the part of my reader that I have any\ndesire or intent toward placing him unpleasantly near a black-visaged,\nsulphureous-constitutioned individual, horned like an old goat, with\nsatyr-like legs, a tail of unpleasant length, and a disposition to buy\na body from any unfortunate wight ready to dispose of it, I have only\nto assert my intention of treating the subject entirely from a biblical\npoint of view. Doubtless I ought to do this; the Christian Devil is\na bible institution. I say, \\ advisedly, the Christian Devil, because\nother religions have boasted their Devil, and it is well to prevent\nconfusion. But I frankly admit that none of these religions have the\nhonor of a Devil so devilish as our own. Indeed our Devil ought to be\nthe best: it costs the most. No other religion besides our own can boast\nthe array of Popes, Bishops, Conferences, Rectors, Incumbents, and paid\npreachers of various titles. And all these to preach against the Devil!\n\nIt is necessary, before entering upon my subject, that I should confess\nmy little ability to do it justice. I am unable to say, certainly,\nwhether I am writing about a singular Devil or a plurality of Devils. In\none text \"Devils\" are mentioned,* recognizing a plurality; in another,\n\"the Devil,\"** as if there was but one. We may, however, fairly assume\nthat either there is one Devil, more than one, or less than one; and,\nhaving thus cleared our path from mere numerical difficulties, we will\nproceed to give the Devil his due. Satan appears either to have been\na child of God, or, at any rate, a most intimate acquaintance of the\nfamily; for we find that on \"a day when the children of God came to\npresent themselves before the Lord, that Satan came also among them;\"***\nand no surprise or disapprobation is manifested at his presence. The\nconversation narrated in the Book of Job as occurring between God and\nthe Devil has, for us, a value proportioned to the rarity of the scene,\nand to the high character of the personages concerned.\n\n     * Leviticus xvii, 7.\n\n     ** Luke iv, 2.\n\n     *** Job i, 6\n\nWe are, therefore, despite the infidel criticism of Martin Luther, who\ncondemns the Book of Job as \"a sheer _argumentum fabul\u00e6_\" determined to\nexamine carefully the whole particulars for ourselves; and, in so doing,\nwe are naturally surprised to find God, the omniscient, putting to Satan\nthe query, Whence comest thou? We cannot suppose God, the all-wise,\nignorant upon the subject, and we can not avoid a feeling of\nastonishment that such an interrogatory should have been made. Satan's\nreply, assuming its correctness--and this the text leaves us no reason\nto doubt--increases our surprise and augments our astonishment. The\nanswer given is, \"From going to and fro in the earth, and from going up\nand down it,\" In remarking on this answer, I do not address myself to\nthose wretched persons who, relying on their reason and common sense,\nignore the divine truth. I address myself to the true believer, and I\nask, is he not astonished to find, from his bible, that Satan could\nhave gone to and fro in the earth, and walked up and down, and yet not\nhave met God, the omnipresent, occasionally during his journeying?\nThe Lord makes no comment on Satan's reply, but says, \"Hast thou not\nconsidered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a\nperfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil?\" It\nis rather extraordinary that God should wish to have the Devil's opinion\non the only good man recorded as then living in the world: the more\nextraordinary when we know that God is all-wise, and knew Satan's\nopinion without asking it, and that God is immutable, and, therefore,\nwould not be influenced by the expression of the Devil's opinion when\nuttered. Satan's answer is, \"Doth Job fear God for naught? Hast thou\nnot made an hedge about him, and about all that he hath on every side?\nThou hast blest the work of his hand, and his substance is increased in\nthe land; but put forth thine hand now and touch all that he hath, and\nhe will curse thee to thy face.\" What is God's reply to this audacious\nassertion? Does he express his determination to protect the righteous\nJob? Does he use his power to rebuke the evil tempter? No. \"The Lord\nsaid unto Satan, Behold all that he hath is in thy power; only upon\nhimself put forth not thine hand.\" And this was Job's reward for being\na perfect and upright man, one that feared God and eschewed evil. He was\nnot sent to the Devil, but the Devil was sent to all that he had. And\nhe lost all without repining--sons, daughters, oxen, asses, camels and\nsheep, all destroyed, and yet Job sinned not. Some divines have urged\nthat we here get a beautiful picture of patience and contentment\nunder wrong and misfortune. But I reply that it is not good to submit\npatiently to wrong, or to rest contented under misfortune. I urge that\nit is manlier far to resist wrong, nobler far to wage war against wrong,\nbetter far to carefully investigate the causes of wrong and misfortune,\nwith a view to their removal. Contentment under wrong is a crime,\nvoluntary submission under oppression is not the virtue some would have\nit to be.\n\n\"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves\nbefore the Lord [as if God's children could ever be absent from him],\nand Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. And\nthe Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered\nthe Lord and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking\nup and down in it. And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my\nservant Job, that there is none like him in the earth? a perfect and\nan upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil? and still he\nholdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against HIM TO\nDESTROY HIM WITHOUT CAUSE.\"\n\nCan God be moved against a man to destroy him without a cause? If so,\nGod is neither immutable nor all-wise. Yet the bible puts into God's\nmouth the terrible admission that the Devil had moved God against Job\nto destroy him without cause. If true, it destroys God's goodness; if\nfalse, then the bible is no revelation.\n\nBut Satan answered the Lord and said, \"Skin for skin, yea, all that a\nman hath will he give for his life; put forth thine hand now and touch\nhis bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.\"\n\nDoes the Lord now drive the Devil from his presence? Is there any\nexpression of wrath or indignation against his tempter? Not so. \"The\nLord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand, but save his life.\"\nAnd Job, being better than everybody else, finds himself smitten in\nconsequence with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.\nThe ways of the Lord are not as our ways, or this would seem the reverse\nof an encouragement to virtue.\n\nWe turn over the pages of our bible for further information on this\ndiabolic theme.\n\nAfter reading the account of the numbering by David attentively, one is\npuzzled by the apparent contradiction, that in one place \"God\" and in\nanother \"Satan\" occurs.*\n\n     * 1 Chron. xxi, 1; 2 Sam. xxiv, 1\n\nBut it may be that there is more harmony between God and the Devil than\nordinary men are aware. Unfortunately, we have not the advantage of\ngreat scholarship, but one erudite commentator on the bible tells us, in\nspeaking of the Hebrew word Azazel: \"This terrible and venerable name\nof God, through the pens of biblical glossers, has been _a Devil, a\nmountain_, a wilderness, and a he-goat.\"* Well may incomprehensibility be\nan attribute of Deity, when, even to holy and reverend fathers, God has\nbeen sometimes undistinguishable from a he-goat or a Devil. Goats\nand Devils are alike represented with horns and tails. We trust\nthat profanity will not enlarge on this sad confusion of ideas. Not\npossessing great lingual acquirements, we adhere to the English bible,\nbelieving that religion can never be improved by mere common sense,\nor human effort. We admire, without understanding, the skill of the\nMissionary, who makes the word \"Mooigniazimoongo\" an equivalent for\nGod in the Sooahelee dialect, and who represents \"original sin\" to\nthe Ottomi Indian by the word \"Teacatzintiliztlatlacolli,\" and who\nrecommends the Delaware to repentance as \"Schiwelendamowitchewagan.\"\n\nWe do not wonder that in these translating thaumaturgic exploits God and\nDevil get mistaken for each other.\n\nGod is a spirit. Jesus was led up of the Spirit to be tempted of the\nDevil; and it is also true that spirits are very likely to lead men\nto the Devil. Too intimate acquaintance with whisky toddy overnight is\noften followed by the _delirium tremens_ and blue-devils on the morrow.\nWe advise our readers to eschew alike spirituous and spiritual mixtures.\nThey interfere sadly with sober thinking, and play the Devil with your\nbrains.\n\nThe history of the temptation of Jesus by the Devil has been dealt with\nin another essay.** Yet it may be well to add the opinion of a Church of\nEngland divine in this place: \"That the Devil should appear personally\n_to_ the Son of God _is certainly not more wonderful_ than that he\nshould, in a more remote age, have appeared _among_ the sons of God, in\nthe presence of God himself, to tempt and torment the righteous Job.\"\n\n     * G. R. Gliddon's extract from \"Land's Sagra Scritura,\"\n     chap. iii, sec. 1.\n\n     ** \"Who was Jesus Christ?\" p. 8.\n\nBut that Satan should carry Jesus, bodily and literally, through the\nair--first to the top of a high mountain, and then to the topmost\npinnacle of the temple--is wholly inadmissible, it is an insult to our\nunderstanding.* It is pleasant to be able to find so many clergymen, in\nthese days, zealously repudiating their own creeds. I am not prepared to\nspeak strongly as to the color of the Devil; white men paint him black,\nblack men white; but, allowing for the prejudices of dark-colored and\nfair-skinned believers, an invisible green would not be an unreasonable\ntint. We presume that he is not colorless, as otherwise the Evangelists\nor the persons present would have labored under considerable\ndifficulties in witnessing the casting out of the Devil from the man in\nthe synagogue.** This Devil is described as an unclean Devil, and it is,\ntherefore, a fair inference that there are some clean Devils as well as\ndirty Devils. Printer's Devils are mostly unclean Devils, but then they\nare only little Devils, and we must not make too much of them. Nearly\nall the Devils seem to talk, and it has therefore been conjectured by\nsome bachelor metaphysicians that they are of the feminine gender, but\nI see no reason to agree in this, and my wife is of a contrary opinion.\nThe Devils are probably good Christians--one text tells us that they\nbelieve and tremble. It is a fact with some poor Devils that the more\nthey believe the more they tremble. We are told in another text that the\nDevil goeth about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. He\nwill have extremely bad taste, however, if he eat up the lean and bony\nworking-classes, while so many fat bishops and stout archdeacons remain\nunconsumed.\n\n     *\"Christian Records,\" by the Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 144.\n\n     ** Luke iv, 35, 36.\n\nDevils should be a sort of eternal salamander, for we are told there is\neverlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels,* and that\nthere is a lake of brimstone and fire, into which the Devil was cast.**\nPerhaps instead of being salamander they will, while in the fire, be\nrather of the 'otter tribe; but this is a question which Mr. C. H.\nSpurgeon, who is a far better judge of brimstone than myself, would\nbe more competent to settle. The Devil has, at least upon one occasion,\nfigured as a controversialist. He disputed with the archangel Michael,\ncontending about the body of Moses;*** and in these degenerate days\nof personality in debate it is pleasant to know that the religious\nchampion, unlike the Grants, Coopers, and Brindleys of the present\nperiod, was very civil toward his Satanic opponent. The Devil was once\nimprisoned for 1,000 years in a bottomless pit.**** If a pit has no\nbottom, it seems but little confinement to shut the top; but with faith\nand prayer, even a good foundation may be obtained for a bottomless pit.\n\nIt is urged by some that the Devil was the serpent of Genesis--that is,\nthat it was really Satan who, in this guise, tempted Eve. There is this\ndifficulty in the matter: the Devil is a liar,***** but in the interview\nwith Eve the serpent seems to have confined himself to the strict\ntruth.****** There is, in fact, no point of resemblance--no horns, no\nhoof, nothing except the tail--which can be in any way identified.\n\n     * Matt, xxv, 41.\n\n     ** Jude, 9.\n\n     *** John viii, 44.\n\n     **** Rev. xxi, 10.\n\n     ***** Rev. xxi, 2.\n\n     ****** Genesis iii, 4, 5, 22.\n\nThe Old Testament speaks a little of the Devils, sometimes of Satan, but\nnever of \"The Devil,\" and it seems almost too much, in Matthew, to usher\nhim in, in the temptation scene, without introduction, and as if he were\nan old acquaintance. I do not remember reading, in the Old Testament,\nanything about the lake of brimstone and fire; this feature of faith\nwas reserved for the warmth of Christian love to inspire; the Pentateuch\nmakes no reference to it. Zechariah, in a vision, saw \"Joshua, the\nHigh-Priest, standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing\nat his right hand to resist him.\"* Why the Devil wanted to resist Joshua\nis not clear; but as Joshua's garments were in a very filthy state, it\nmay be that he was preaching to the Priest the virtues of cleanliness.\nIt is often said that cleanliness is next to godliness; I honestly\nconfess that I should prefer a clean sinner to a dirty saint. Jesus said\nthat one of the twelve disciples was a Devil,** but I am not prepared\nto say whether he meant the unfaithful and cowardly Peter, to whom he\nintrusted the keys of Heaven, or Judas who sold him for money, just as\nwould nearly any bishop of the present day. The bishops preach that it\nis as difficult for a rich man to get into Heaven as for a camel to\ngo through the eye of a needle; yet they enrich themselves, and their\nfamilies, as greedily and carelessly as if they, at any rate, never\nexpected to smell brimstone as a consequence. You are told to resist the\nDevil, and he will flee from you;*** if this be true, he is a cowardly\nDevil, and thus does not agree quite with Milton's picture of his grand,\ndefiant, almost heroism. But then Milton was a poet, and true religion\nhas but little poetry in it.\n\n     * Zechariah iii, 1.\n\n     ** John vi, 70.\n\n     *** James iv, 7.\n\nJeroboam, one of the Jewish monarchs, ordained priests for the Devils,*\nand this may be the reason why, at the present day, all the orthodox\nclergy are gentlemen in black. In the time of Jesus, Satan must, when\nnot in the body of some mad, deaf, dumb, blind, or paralytic person,\nhave been in Heaven; for Jesus, on one occasion, told his disciples that\nhe saw Satan, as lightning, fall from Heaven.** Of course, this would\nbetoken a rapid descent, but although a light affair, it is no laughing\nmatter, and we reverently leave it to the clergy to explain the text.\nJesus told Simon Peter that Satan desired to have him, that he might\nsift him as wheat;*** in this text it may be urged that Jesus was\nchaffing his disciple. Paul, the apostle, seems to have looked on the\nDevil much as the magistrates of Guernsey, Devonport, and Yarmouth look\non the police, for Paul delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan,\nthat they may learn not to blaspheme.****\n\nRevivalists are much indebted for their evanescent successes to Hell and\nthe Devil, if the following extract from the experience of a Christian\npreacher be reliable:\n\n\"Thomas English was one of those very noisy and active preachers who do\nso much in promoting revivals.\" he would tell his hearers of \"dwelling\nwith devouring fire, bearing everlasting burning, roasting on the\nDevil's spit, broiling on his gridiron, being pitched about with his\nfork, drinking the liquid fire, breathing the brimstone fumes, drowning\nin a red-hot sea, lying on fiery beds,\"***** etc.\n\n     * 2 Chron: xi, 15.\n\n     ** Luke x, 18.\n\n     *** Luke xxii, 31.\n\n     **** 1 Tim. i, 20.\n\n     ***** \"Pilgrim's Progress from Methodism to Christianity.\"\n\nIn the present year the vulgar tirades of Reginald Radcliffe, Richard\nWeaver, and C. H. Spurgeon (some of them delivered in Exeter Hall) will\nserve to evidence that the above quotation is not the exaggeration\nwhich some might think. In London, before crowded audiences, Mr. Weaver,\nwithout originality, and with only the merit of copied coarseness, has\ncalled upon the Lord to \"shake the ungodly for five minutes over the\nmouth of Hell.\" Mr. Spurgeon has drawn pictures of Hell which, if true\nand revealed to him by God, are most disgustingly frightful, and which\nbeing, as we believe, false, and but the creation of his own vulgar,\nmorbid fancies, induce, on our part, a feeling of contempt as well as\ndisgust.\n\nThe Wesleyans, some years since, made the Devil a prominent feature in\nthe famous \"Fly-Sheet\" controversy, so much so that a Wesleyan,\nspeaking and writing on the subject, suggested that the authors of the\n\"Fly-Sheets\" were Devils, and another once-Wesleyan writer says: \"The\nfirst thing which made me inquire about the Devil was that I thought him\nabused. I thought him bad enough, but could not help fearing that people\ntold lies about him. R. S------, a very zealous prayer-leader, stole\nsome oats, and imputed the blame to the Devil. T. C------ got drunk, and\ncomplained in the love-feast that the Devil had been very busy with him\nfor some time, and then took him in an unguarded moment. B. S----- was\ndetected in lying, and complained that Satan had gained the advantage\nover him. Old George White burned his fingers in lighting his pipe,\nand declared that it was the Devil that caused him to do it; and Farmer\nDuffy horsewhipped his wife, and said that he did it to beat the Devil\nout of her. This make me desirous to know what influence the Devil\nreally had, and I was stimulated to this inquiry by my friend, Mr.\nTrelevan, who assured mo that the Devil was as necessary as the Almighty\nto the orthodox faith.\"* The fashionable preachers in the neighborhood\nof Belgravia mostly eschew the Devil, and avoid the taint of brimstone;\ntreacle is the commodity they dispense.\n\n     * \"Pilgrim's Progress from Methodism to Christianity.\"\n\nFor myself, the only Devil I know is that black Devil ignorance,\nfostered by knavery and tyranny; a Devil personified by the credulous\nmany, and kept up in the past by the learned but treacherous few, who\npreferred to rule the masses by their fears, rather than to guide them\nthrough their love. This devil has, indeed, not been a roaring lion,\nbut a cowardly and treacherous boa constrictor; it has enveloped in its\nmassive folds glorious truths, and in the fierceness of its brute power\nhas crushed them in its writhings. But oh! a glorious day is coming:\namid the heretofore gloom of night the bright rays of the rising sun\nare piercing, the light of truth dispels the mists of ignorance. Bright\nfacts drive out dark delusions; mighty truths triumph over pious frauds,\nand no longer need men be affrighted by the notion of an omnipotent\nfiend, wandering through the earth, ever seeking their damnation.\n\nYes--to partially adopt the phraseology of a writer in \"Macmillan's\nMagazine\"--I do refuse to see in God a being omniscient as omnipotent,\nwho puts us into this world without our volition, leaves us to struggle\nthrough it as we can, unequally pitted against an almost omnipotent and\nsupersubtile Devil, and then, if we fail, finally drops us out of this\nworld into Hell-fire, where a legion of inferior Devils find constant\nand never-ending employment in inventing fresh tortures for us; our\ncrime being that we have not succeeded where success was rendered\nimpossible. No high, no manly, no humane thinkings are developed in the\ndoctrine of Devils and damnation. If a potent faith, it degrades alike\nthe teacher and the taught, by its abhorrent mercilessness; and if a\nform, instead of a faith, then is the Devil doctrine a misleading sham,\nwhich frightens weak minds and never developes strong men.\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF DAVID.\n\nIn compiling a biographical account of any ancient personage,\nimpediments mostly arise from the uncertainty of the various traditions\nout of which we gather our biography, and from the party bias and\ncoloring which often pervade and detract from their value. In the\npresent case no such obstacle is met with, no such bias can be imagined,\nfor, in giving the life of David, we extract it from an all-wise God's\nperfect and infallible revelation to man, and thus are enabled\nto present it to our readers free from any doubt, uncertainty,\nor difficulty. The father of David was Jesse, an Ephrathite of\nBethlehem-judah. Jesse had either eight sons (1 Samuel xvi, 10, 11, and\nxvii, 12) or only seven (1 Chron. ii, 13 to 15), and David was either\nthe eighth son or the seventh. Some may think this a difficulty to\ncommence with, but such persons will only be those who rely on their own\nintellectual faculties, or who have been misled by Colenso's arithmetic.\nIf you, my dear reader, are in any doubt, at once consult some qualified\ndivine, and he will explain to you that there is really no difference\nbetween eight and seven when rightly understood with prayer and faith,\nby the help of the spirit. Arithmetic is an utterly infidel acquirement,\nand one which all true believers should eschew. In proof of this, I may\nobserve that the proposition three times one are one is a fundamental\narticle of the Christian faith. David's great grandmother was the holy\nharlot Rahab, and his grandmother was a lady who when unmarried went in\nthe night and lay at the feet of Boaz, and left in the morning before\nit was light enough for any one to recognize her like her grandson she\nwas \"prudent in matters.\" When young, David tended his father's sheep,\nand apparently while so doing he obtained the reputation for being\ncunning in playing, a mighty valiant man, and a man of war and\nprudent in matters. He obtained his reputation as a soldier early and\nwonderfully, for he was \"but a youth,\" and God's most holy word asserts\nthat when going to fight with Goliath he tried to walk in armor, and\ncould not, for he was not accustomed to it (1 Samuel xvii, 39, Douay\nversion). Samuel shortly prior to this anointed David, and the spirit of\nthe Lord came upon him from that day forward. If a man takes to spirits\nhis life will probably be one of vice, misery, and misfortune, and if\nspirits take to him the result in the end is nearly the same. Saul being\nKing of Israel, an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. The devil has\nno ear for music, and Saul was recommended to have David to play on a\nharp in order that harmony might drive this evil spirit back to the Lord\nwho sent it. The Jews' harp was played successfully, and Saul was often\nrelieved from the evil spirit by the aid of David's ministrations. There\nis nothing miraculous in this; at the people's concerts many a working\nman has been released from the \"blue devils\" by a stirring chorus, a\nmerry song, or patriotic anthem. David was appointed armor-bearer to\nthe king, but curiously enough this office does not appear to have\ninterfered with his duties as a shepherd; indeed the care of his\nfather's sheep took precedence over the care of the king's armor, and\nin the time of war he \"went and returned to feed his father's sheep.\"\nPerhaps his \"prudence in matters\" induced him thus to take care of\nhimself.\n\nA Philistine, one Goliath of Gath (whose hight was six cubits and a\nspan, or about nine feet six inches, at a low computation) had defied\nthe armies of Israel. This Goliath was (to use the vocabulary of the\nreverend sporting correspondent of a certain religious newspaper) a\nveritable champion of the heavy weights. He carried in all two cwt. of\narmor, offensive and defensive, upon his person, and his challenge had\ngreat weight. None dared accept it among the soldiers of Saul until the\narrival of David with some food for his brethren. David volunteered to\nfight the giant, but Saul objecting that he was not competent to take\npart in a conflict so dangerous, David related how he pursued a _lion\nand a bear_, how he caught _him_ by his beard and slew _him_. David's\noffer was accepted, he was permitted to fight the giant. In one verse\nDavid slew the Philistine with a stone, in another verse he slew him\nwith the giant's own sword, while in 2 Samuel, c. xxi, v. 19, we are\ntold that Goliath the Gittite was slain by Elhanan. Our transalators,\nwho have great regard for our faiths and more for their pulpits, have\nkindly inserted the words \"the brother of\" before Goliath. This saves\nthe true believer from the difficulty of understanding how Goliath of\nGath could have been killed by different men at different times. David\nwas previously well known to Saul, and was much loved and favored by\nthat monarch. He was also seen by the king before he went forth to do\nbattle with the gigantic Philistine. Yet Saul had forgotten his own\narmor-bearer and much-loved harpist, and was obliged to ask Abner who\nDavid was. Abner, captain of the king's host, familiar with the person\nof the armor-bearer to the king, of course knew David well; he therefore\nanswered, \"As thy soul liveth, O king, I can not tell.\" One day the\nevil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul and he prophesied. Men who are\nspiritually inclined often talk great nonsense under the influence of\nspirits, which they sometimes regret when sober. It is, however, an\ninteresting fact in ancient spiritualism to know that Saul prophesied\nwith a devil in him. Under the joint influence of the devil and\nprophecy, he tried to kill David, and when this was repeated, even after\nDavid had married the king's daughter (for whose wedding trousseau he\nhad procured an interesting and delicate offering by the slaughter of two\nhundred men), then to save his own life David fled to Naioth, and Saul\nsent there messengers to arrest him, but the king's messengers having\nall become prophets, in the end Saul went himself, and this time the\nspirit of the Lord came upon him, and he stripped off his clothes and\nprophesied as hard as the rest. What he phrophesied about we do not\nknow. In fact, the priests have made so great deduction from the profits\nduring the plenitude of their power, that there has been little which is\nprofitable in connection with religion left for the people.\n\nDavid lived in exile for some time, having collected around him every\none that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one\nthat was discontented. Saul made several fruitless attempts to effect\nhis capture, with no better result than that he twice placed himself in\nthe power of David, who twice showed the mercy to a cruel king which he\nnever conceded to an unoffending people. David having obtruded himself\nupon Achish, King of Gath, and doubtful of his safety, feigned madness\nto cover his retreat. He then lived a precarious life, sometimes levying\na species of blackmail upon defenseless farmers. Having applied to\none farmer to make him some compensation for permitting the farm to go\nunrobbed, and his demand not having been complied with, David, who is\na man after the heart of the God of mercy, immediately determined to\nmurder the farmer and all his household for their wicked reluctance in\nsubmitting to his extortions. The wife of farmer Nabal compromised the\nmatter. David \"accepted her person\" and ten days afterward Nabal was\nfound dead in his bed. David afterward went with six hundred men and\nlived under the protection of Achish, king of Gath; and while thus\nresiding (being the anointed one of a God who says \"Thou shalt not\nsteal,\") he robbed the inhabitants of the surrounding places; being also\nobedient to the statute \"Thou 1 shalt do no murder,\" he slaughtered, and\nleft neither man nor woman alive to report his robberies to King Achish;\nand as he \"always walked in the ways\" of a God to whom \"lying lips are\nan abomination,\" he made false reports to Achish in relation to his\nactions. Of course this was all for the glory of God, whose ways are\nnot as our ways. Soon the Philistines were engaged in another of the\nconstantly recurring conflicts with the Israelites. Who offered them the\nhelp of himself and band? Who offered to make war on his own countrymen?\nDavid, the man after God's own heart, who obeyed his statutes and who\nwalked in his ways to do only that which was right in the sight of God.\nThe Philistines rejected the traitor's aid, and saved David from the\nconsummation of this baseness. While David was making this unpatriotic\nproffer of his services to the Philistines, his own city of Ziglag was\ncaptured by the Amalekites, who were doubtless endeavoring to avenge\nsome of the most unjustifiable robberies and murders perpetrated by\nDavid and his followers in their country. David's own friends evidently\nthought that this misfortune was a retribution for David's crimes, for\nthey spoke of stoning him. The Amalekites had captured and carried off\nevery thing, but they do not seem to have maltreated or killed any of\ntheir enemies. David was less merciful. He pursued them, recaptured the\nspoil, and spared not a man of them, save 400 who escaped on camels. In\nconsequence of the death of Saul, David soon after was elevated to the\nthrone of Judah, while Ishbosheth, son of Saul, was made King of Israel.\nBut Ishbosheth, having been assassinated, David slew the assassins, when\nthey, hoping for reward, brought him the news, and he reigned ultimately\nover Israel also.\n\nAs my religious readers are doubtless aware, the Lord God of Israel,\nafter the time of Moses, usually dwelt on the top of an ark or box,\nbetween two figures of gold, and on one occasion David made a journey\nwith his followers to Baal, to bring thence the ark of God. They placed\nit on a new cart drawn by oxen. On their journey the oxen stumbled and\nconsequently shook the cart, and one of the drivers, whose name was\nUzzah, fearing that God might be tumbled to the ground, took hold of the\nark, apparently in order to steady it, and prevent it from overturning.\nGod, who is a God of love, was much displeased that any one should\npresume to do any such act of kindness, and killed Uzzah on the spot as\na punishment for his error. This shows that if a man sees the Church\nof God tumbling down, he should never try to prop it up; if it be not\nstrong enough to save itself the sooner it falls the better for human\nkind--that is, if they keep away from it while it is falling. David was\nmuch displeased that the Lord had killed Uzzah; in fact, David seems\nto have wished for a monopoly of slaughter, and always manifested\ndispleasure when killing was done unauthorized by himself. Being\ndispleased, David would not take the ark to Jerusalem; he left it in the\nhouse of Obed Edom, but as the Lord proved more kind to Obed Edom than\nhe had done to Uzzah, David determined to bring it away, and he did so,\nand David danced before the ark in a state of semi-nudity, for which he\nwas reproached by Michal. The story is one which, by itself, would be as\nentertaining to a depraved mind as any Holywell-Street pamphlet, if Lord\nCampbell's act did not prevent the publication of indecencies. The pages\nof God's most holy word, we believe, do not come within the scope of\nthe act, and lovers of obscene language may therefore have legal\ngratification so long as the bible shall exist. The God of Israel, who\nhad been leading a wandering life for many years, and who had \"walked\nin a tent and in a tabernacle,\" and \"from tent to tent,\" and \"from one\ntabernacle to another,\" and who \"had not dwelt in any house\" since the\ntime that he brought the Isrealites out of Egypt, was offered \"an house\nfor him to dwell in,\" but he declined to accept it during the lifetime\nof David, although he promised to permit the son of David to erect him\nsuch an abode. David being now a powerful monarch, and having many wives\nand concubines, saw one day the beautiful wife of one of his soldiers.\nTo see, with this licentious monarch, was to crave for the gratification\nof his lust. The husband, Uriah, was fighting for the king, yet David\nwas base enough to steal his wife's virtue during Uriah's absence in\nthe field of battle. \"Thou shalt not commit adultery,\" was one of\nthe commandments, yet we are told by God of this David, \"who kept my\ncommandments, and who followed me with all his heart to do only that\nwhich was right in mine eyes\" (1 Kings, c. xiv, v. 8). David having\nseduced the wife, sent for her husband, wishing to make him condone his\nwife's dishonor, as many a man has done in other lands, when a king or\nprince has been the seducer. Some hold that virtue in rags is less worth\nthan vice when coroneted. Uriah would not be thus tricked, and David,\nthe pious David, coolly planned, and without mercy caused to be\nexecuted, the treacherous murder of Uriah. God is all just; and David\nhaving committed adultery and murder, God punished and killed an\ninnocent child, which had no part or share in David's crime, and never\nchose that it should be born from the womb of Bathsheba. After this the\nking David was even more cruel and merciless than before. Previously\nhe had systematically slaughtered the inhabitants of Moab, now he sawed\npeople with saws, cut them with harrows and axes, and made them pass\nthrough brick-kilns. Yet of this man God said he \"did that which was\nright in mine eyes.\" So bad a king, so treacherous a man, a lover so\ninconstant, a husband so adulterous, of course was a bad father, having\nbad children. We are little surprised, therefore, to read that his son\nAmmon robbed his sister, David's daughter Tamar, of her virtue; and that\nAmmon was afterward slain by his own brother, David's son Absalom, and\nare scarcely astonished that Absalom himself, on the house-top, in the\nsight of all Israel, should complete his father's shame by an act worthy\na child of God's selected people. Yet these are God's chosen race, and\nthis is the family of the man \"who walked in God's ways all the days of\nhis life.\"\n\nGod, who is all-wise and all-just, and who is not a man that he should\nrepent, had repented that he, had made Saul king because Saul spared\none man. In the reign of David the same good God sent a famine for three\nyears on the decendants of Abraham, and upon being asked his reason for\nthus starving his chosen ones, the reply of the Deity was that he sent\nthe famine on the subjects of David because Saul slew the Gibeonites.\nSatisfactory reason!--because Oliver Cromwell slew the Royalists, God\nwill punish the subjects of Charles the Second. One reason is to profane\neyes equivalent to the other, but a bishop or even a rural dean\nwould show how remarkably God's justice was manifested. David was not\nbehindhand in justice. He had sworn to Saul that he would not cut off\nhis seed--i.e. that he would not destroy Saul's family. He therefore\ntook two of Saul's sons, and five of Saul's grandsons, and gave them up\nto the Gibeonites, who hung them. Strangely wonderful are the ways\nof the Lord! Saul slew the Gibeonites, therefore years afterward God\nstarves Judah. The Gibeonites hang men who had nothing to do with the\ncrime of Saul, except that they are his decendants, and then we are told\n\"the Lord was intreated for the land.\" Perhaps David wanted to get rid\nof the royal family of Saul. The anger of the Lord being kindled against\nIsrael, and he wanting some excuse for punishing the decendants of\nJacob, moved David to number his people. The Chronicles say that it was\nSatan, and pious people may thus learn that there is little\ndifference between God and the Devil when rightly understood. Both\nare personifications founded in the ignorance of the masses, and their\ncontinuance will cease with their credulousness. David caused a census\nto be taken of the tribes of Israel and Judah. There is a trivial\ndisagreement to the extent of about 270,000 soldiers between Samuel and\nChronicles, but the readers must not allow so slight an inaccuracy as\nthis to stand between them and heaven. What are 270,000 men when looked\nat prayerfully? The idea that any doubt should arise is to a devout\nmind at the same time profane and preposterous. Infidels suggest that\n1,570,000 soldiers form a larger army than the Jews are likely to have\npossessed. I can only add that as God is omnipotent, there is no reason\nto limit his power of increasing or decreasing miraculously the armament\nof the Jewish nation. David, it seems, did wrong in numbering his\npeople, although we are never told that he did wrong in robbing or\nmurdering their neighbors, or in pillaging peaceful agriculturists.\nDavid said, \"I have sinned.\" The king having done wrong, an all-merciful\nGod brought a pestilence on the people, and murdered 70,000 Israelites for\nan offense which their ruler had committed. The angel who was engaged\nin this terrible slaughter stood somewhere between heaven and earth, and\nstretched forth his hand with a drawn sword in it to destroy Jerusalem\nitself, but even the blood-thirsty Deity of the bible \"repented him of\nthe evil,\" and said to the angel, \"It is enough.\" Many volumes might be\nwritten to answer the inquiries--Where did the angel stand, and on what?\nOf what metal was the sword, and where was it made? As it was a drawn\none, where was the scabbard? and did the angel wear a sword belt?\nExamined in a pious frame of mind, much holy instruction may be derived\nfrom the attempt at solution of these problems.\n\nDavid now grows old and weak, and at last, notwithstanding that he has\nthe advantage of a pretty maiden to cherish him, he wears out, and his\ndeath hour comes. Oh! for the dying words of the Psalmist! What pious\ninstruction shall we derive from the deathbed scene of the man after\nGod's own heart! Listen to the last words of Judah's expiring\nmonarch. You who have been content with the pious frauds and forgeries\nperpetrated with reference to the deathbeds and dying words of the\ngreat, the generous, the witty Voltaire, the manly, the self-denying,\nthe incorruptible Thomas Paine, the humane, simple, child-like man, yet\nmighty poet, Shelley--you who have turned away from these with horror,\nunfounded if real, come with me to the death couch of the special\nfavorite of God. Bathsheba's child stands by his side. Does any thought\nof the murdered Uriah rack old David's brain, or has a tardy repentance\neffaced the bloody stain from the pages of his memory? What does the\ndying David say? Does he talk of cherubs, angels, and heavenly choirs?\nNay, none of these things pass his lips. Does he make a confession\nof his crime-stained life, and beg his son to be a better king, a truer\nman, a more honest citizen, a wiser father? Nay, not so--no word or\nsigh of regret, no expression of remorse or repentance escaped his lips.\nWhat does the dying David say? This foul adulterer, whom God has made\nking; this red-handed robber, whose life has been guarded by \"our Father\nwhich art in Heaven;\" this perjured king, whose lying lips have found\nfavor in the sight of God, and who when he dies is safe for Heaven. Does\nDavid repent? Nay--like the ravenous tiger or wolf, which once tasting\nblood is made more eager for the prey, he yearns for blood; he dies, and\nwith his dying breath begs his son to bring the grey hairs of two old\nmen down to the grave with blood. Yet this is the life of God's anointed\nking, the chief one of God's chosen people.\n\nDavid is alleged to have written several Psalms. In one of these he\naddresses God in the phraseology of a member of the P. R. praising Deity\nthat he had smitten all of his enemies on the cheek bone and broken the\nteeth of the ungodly. In these days, when \"muscular Christianity\" is\nnot without advocates, the metaphor which presents God as a sort of\nmagnificent Benicia Boy may find many admirers. In the eighteenth Psalm,\nDavid describes God as with \"smoke coming out of his nostrils and fire\nout of his mouth,\" by which \"coals were kindled.\" He represents God as\ncoming down from heaven, and says \"he rode upon a cherub.\" The learned\nParkhurst gives a likeness of a one-legged, four-winged, four-faced\nanimal, part lion, part bull, part eagle, part man, and if a cloven foot\nbe any criterion, part devil also. This description, if correct,\nwill give some idea to the faithful of the wonderful character of the\nequestrian feats of Deity.\n\nIn the twenty-sixth Psalm, the writer, if David, exposes his own\nhypocrisy in addition to his other vices. He has the impudence to tell\nGod that he has been a man of integrity and truth; that he has avoided\nevildoers, although if we are to believe the thirty-eighth Psalm, the\nvile hypocrite must have already been subject to a loathsome disease--a\npenalty consequent on his licentiousness and criminality. In another\nPsalm, David the liar tells God that \"he that telleth lies shall not\ntarry in my sight.\" To understand his malevolent nature we can not do\nbetter than quote his prayer to God against an enemy (Psalm cix, 6-14):\n\n\"6. Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right\nhand.\n\n\"7. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer\nbecome sin.\n\n\"8. Let his days be few: and let another take his office.\n\n\"9. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.\n\n\"10. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek\ntheir bread also out of their desolate places.\n\n\"11. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath: and let the strangers\nspoil his labor.\n\n\"12. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be\nany to favor his fatherless children.\n\n\"13. Let his posterity be cut off: and in the generation following let\ntheir name be blotted out.\n\n\"14. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord: and\nlet not the sin of his mother be blotted out.\"\n\nA full consideration of the life of David must give great help to each\northodox reader in promoting and sustaining his faith. While he is\nspoken of by Deity as obeying all the statutes and keeping all the\ncommandments, we are astonished to find that murder, theft, lying,\nadultery, licentiousness, and treachery are among the crimes which may\nbe laid to his charge. David was a liar, God is a God of truth; David\nwas merciless, God is merciful, and of long suffering; David was a\nthief, God says \"Thou shalt not steal;\" David was a murderer, God says\n\"Thou shalt do no murder;\" David took the wife of Uriah, and \"accepted\"\nthe wife of Nabal, God says \"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife;\"\nYet, notwithstanding all these things, David was a man after God's own\nheart.\n\nHad this Jewish monarch any redeeming traits in his character? Was he\na good citizen? If so, the bible has carefully concealed every action\nwhich would entitle him to such an appellation, and in lieu has given\nus the record of his attempted extortion in the case of Nabal, and\nfurnished us with a notice of his horde of followers--outlawed,\ndiscontented, and in debt. Was he a kind and constant husband? Was\nhe grateful to those who aided him in his hour of need? Nay; like the\nwounded serpent which, half frozen by the wayside, is warmed into new\nlife in the traveler's breast, and then treacherously stabs him with his\npoisoned fangs, so David robbed and murdered the friends and allies of\nthe King of Gath, who had afforded him refuge against the pursuit of\nSaul. Does his patriotism outshine his many vices? Does his love of\ncountry efface his many misdoings? Not even this. David was a heartless\ntraitor who volunteered to serve against his own countrymen, and would\nhave done so had not the Philistines rejected his treacherous help. Was\nhe a good king? So say the priesthood now; but where is the evidence of\nhis virtue? His crimes brought a plague and pestilence on his\nsubjects, and his reign is a continued succession of wars, revolts, and\nassassinations, plottings and counterplots.\n\nThe life of David is a dark blot on the page of human history, and our\nbest hope is that if a spirit from God inspired the writer, then that it\nwas a lying spirit, and that he has given us fiction instead of truth.\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF JACOB.\n\nIt is pleasant work to present to the reader sketches of God's chosen\npeople. More especially is it an agreeable task to recapitulate the\ninteresting events occurring during the life of a man whom God has\nloved. Jacob was the son of Isaac; the grandson of Abraham. These three\nmen were so free from fault, their lives so unobjectionable, that the\nGod of the bible delighted to be called the \"God of Abraham, the God of\nIsaac, and the God of Jacob.\" It is true, Abraham owned slaves, was not\nexact as to the truth, and, on one occasion, turned his wife and child\nout to the mercies of a sandy desert. That Isaac in some sort followed\nhis father's example and disingenuous practices, and that Jacob was\nwithout manly feeling, a sordid, selfish, unfraternal cozener, a\ncowardly trickster, a cunning knave, but they must nevertheless have\nbeen good men, for God was \"the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and\nthe God of Jacob.\" The name Jacob is not inappropriate. Kalisch says:\n\"This appellation, if taken in its obvious etymological meaning, implies\na deep ignominy; for the root from which it is derived signifies _to\ndeceive, to defraud,_ and in such a despicable meaning the same form\nof the word is indeed used elsewhere (Jeremiah ix, 3). Jacob would,\ntherefore, be nothing else but the crafty _impostor_; in this sense\nEsau, in the heat of his animosity, in fact clearly explains the word,\njustly is his name called Jacob (cheat) because he has cheated me\ntwice\" (Genesis xxvii, 30). According to the ordinary orthodox bible\nchronology, Jacob was born about 1836 or 1837 B. C, that is, about 2,168\nyears from \"in the beginning,\" his father Isaac being then sixty years\nof age. There is a difficulty connected with Holy Scripture chronology\nwhich would be insuperable were it not that we have the advantage of\nspiritual aids in elucidation of the text. This difficulty arises from\nthe fact that the chronology of the bible, in this respect, like the\nmajor portion of bible history, is utterly unreliable. But we do not\nlook to the Old or New Testament for mere commonplace, everyday facts;\nor if we do, severe will be the disappointment of the truthseeker; we\nlook there for mysteries, miracles, paradoxes, and perplexities, and\nhave no difficulties in finding the objects of our search. Jacob was\nborn, together with his twin brother, Esau, in consequence of special\nentreaty addressed by Isaac to the Lord on behalf of Rebekah, to whom\nhe had been married about nineteen years, and who was yet childless.\nInfidel physiologists (and it is a strange, though not unaccountable,\nfact that all who are physiologists are also in so far infidel) assert\nthat prayer would do little to repair the consequence of such disease,\nor such abnormal organic structure, as would compel sterility. But our\nable clergy are agreed that the bible was not intended to teach us\nscience; or, at any rate, we have learned that its attempts in that\ndirection are most miserable failures. Its mission is to teach the\nunteachable; to enable us to comprehend the incomprehensible. Before\nJacob was born God decreed that he and his descendants should obtain\nthe mastery over Esau and his descendants--\"the elder shall serve the\nyounger.\"* The God of the bible is a just God, but it is hard for\nweak flesh to discover the justice of this proemial decree, which so\nsentenced to servitude the children of Esau before their father's birth.\n\n     *Gen. xxv, 23.\n\nJacob came into the world holding by his brother's heel, like some\ncowardly knave in the battle of life, who, not daring to break a gap in\nthe hedge of conventional prejudice, which bars his path, is yet ready\nenough to follow some bolder warrior, and to gather the fruits of his\ncourage. \"And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of\nthe field: and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.\" One day Esau\nreturned from his hunting faint and wearied to the very point of death.\nHe was hungry, and came to Jacob, his twin and only brother, saying,\n\"Feed me, I pray thee,\"* \"for I am exceedingly faint.\"** In a like case\nwould not any man so entreated immediately offer to the other the best\nat his command, the more especially when that other is his only brother,\nborn at the same time, from the same womb, suckled at the same breast,\nfed under the same roof? But Jacob was not a man and a brother, he\nwas one of God's chosen people, and one who had been honored by God's\nprenatal selection. \"If a man come unto me and hate not his brother, he\ncan not be my disciple.\" So taught Jesus the Jew, in after time, but\nin this earlier age Jacob the Jew, in practice, anticipated the later\ndoctrine. It is one of the misfortunes of theology, if not its crime,\nthat profession of love to God is often accompanied with bitter and\nactive hate of man. Jacob was one of the founders of the Jewish race,\nand even in this their pre-historic age, the instinct for driving a hard\nbargain seems strongly developed. \"Jacob said\" to Esau, \"Sell me this\nday thy birthright.\" The famished man vainly expostulated, and the\nbirthright was sold for a mess of pottage.\n\n     * Gen. xxv, 30\n\n     ** Douay version.\n\nIf to-day one man should so meanly and cruelly take advantage of his\nbrother's necessities to rob him of his birthright, all good and honest\nmen would shun him as an unbrotherly scoundrel and most contemptible\nknave; yet, less than 4,000 years ago, a very different standard of\nmorality must have prevailed. Indeed, if God is unchangeable, divine\nnotions of honor and honesty must to-day be widely different from those\nof our highest men. God approved and endorsed Jacob's conduct. His\napproval is shown by his love afterward expressed for Jacob, his\nendorsement by his subsequent attention to Jacob's welfare. We may learn\nfrom this tale, so pregnant with instruction, that any deed which to\nthe worldly and sensible man appears like knavery while understood\nliterally, becomes to the devout and prayerful man an act of piety when\nunderstood spiritually. Much faith is required to thoroughly understand\nthis; _for example_, it looks like swindling to collect poor children's\nhalfpence and farthings in the Sunday schools for missionary purposes\nabroad, and to spend thereout two or three hundred pounds in an annual\njubilatory dinner for well-fed pauper parsons at home; and so thought\nthe noble lord who wrote to the _Times_ under the initials S. G. O. If\nhe had possessed more faith and less sense, he would have seen the\npiety and completely overlooked the knavery of the transaction. Pious\npreachers and clever commentators declare that Esau despised his\nbirthright. I do not deny that they might back their declaration by\nscripture quotations, but I do deny that the narrative ought to convey\nany such impression. Esau's words were, \"Behold I am at the point to\ndie: and what profit shall this birthright be to me?\"\n\nIsaac growing old, and fearing from his physical infirmities the near\napproach of death, was anxious to bless Esau before he died, and\ndirected him to take quiver and bow and go out in the field to hunt some\nvenison for a savory meat, such as old Isaac loved. Esau departed, but\nwhen he had left his father's presence in order to fulfill his request,\nJacob appeared on the scene. Instigated by his mother, he, by an abject\nstratagem, passed himself off as Esau. With a savory meat prepared by\nRebekah, he came into his father's presence, and Isaac said, \"Who art\nthou, my son?\" Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. The Lord loved\nJacob, yet Jacob lied to his old blind father, saying, \"I am Esau,\nthy first-born.\" Isaac had some doubts: these are manifested by his\ninquiring how it was that the game was killed so quickly. Jacob, whom\nGod loved, in a spirit of shameless blasphemy replied, \"Because the\nLord thy God brought it to me.\" Isaac still hesitated, fancying that he\nrecognized the voice to be the voice of Jacob, and again questioned him,\nsaying, \"Art thou my very son Esau?\" God is the God of truth and loved\nJacob, yet Jacob said, \"I am.\" Then Isaac blessed Jacob, believing that\nhe was blessing Esau: and God permitted the fraud to be successful, and\nhimself also blessed Jacob. In that extraordinary composition known\nas the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are told that by faith Isaac blessed\nJacob. But what faith had Isaac? Faith that Jacob was Esau? His belief\nwas produced by deceptive appearances. His faith resulted from false\nrepresentations. And there are very many men in the world who have\nno better foundation for their religious faith than had Isaac when he\nblessed Jacob, believing him to be Esau. In the Douay bible I find the\nfollowing note on this remarkable narrative: \"St. Augustine (X. contra\nmendacium c. 10), treating at large upon this place, excuseth Jacob from\na lie, because thi's whole passage was mysterious, as relating to the\npreference which was afterward to be given to the Gentiles before the\ncarnal Jews, which Jacob, by prophetic light, might understand. So far\nit is certain that the first birthright, both by divine election and by\nEsau's free cession, belonged to Jacob; so that if there were any lie\nin the case, it would be no more than an officious and venial one.\" How\nglorious to be a pa triarch, and to have a real saint laboring years\nafter your death to twist your lies into truth by aid of prophetic\nlight. Lying is at all times most disreputable, but at the deathbed the\ncrime is rendered more heinous. The death hour would have awed many men\ninto speaking the truth, but it had little effect on Jacob. Although\nIsaac was about to die, this greedy knave cared not, so that he got from\nthe dying man the sought-for prize. God is said to love righteousness\nand hate iniquity, yet he loved the iniquitous Jacob, and hated the\nhonest Esau. All knaves are tinged more or less with cowardice. Jacob\nwas no exception to the rule. His brother enraged at the deception\npracticed upon Isaac, threatened to kill Jacob. Jacob was warned by his\nmother and fled. Induced by Rebekah, Isaac charged Jacob to marry one of\nLaban's daughters. On the way to Haran, where Laban dwell, Jacob rested\nand slept. While sleeping he dreamed; ordinarily dreams have little\nsignificance, but in the bible they are more important. Some of the most\nweighty and vital facts (?) of the bible are communicated in dreams,\nand rightly so; if the men had been wide awake, they would have probably\nrejected the revelation as absurd. So much does that prince of darkness,\nthe devil, influence mankind against the bible in the daytime, that it\nis when all is dark, and our eyes are closed, and the senses dormant,\nthat God's mysteries are most clearly seen and understood. Jacob \"saw\nin his sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof\ntouching heaven; the angels of God ascending and descending by it, and\n_the Lord leaning upon the ladder_.\" In the ancient temples of India,\nand in the mysteries of Mithra, the seven-stepped ladder by which the\nspirits ascended to heaven is a prominent feature, and one of probably\nfar higher antiquity than the age of Jacob. Did paganism furnish the\ngroundwork for the patriarch's dream? \"No man hath seen God at any\ntime.\" God is \"invisible.\" Yet Jacob saw the invisible God, whom no man\nhath seen or can see, either standing above a ladder or leaning upon it.\nTrue, it was all a dream. Yet God spoke to Jacob; but perhaps that was\na delusion too. We find by scripture that God threatens to send to some\n\"strong delusions, that they might believe a lie and be damned.\" Poor\nJacob was much frightened, as any one might be, to dream of God leaning\non so long a ladder. What if it had broken and the dreamer underneath it?\nJacob's fears were not so powerful but that his shrewdness and\navarice had full scope in a sort of half-vow, half-contract, made in the\nmorning. Jacob said, \"If God will be with me and will keep me in this\nway that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so\nthat I shall come again to my father's house in peace, then shall the\nLord be my God.\" The inference deducible from this conditional statement\nis, that if God failed to complete the items enumerated by Jacob, then\nthe latter would have nothing to do with him. Jacob was a shrewd Jew,\nwho would have laughed to scorn the preaching, \"Take no thought, saying,\nwhat shall we eat? or, what shall we drink? or, wherewithal shall we\nbe clothed?\"\n\nAfter this contract, Jacob went on his journey, and reached the house of\nhis mother's brother, Laban, into whose service he entered. \"Diamond\ncut diamond\" would be an appropriate heading to the tale which gives the\ntransactions between Jacob the Jew and Laban the son of Nahor. Laban had\ntwo daughters. Rachel, the youngest, was \"beautiful and well-favored;\"\nLeah, the elder, was \"blear-eyed.\" Jacob served for the pretty one;\nbut on the wedding-day Laban made a feast, and gave Jacob the ugly Leah\ninstead of the pretty Rachel. Jacob being (according to Josephs) both in\ndrink and in the dark, it was morning ere he discovered his error. After\nthis Jacob served for Rachel also, and then the remainder of the chapter\nof Jacob's servitude to Laban is but the recital of a series of\nfrauds and trickeries. Jacob embezzled Laban's property, and Laban\nmisappropriated and changed Jacob's wages. In fact, if Jacob had not\npossessed the advantage of divine aid, he would probably have failed\nin the endeavor to cheat his master; but God, who says \"Thou shalt\nnot covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything that is thy neighbor's,\"\nencouraged Jacob in his career of criminality. At last, Jacob, having\namassed a large quantity of property, determined to abscond from\nhis employment, and taking advantage of his uncle's absence at\nsheepshearing, \"he stole away unawares,\" taking with him his wives, his\nchildren, flocks, herds, and goods. To crown the whole, Rachel, worthy\nwife of a husband so fraudulent, stole her father's gods. In the present\nday the next phase would be the employment of Mr. Sergeant Vericute, of\nthe special detective department, and the issue of bills as follows:\n\n     \"ONE HUNDRED SHEKELS REWARD,\n\n     Absconded, with a large amount of property,\n\n     JACOB, THE JEW.\n\n     Information to be given to Laban, the Syrian, at Haran, in the\n\n     East, or to Mr. Serjeant Vericute, Scotland Yard.\"\n\nBut in those days God's ways were not as our ways. God came to Laban\nin a dream and compounded the felony, saying, \"Take heed thou speak\nnot anything harshly against Jacob.\"* This would probably prevent Laban\ngiving evidence in a police court against Jacob, and thus save him from\ntransportation or penal servitude. After a reconciliation and treaty had\nbeen effected between Jacob and Laban, the former went on his way \"and\nthe angel of God met him.\" Angels are not included in the circle with\nwhich I have at present made acquaintance, and I hesitate, therefore, to\ncomment on the meeting between Jacob and the angels. Balaam's ass, at\na later period, shared the good fortune which was the lot of Jacob, for\nthat animal also had a meeting with an angel. Jacob was the grandson\nof the faithful Abraham to whom angels also appeared. Perhaps angelic\napparitions are limited to asses and the faithful. On this point I\ndo not venture to assert, and but timidly suggest. It is somewhat\nextraordinary that Jacob should have manifested no surprise at meeting\na host of angels. Still more worthy of note is it that our good\ntranslators elevate the same words into \"angels\" in verse 1, which they\ndegrade into \"messengers\" in verse 3. John Bellamy, in his translation,\nsays the \"angels were not immortal angels,\" and it is very probable John\nBellamy was right.\n\n     * Genesis xxxi, 24, Douay version.\n\nJacob sent messengers before him to Esau, and heard that the latter was\ncoming to meet him followed by 400 men. Jacob, a timorous knave at best,\nbecame terribly afraid. He, doubtless, remembered the wrongs inflicted\nupon Esau, the cruel extortion of the birthright, and the fraudulent\nobtainment of the dying Isaac's blessing. He, therefore, sent forward\nto his brother Esau a large present as a peace offering. He also divided\nthe remainder of his flocks, herds, and goods, into two divisions, that\nif one were smitten, the other might escape; sending these on, he was\nleft alone. While alone he wrestled with either a man, or an angel, or\nGod. The text says \"a man,\" the heading to the chapter says \"an angel,\"\nand Jacob himself says that he has \"seen God face to face.\" Whether God,\nangel, or man, it was not a fair wrestle, and were the present editor of\n_Bell's Life_ referee, he would, unquestionably, declare it to be most\nunfair to touch \"the hollow of Jacob's thigh\" so as to put it \"out\nof joint,\" and, consequently, award the result of the match to Jacob.\nJacob, notwithstanding the injury, still kept his grip, and the\napocryphal wrestler, finding himself no match at fair struggling, and\nthat foul play was unavailing, now tried entreaty, and said, \"Let me\ngo, for the day breaketh.\" Spirits never appear in the daytime, when,\nif they did appear, they could be seen and examined; they are more often\nvisible in the twilight, in the darkness, and in dreams. Jacob would\nnot let go, his life's instinct for bargaining prevailed, and probably,\nbecause he could get nothing else, he insisted on his opponent's\nblessing before he let him go. In the Roman Catholic version of the\nbible there is the following note: Chap, xxxii, 24. _A man, etc._\n\n\"This was an angel in human shape, as we learn from _Osee_ (xii, 4). He\nis called _God_ (xv, 28 and 30), because he represented the son of\nGod. This wrestling in which Jacob, assisted by God, was a match for an\nangel, was so ordered (v. 28) that he might learn by this experiment of\nthe divine assistance, that neither Esau nor any other man should have\npower to hurt him.\" How elevating it must be to the true believer to\nconceive God helping Jacob to wrestle with his own representative. Read\nprayerfully, doubtless, the spiritual and inner meaning of the text (if\nit have one) is most transcendental. Read sensibly, the literal and only\nmeaning the text conveys is that of an absurd tradition of an ignorant\nage. On the morrow Jacob met Esau:\n\n\"And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and\nkissed him; and they wept.\n\n\"And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he\nsaid these are to find grace in the sight of my lord.\n\n\"And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto\nthyself.\"\n\nThe following expressive comment, from the able pen of Mr. Holyoake,\ndeserves transcription: \"The last portion of the history of Jacob and\nEsau is very instructive. The coward fear of Jacob to meet his brother\nis well delineated. He is subdued by a sense of his treacherous guilt.\nThe noble forgiveness of Esau invests his memory with more respect than\nall the wealth Jacob won, and all the blessings of the Lord he received.\nCould I change my name from Jacob to Esau, I would do it in honor of\nhim. The whole incident has a dramatic interest. There is nothing in\nthe Old or New Testament equal to it. The simple magnanimity of Esau is\nscarcely surpassed by anything in Plutarch. In the conduct of Esau we\nsee the triumph of time, of filial affection, and generosity over a deep\nsense of execrable treachery, unprovoked and irrevocable injury.\" Was\nnot Esau a merciful, generous man? Yet God hated him, and shut him out\nof all share in the promised land. Was not Jacob a mean, prevaricating\nknave, a crafty, abject cheat? Yet God loved and rewarded him. How\ngreat are the mysteries in this bible representation of an all-good\nand all-loving God thus hating good and loving evil. At the time of the\nwrestling, a promise was made, which is afterward repeated by God to\nJacob, that the latter should not be any more called Jacob, but\nIsrael. This promise was not strictly kept; the name \"Jacob\" being used\nrepeatedly, mingled with that of Israel in the after part of Jacob's\nhistory. Jacob had a large family; his sons are reputedly the heads of\nthe twelve Jewish tribes. We have not much space to notice them: suffice\nit to say that one Joseph, who was much loved by his father, was sold by\nhis brethren into slavery. This transaction does not seem to have called\nfor any special reproval from God. Joseph, who from early life was\nskilled in dreams, succeeded by interpreting the visions of Pharaoh in\nobtaining a sort of premiership in Egypt; while filling this office he\nmanaged to act like the Russells and the Greys of our own time. We are\ntold that he \"_placed_ his father and his brethren, and gave them a\npossession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land.\" Joseph made\nthe parallel still stronger between himself and a more modern head of\nthe Treasury Bench; he not only gave his own family the best place in\nthe land, but he also, by a trick of statecraft, obtained the land for\nthe king, made slaves of the people, and made it a law over the land\nof Egypt that the king should be entitled to one-fifth of the produce,\nalways, of course, excepting and saving the rights of the priest. Judah,\nanother brother, sought to have burned a woman by whom he had a child.\nA third, named Reuben, was guilty of the grossest vice, equaled only\nby that of Absalon the son of David; of Simeon and Levi, two more of\nJacob's sons, it is said that \"Instruments of cruelty were in their\nhabitations;\" their conduct, as detailed in the 34th chapter of Genesis,\nalike shocks by its treachery and its mercilessness. After Jacob had\nheard that his son Joseph was governor in Egypt, but before he had\njourneyed farther than Beer-sheba, God spake unto him in the visions of\nthe night, and probably forgetting that he had given him a new name,\nor being more accustomed to the old one, said, \"Jacob, Jacob,\" and then\ntold him to go down into Egypt, where Jacob died after a residence\nof about seventeen years, when 147 years of age. Before Jacob died he\nblessed, first the sons of Joseph, and then his own children, and at\nthe termination of his blessing to Ephraim and Manasseh we find the\nfollowing speech addressed to Joseph: \"Moreover, I have given to thee\none portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the\nAmorite with my sword and with my bow.\" This speech implies warlike\npursuit on the part of Jacob, of which the bible gives no record, and\nwhich seems incompatible with his recorded life. The sword of craft\nand the bow of cunning are the only weapons in the use of which he was\nskilled. When his sons murdered and robbed the Hivites, fear seems to\nhave been Jacob's most prominent characteristic. It is not my duty, nor\nhave I space here, to advocate any theory of interpretation, but it may\nbe well to mention that many learned men contend that the whole history\nof Jacob is but an allegory. That the twelve patriarchs but typify the\ntwelve signs of the zodiac, as do the twelve great gods of the Pagans,\nand twelve apostles of the gospels.\n\nFrom the history of Jacob it is hard to draw any conclusions favorable\nto the man whose life is narrated. To heap additional epithets on his\nmemory would be but waste of time and space. I conclude by regretting\nthat if God loved one brother and hated another, he should have so\nunfortunately selected for his love the one whose whole career shows him\nin a most despicable light.\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.\n\nMost undoubtedly father Abraham is a personage whose history should\ncommand our attention, if only because he figures as the founder of the\nJewish race--a race which, having been promised protection and favor by\nDeity, appear to have experienced little else besides the infliction, or\nsufferance of misfortune and misery. Men are taught to believe that\nGod, following out a solemn covenant made with Abraham, suspended the\noperations of Nature to aggrandize the Jews; that he promised always\nto bless and favor them if they adhered to his worship and obeyed the\npriests. The promised blessings were, usually, political authority,\nindividual happiness and sexual power, long life, and great wealth;\nthe threatened curses for idolatry or disobedience: disease, loss of\nproperty and children, mutilation, death. Among the blessings: the\nright to kill, plunder, and ravish their enemies, with protection, while\npious, against any subjection to retaliatory measures. And all this\nbecause they were Abraham's children!\n\nAbraham is an important personage. Without Abraham, no Jesus, no\nChristianity, no Church of England, no bishops, no tithes, no church\nrates. But for Abraham England would have lost all these blessings.\nAbraham was the great-grandfather of Judah, the head of the tribe to\nwhich God's father, Joseph, belonged.\n\nIn gathering materials for a short biographical sketch, we are at the\nsame time comforted and dismayed by the fact that the only reliable\naccount of Abraham's career is that furnished by the book of Genesis,\nsupplemented by a few brief references in other parts of the bible, and\nthat, outside \"God's perfect and infallible revelation to man,\" there is\nno reliable account of Abraham's existence at all. We are comforted\nby the thought that Genesis is unquestioned by the faithful, and is at\npresent protected by Church and State against heretic assaults; but we\nare dismayed when we think that, if Infidelity, encouraged by Colenso\nand Kalisch, upsets Genesis, Abraham will have little historical claim\non our attention Some philologists have asserted that Brama and Abraham\nare alike corruptions of Abba Rama, or Abrama, and that Sarah is\nidentical with Sarasvati. Abram, is a Chaldean compound, meaning father\nof the elevated, or exalted father [------] is a compound of Chaldee\nand Arabic, signifying father of a multitude. In part V of his work\nColenso mentions that Adonis was formerly identified with Abram, \"high\nfather,\" Adonis being the personified sun.\n\nLeaving incomprehensible philology for the ordinary authorized version\nof our bibles, we find that Abraham was the son of Terah. The text does\nnot expressly state where Abraham was born, and I can not therefore\ndescribe his birthplace with that accuracy of detail which a true\nbeliever might desire, but I may add that he \"dwelt in old time on the\nother side of the flood.\" (Joshua xxiv, 2, 3.) The situation of such\ndwelling involves a geographical problem most unlikely to be solved\nunless the inquirer is \"half seas over.\" Abraham was born when Terah,\nhis father, was seventy years of age; and, accord-ing to Genesis, Terah\nand his family came forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and went to Haran\nand dwelt there. We turn to the map to look for Ur of the Chaldees,\nanxious to discover it as possibly Abraham's place of nativity, but find\nthat the translators of God's inspired word have taken a slight liberty\nwith the text by substituting \"Ur of the Chaldees\" for \"Aur Kasdim,\" the\nlatter being, in plain English, _the light of the magi, or conjurers, or\nastrologers_. [------] is stated by Kalisch to have been made the basis\nfor many extraordinary legends, as to Abraham's rescue from the flames.\n\nAbraham, being born--according to Hebrew chronology, 2,083 years after\nthe creation, and according to the Septuagint 3,549 years after the\nevent--when his father was seventy, grew so slowly that when his father\nreached the good old age of 205 years, Abraham had only arrived at 75\nyears, having, apparently, lost no less than 60 year's growth during\nhis father's lifetime. St. Augustine and St Jerome gave this up as a\ndifficulty inexplicable. Calmet endeavors to explain it, and makes it\nworse. But what real difficulty is there? Do you mean, dear reader,\nthat it is impossible Abraham could have lived 135 years, and yet be\nonly 75 years of age? Is this your objection? It is a sensible one,\nI admit, but it is an Infidel one. Eschew sense, and, retaining only\nreligion, ever remember that with God all things are possible. Indeed,\nI have read myself that gin given to young children stunts their growth;\nand who shall say what influence of the spirit prevented the full\ndevelopment of Abraham's years? It is a slight question whether Abraham\nand his two brothers were not born the same year; if this be so, he\nmight have been a small child, and not grown so quickly as he would have\notherwise done. \"The Lord\" spoke to Abraham, and promised to make of him\na great nation, to bless those who blessed Abraham, and to curse those\nwho cursed him. I do not know precisely which Lord it was that spake\nunto Abraham. In the Hebrew it says it was [------] Jeue, or, as our\ntranslators call it, Jehovah; but as God said (Exodus vi, 2) that by the\nname \"Jehovah was I not known\" to either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, we\nmust conclude either that the omniscient Deity had forgotten the matter,\nor that a counterfeit Lord had assumed a title to which he had no right.\nThe word Jehovah, which the book of Exodus says Abraham did not know,\nis nearly always the name by which Abraham addresses or speaks of the\nJewish Deity.\n\nAbraham having been promised protection by the God of Truth, initiated\nhis public career with a diplomacy of statement worthy of Talleyrand,\nThiers, or Gladstone. He represented his wife Sarah as his sister,\nwhich, if true, is a sad reproach to the marriage. The ruling Pharaoh,\nhearing the beauty of Sarah commended, took her into his house, she\nbeing at that time a fair Jewish dame, between 60 and 70 years of age,\nand he entreated Abraham well for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen,\nasses and servants, and camels. We do not read that Abraham objected in\nany way to the loss of his wife. The Lord, who is all-just, finding\nout that Pharaoh had done wrong, not only punished the king, but also\npunished the king's household, who could hardly have interfered with his\nmisdoings. Abraham got his wife back, and went away much richer by the\ntransaction. Whether the conduct of father Abraham in pocketing quietly\nthe price of the insult--or honor--offered to his wife is worthy of\nmodern imitation, is a question I leave to be discussed by Convocation\nwhen it has finished with the Athanasian Creed. After this transaction\nwe are not surprised to hear that Abraham was very rich in \"silver\nand gold.\" So was the Duke of Marlborough after the King had taken his\nsister in similar manner into his house. In verse 19 of chapter xii,\nthere is a curious mistranslation in our version. The text is: \"It is\nfor that I had taken her for my wife,\" our version has: \"_I might have\ntaken_ her.\" The Douay so translates as to take a middle phrase, leaving\nit doubtful whether or not Pharaoh actually took Sarah as his wife.\nIn any case, the Egyptian king acted well throughout. Abraham plays the\npart of a timorous, contemptible hypocrite. Strong enough to have fought\nfor his wife, he sold her. Yet Abraham was blessed for his faith, and\nhis conduct is our pattern!\n\nDespite his timorousness in the matter of his wife, Abraham was a man\nof wonderful courage and warlike ability. To rescue his relative,\nLot:--with whom he could not live on the same land without quarreling,\nboth being religious--he armed 318 servants, and fought with four\npowerful kings, defeating them and recovering the spoil. Abraham's\nvictory was so decisive that the king of Sodom, who fled and fell (xiv,\n10) in a previous encounter, now met Abraham alive (see v, 17), to\ncongratulate him on his victory. Abraham was also offered bread and wine\nby Melchisedek, King of Salem, priest of the Most High God. Where was\nSalem? Some identify it with Jerusalem, which it can not be, as Jebus\nwas not so named until after the time of the Judges (Judges xix, 10).\nHow does this King, of this unknown Salem, never heard of before or\nafter, come to be priest of the Most High God? These are queries for\ndivines--orthodox disciples believe without inquiring. Melchisedek was\nmost unfortunate as far as genealogy is concerned. He had no father. I\ndo not mean by this that any bar sinister defaced his escutcheon. He not\nonly was without a father, but without mother also; he had no beginning\nof days or end of life, and is therefore probably at the present time an\nextremely old gentleman, who would be an invaluable acquisition to any\nantiquarian association fortunate enough to cultivate his acquaintance.\nGod having promised Abraham a numerous family, and the promise not\nhaving been in any part fulfilled, the patriarch grew uneasy and\nremonstrated with the Lord, who explained the matter thoroughly to\nAbraham when the latter was in a deep sleep, and a dense darkness\nprevailed. Religions explanations come with greater force under these\nor similar conditions. Natural or artificial light and clear-sightedness\nare always detrimental to spiritual manifestations.\n\nAbraham's wife had a maid named Hagar, and she bore to Abraham a child\nnamed Ishmael; at the time Ishmael was born, Abraham was 86 years of\nage. Just before Ishmael's birth Hagar was so badly treated that she ran\naway. As she was only a slave, God persuaded Hagar to return, and humble\nherself to her mistress.\n\nThirteen years afterward God appeared to Abraham, and instituted the\nrite of circumcision--which rite had been practiced long before by other\nnations--and again renewed the promise. The rite of circumcision was\nnot only practiced by nations long anterior to that of the Jews, but\nappears, in many cases, not even to have been pretended as a religious\nrite. (See Kalisch, Genesis, p. 386; Cahen, Genese, p. 43) After God\nhad \"left off talking with him, God went up from Abraham.\" As God is\ninfinite, he did not, of course, go up; but still the bible says God\nwent up, and it is the duty of the people to believe that he did so,\nespecially as the infinite Deity then and now resides habitually in\n\"heaven,\" wherever that may be. Again the Lord appeared to Abraham,\neither as three men or angels, or as one of the three; and Abraham, who\nseemed hospitably inclined, invited the three to wash their feet, and to\nrest under the tree, and gave butter and milk and dressed calf, tender\nand good, to them, and they did eat; and after the inquiry as to where\nSarah then was, the promise of a son is repeated. Sarah--then by her own\nadmission an old woman, stricken in years--laughed when she heard this,\nand the Lord said, \"Wherefore did Sarah laugh?\" and Sarah denied it,\nbut the Lord said, \"Nay, but thou didst laugh.\" The three then went\ntoward Sodom, and Abraham went with them as a guide; and the Lord\nexplained to Abraham that some sad reports had reached him about Sodom\nand Gomorrah, and that he was then going to find out whether the report\nwas reliable. God is infinite, and was always therefore at Sodom and\nGomorrah, but had apparently been temporarily absent; he is omniscient,\nand therefore knew everything which was happening at Sodom and Gomorrah,\nbut he did not know whether or not the people were as wicked as they\nhad been represented to him. God, Job tells us, \"put no trust in his\nservants, and his angels he charged with folly.\" Between the rogues and\nthe fools, therefore, the all-wise and all-powerful God seems to be as\nliable to be mistaken in the reports made to him as any monarch might be\nin reports made by his ministers. Two of the three men, or angels, went\non to Sodom, and left the Lord with Abraham, who began to remonstrate\nwith Deity on the wholesale destruction contemplated, and asked him to\nspare the city if fifty righteous should be found within it. God said,\n\"If I find fifty righteous within the city, then will I spare the place\nfor their sakes.\" God being all-wise, he knew there were not fifty\nin Sodom, and was deceiving Abraham. By dint of hard bargaining, in\nthorough Hebrew fashion, Abraham, whose faith seemed tempered by\ndistrust, got the stipulated number reduced to ten, and then \"the Lord\nwent his way.\"\n\nJacob Ben Chajim, in his introduction to the Rabbinical bible, p. 28,\ntells us that the Hebrew text used to read in verse 22: \"And Jehovah\nstill stood before Abraham;\" but the scribes altered it, and made\nAbraham stand before the Lord, thinking the original text offensive to\nDeity.\n\nThe 18th chapter of Genesis has given plenty of work to the divines.\nAugustin contended that God can take food, though he does not require\nit. Justin compared \"the eating of God with the devouring power of the\nfire.\" Kalisch sorrows over the holy fathers \"who have taxed all their\ningenuity to make the act of eating compatible with the attributes of\nDeity.\"\n\nIn the Epistle to the Romans, Abraham's faith is greatly praised. We are\ntold, iv, 19, 20, that:\n\n\"Being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when\nhe was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's\nwomb.\"\n\n\"He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong\nin faith, giving glory to God.\"\n\nYet, so far from Abraham giving God glory, we are told in Genesis, xvii,\n17, that:\n\n\"Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, shall\na child be born unto him that is an hundred years old, and shall Sarah,\nthat is ninety years old, bear?\"\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Boutell says that \"the declaration which caused Sarah to\n'laugh,' shows the wonderful familiarity which was then permitted to\nAbraham in his communications with God.\"\n\nAfter the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham journeyed south\nand sojourned in Gerar, and either untaught or too well taught by his\nprevious experience, again represented his wife as his sister, and\nAbimelech, king of Gerar, sent and took Sarah. As before, we find\nneither remonstrance nor resistance recorded on the part of Abraham.\nThis time God punished, _a la_ Malthus, the women in Abimelech's house\nfor an offense they did not commit, and Sarah was again restored to her\nhusband, with sheep, oxen, men-servants, and women-servants, and money.\nInfidels object that the bible says Sarah \"was old and well stricken\nin age;\" that \"it had ceased to be with her after the manner of women;\"\nthat she was more than ninety years of age; and that it is not likely\nKing Abimelech would fall in love with an ugly old woman. We reply,\n\"_chacun a son gout?_\" It is clear that Sarah had not ceased to be\nattractive, as God resorted to especial means to protect her virtue\nfrom Abimelech. At length Isaac is born, and his mother Sarah now urges\nAbraham to expel Hagar and her son, \"and the thing was very grievous in\nAbraham's sight because of his son;\" the mother being only a bondwoman\ndoes not seem to have troubled him. God, however, approving Sarah's\nnotion, Hagar is expelled, \"and she departed and wandered in the\nwilderness, and the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the\nchild under one of the shrubs.\" She had apparently carried the\nchild, who being at least more than fourteen, and according to some\ncalculations as much as seventeen years of age, must have been a heavy\nchild to carry in a warm climate.\n\nGod never did tempt any man at any time, but he \"did tempt Abraham\" to\nkill Isaac by offering him as a burnt offering. The doctrine of human\nsacrifice is one of the holy mysteries of Christianity, as taught in the\nOld and New Testament. Of course, judged from a religious or biblical\nstandpoint, it can not be wrong, as, if it were, God would not have\npermitted Jephtha to sacrifice his daughter by offering her as a burnt\noffering, nor have tempted Abraham to sacrifice his son, nor have said\nin Leviticus, \"None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be\nredeemed; but shall surely be put to death\" (xxvii, 29), nor have in the\nNew Testament worked out the monstrous sacrifice of his only son Jesus,\nat the same time son and begetting father.\n\nAbraham did not seem to be entirely satisfied with his own conduct when\nabout to kill Isaac, for he not only concealed from his servants his\nintent, but positively stated that which was not true, saying, \"I and\nthe lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.\" If he\nmeant that he and Isaac would come again to them, then he knew that the\nsacrifice would not take place. Nay, Abraham even deceived his own son,\nwho asked him where was the lamb for the burnt offering? But we learn\nfrom the New Testament that Abraham acted in this and other matters \"by\nfaith,\" so his falsehoods and evasions, being results and aids of faith,\nmust be dealt with in an entirely different manner from transactions\nof every-day life. Just as Abraham stretched forth his hand to slay his\nson, the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and prevented the\nmurder, saying, \"Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast\nnot withheld thy son.\" This would convey the impression that up to that\nmoment the angel of the Lord was not certain upon the subject.\n\nIn Genesis xiii, God says to Abraham, \"Lift up now thine eyes, and look\nfrom the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward and\nwestward. For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and\nto thy seed for ever. Arise, walk through the land, in the length of\nit, and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee.\" Yet, as is\nadmitted by the Rev. Charles Boutell, in his \"Bible Dictionary,\" \"The\nonly portion of territory in that land of promise, of which Abraham\nbecame possessed\" was a graveyard, which he had bought and paid for.\nAlthough Abraham was too old to have children _before_ the birth of\nIsaac, he had many children _after_ Isaac is born. He lived to \"a good\nold age,\" and died \"full of years,\" but was yet younger than any of\nthose who preceded him, and whose ages are given in the bible history,\nexcept Nahor.\n\nAbraham gave \"all that he had to Isaac,\" but appears to have distributed\nthe rest of the property among his other children, who were sent to\nenjoy it somewhere down East.\n\nAccording to the New Testament, Abraham is now in Paradise, but Abraham\nin heaven is scarcely an improvement upon Abraham on-earth. When he\nwas entreated by an unfortunate in hell for a drop of water to cool his\ntongue, father Abraham replied, \"Son, remember that in thy life-time\nthou receivedst thy good things, and now thou art tormented,\" as if the\nreminiscence of past good would alleviate present and future continuity\nof evil.\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF MOSES.\n\nThe \"Life of Abraham\" was presented to our readers, because, as the\nnominal founder of the Jewish race, his position entitled him to that\nhonor. The \"Life of David,\" because, as one of the worst men and worst\nkings ever known, his history might afford matter for reflection to\nadmirers of monarchical institutions and matter for comment to the\nadvocates of a republican form of government. The \"Life of Jacob\" served\nto show how basely mean and contemptibly deceitful a man might become,\nand yet enjoy God's love. Having given thus a brief outline of the\ncareer of the patriarch, the king, and the knave, the life of a priest\nnaturally presents itself as the most fitting to complement the present\nquadrifid series.\n\nMoses, the great grandson of Levi, was born in Egypt, not far distant\nfrom the banks of the Nile, a river world-famous for its inundations,\nmade familiar to ordinary readers by the travelers who have journeyed to\ndiscover its source, and held in bad repute by strangers, especially on\naccount of the carnivorous Saurians who infest its waters. The mother\nand father of our hero were both of the tribe of Levi, and were named\nJochebed and Amram. The infant Moses was, at the age of three months,\nplaced in an ark of bulrushes by the river's brink. This was done in\norder to avoid the decree of extermination propounded by the reigning\nPharaoh against the male Jewish children. The daughter of Pharaoh,\ncoming down to the river to bathe, found the child and took compassion\nupon him, adopting him as her son. Of the early life of Moses we have\nbut scanty record. We are told in the New Testament that he was learned\nin the wisdom of the Egyptians,* and that, \"when he was come to years\nhe refused by faith** to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter.\"\nPerhaps the record from which the New Testament writers quoted has been\nlost; it is certain that the present version of the Old Testament does\nnot contain those statements. The record which is lost _may_ have been\nGod's original revelation to man, and of which our bible _may_ be\nan incomplete version. I am little grieved by the supposition that a\nrevelation may have been lost, being, for my own part, more inclined to\nthink that no revelation has ever been made. Josephus says that, when\nquite a baby, Moses trod contemptuously on the crown of Egypt. The\nEgyptian monuments and Exodus are both silent on this point. Josephus\nalso tells us that Moses led the Egyptians in war against the\nEthiopians, and married Tharbis, the daughter of the Ethiopian monarch.\nThis also is omitted both in Egyptian history and in the sacred record.\nWhen Moses was grown, according to the Old Testament, or when he was 40\nyears of age according to the New, \"it came into his heart to visit his\nbrethren the children of Israel.\" \"And he spied an Egyptian smiting\na Hebrew.\" \"And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that\nthere was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.\" The\nNew Testament says that he did it, \"for he supposed that his brethren\nwould understand how that God, by his hand, would deliver them.\"***\n\n     * Acts, vii, 21.\n\n     ** Hebrews, xi, 24.\n\n     *** Acts, vii, 25.\n\nBut this is open to the following objections: The Old Testament says\nnothing of the kind; there was no man to see the homicide, and as Moses\nhid the body, it is hard to conceive how he could expect the Israelites\nto understand a matter of which they not only had no knowledge whatever,\nbut which he himself did not think was known to them; if there were\nreally no man present, the story of the after accusation against Moses\nneeds explanation: it might be further objected that it does not\nappear that Moses at that time did even himself conceive that he had\nany mission from God to deliver his people. Moses fled from the wrath\nof Pharaoh, and dwelt in Midian, where he married the daughter of one\nReuel, or Jethro. This name is not of much importance, but it is strange\nthat if Moses wrote the books of the Pentateuch he was not more exact\nin designating so near a relation. While acting as shepherd to his\nfather-in-law, \"he led the flock to the back side of the desert,\" and\n\"the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire:\" that is, the\nangel was either a flame, or was the object which was burning, for this\nangel appeared in the midst of a bush which burned with fire, but was\nnot consumed. This flame appears to have been a luminous one, for it was\na \"great sight,\" and attracted Moses, who turned aside to see it.\nBut the luminosity would depend on substance ignited and rendered\ninacandescent. Is the angel of the Lord a substance susceptible of\nignition and incandescence? Who knoweth? If so, will the fallen angels\nignite and burn in hell! God called unto Moses out of the midst of the\nbush. It is hard to conceive an infinite God in the middle of a\nbush; yet as the law of England says that we must not \"deny the Holy\nScriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be of divine authority,\" in\norder not to break the law, I advise all to believe that, in addition\nto being in the middle of a bush, the infinite and all-powerful God\nalso sat on the top of a box, dwelt sometimes in a tent, afterward in\na temple; although invisible, appeared occasionally; and being a spirit\nwithout body or parts, was hypostatically incarnate as a man. Moses,\nwhen spoken to by God, \"hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon\nGod.\" If Moses had known that God was _invisible_ he would have escaped\nthis fear.\n\nGod told Moses that the cry of the children of Israel had reached him,\nand that he had _come down_ to deliver them, and that Moses was to lead\nthem out of Egypt. Moses does not seem to have placed entire confidence\nin the phlegmonic divine communication, and asked, when the Jews should\nquestion him on the name of the Deity, what answer should he make?\nIt does not appear from this that the Jews, if they had so completely\nforgotten God's name, had much preserved the recollection of the promise\ncomparatively so recently made to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. The\nanswer given according to our version is \"I am that I am;\" according\nto the Douay, \"I am who am.\" God, in addition, told Moses that the Jews\nshould spoil the Egyptians of their wealth; but even this promise of\nplunder so congenial to the nature of a bill-discounting Jew of the\nbible type, did not avail to overcome the scruples of Moses. God\ntherefore taught him to throw his rod on the ground, and thus transform\nit into a serpent, from which pseudo-serpent Moses at first fled in\nfear, but on his taking it by the tail it resumed its original shape,\nMoses, with even other wonders at command, still hesitated; he had an\nimpediment in his speech. God cured this by the appointment of Aaron,\nwho was eloquent, to aid his brother. God directed Moses to return\nto Egypt, but his parting words must somewhat have damped the future\nlegislator's hope of any speedy or successful ending to his mission. God\nsaid, \"I will harden Pharaoh's heart that he shall not let the people\ngo.\" On the journey back to Egypt God met Moses \"by the way in the inn,\nand sought to kill him.\" I am ignorant as to the causes which prevented\nthe omnipotent Deity from carrying out his intention; the text does\nnot explain the matter, and I am not a bishop or a D. D., and I do not\ntherefore feel justified in putting my assumptions in place of God's\nrevelation. Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, and asked that the Jews\nmight be permitted to go three days' journey in the wilderness; but the\nKing of Egypt not only refused their request, but gave them additional\ntasks, and in consequence Moses and Aaron went again to the Lord, who\ntold them, \"I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the\nname of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them.\"\nWhether God had forgotten that the name of Jehovah was known to Abraham,\nor whether he was here deceiving Moses and Aaron, are points the\nsolution of which I leave to the faithful, referring them to the fact\nthat Abraham called a place* Jehovah-Jireh.\n\n     * Genesis xxii, 14\n\nAfter this Moses and Aaron again went to Pharaoh and worked wonderfully\nin his presence. Thaumaturgy is coming into fashion again, but the\nexploits of Moses far exceeded any of those performed by Mr. Home or the\nDavenport brothers. Aaron flung down his rod, and it became a serpent;\nthe Egyptian magicians flung down their rods, which became serpents\nalso; but the rod of Aaron, as though it had been a Jew money-lender or\na tithe collecting parson, swallowed up these miraculous competitors,\nand the Jewish leaders could afford to laugh at their defeated rival\nconjurors. Moses and Aaron carried on the miracle-working for some time.\nAll the water of the land of Egypt was turned by them into blood, but\nthe magicians did so with their enchantments, and it had no effect on\nPharaoh. Then showers of frogs, at the instance of Aaron, covered the\nland of Egypt; but the Egyptians did so with their enchantments, and\nfrogs abounded still more plentifully. The Jews next tried their hands\nat the production of lice, and here--to the glory of God be it\nsaid--the infidel Egyptians failed to imitate them. It is written that\n\"cleanliness is next to godliness,\" but we can not help thinking that\ngodliness must have been far from cleanliness when the former so soon\nresulted in lice. The magicians were now entirely discomfited. The\npreceding wonders seem to have affected all the land of Egypt; but in\nthe next miracle the swarms of flies sent were confined to Egyptians\nonly, and were not extended to Goshen, in which the Israelites dwelt.\n\nThe next plague in connection with the ministration of Moses and Aaron\nwas that \"all the cattle of Egypt died.\" After \"all the cattle\" were\ndead, a boil was sent, breaking forth with blains upon man and beast.\nThis failing in effect, Moses afterward stretched forth his hand\nand smote \"both man and beast\" with hail, then covered the land with\nlocusts, and followed this with a thick darkness throughout the land--a\ndarkness which _might_ have been felt. Whether it was felt is a matter\non which I am unable to pass an opinion. After this, the Egyptians being\nterrified by the destruction of their first-born children, the Jews,\nat the instance of Moses, borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver,\njewels of gold, and raiment; and they spoiled the Egyptians. The fact\nis, that the Egyptians were in the same position as the payers of church\nrates, tithes, vicars' rates, and Easter dues: they lent to the Lord's\npeople, who are good borrowers, but slow when repayment is required.\nThey prefer promising you a crown of glory to paying you at once five\nshillings in silver. Moses led the Jews through the Red Sea, which\nproved a ready means of escape, as may be easily read in Exodus, which\nsays that the Lord \"made the sea dry land\" for the Israelites, and\nafterward not only overwhelmed in it the Egyptians who sought to follow\nthem, but, as Josephus tells us, the current of the sea actually carried\nto the camp of the Hebrews the arms of the Egyptians, so that the\nwandering Jews might not be destitute of weapons. After this the\nIsraelities were led by Moses into Shur, where they were without water\nfor three days, and the water they afterward found was too bitter to\ndrink until a tree had been cast into the well. The Israelites were then\nfed with manna, which, when gathered on Friday, kept for the Sabbath,\nbut rotted if kept from one week day to another. The people grew tired\nof eating manna, and complained, and God sent fire among them and burned\nthem up in the uttermost parts of the camp; and after this the people\nwept and said, \"Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish we\ndid eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and\nthe onions and the garlic; but now there is nothing at all beside this\nmanna before our eyes.\" This angered the Lord, and he gave them a feast\nof quails, and while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it\nwas chewed, the anger of the Lord was kindled, and he smote the Jewish\npeople with a very great plague.*\n\n* Numbers xi.\n\nThe people again in Rephidim were without water, and Moses therefore\nsmote the Rock of Horeb with his rod, and water came out of the rock.\nAt Rephidim the Amalekites and the Jews fought together, and while\nthey fought, Moses, like a prudent general, went to the top of a hill,\naccompanied by Aaron and Hur, and it came to pass that when Moses held\nup his hands Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hands Amalek\nprevailed. But Moses' hands were heavy, and they took a stone and put\nit under him, and he sat thereon, and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands,\nthe one on the one side and the other on the other side, and his hands\nwere steady until the going down of the sun, and Joshua discomfited\nAmalek, and his people with the edge of the sword. How the true believer\nought to rejoice that the stone was so convenient, as otherwise the Jews\nmight have been slaughtered, and there might have been no royal line of\nDavid, no Jesus, no Christianity. That stone should be more valued than\nthe precious black stone of the Moslem; it is the corner-stone of the\nsystem, the stone which supported the Mosaic rule. God is everywhere,\nbut Moses went _up_ unto him, and the Lord called to him _out_ of a\nmountain and came to him _in_ a thick cloud, and descended on Mount\nSinai _in_ a fire, in consequence of which the mountain smoked, and the\nLord _came down upon the top_ of the mountain and called Moses _up_ to\nhim; and then the Lord gave Moses the Ten Commandments, and also\nthose precepts which follow, in which Jews are permitted to buy their\nfellow-countrymen for six years, and in which it is provided that, if\nthe slave-master shall give his six-year slave a wife, and she bear him\nsons or daughters, that the wife and the children shall be the property\nof her master. In these precepts it is also permitted that a man may\nsell his own daughter for the most base purposes. Also that a master\nmay beat his slave so that if he do not die until a few days after the\nill-treatment, the master shall escape justice because the slave is\nhis money. Also that Jews may buy strangers and keep them as slaves for\never. While Moses was up in the mount the people clamored for Aaron to\nmake them gods. Moses had stopped away so long that the people gave him\nup for lost. Aaron, whose duty it was to have pacified and restrained\nthem, and to have kept them in the right faith, did nothing of the kind.\nHe induced them to bring all their gold, and then made it into a calf,\nbefore which he built an altar, and then proclaimed a feast. Manners and\ncustoms change. In those days the Jews did see the God that Aaron took\ntheir gold for, but now the priests take the people's gold, and the poor\ncontributors do not even see a calf for their pains, unless indeed\nthey are near a mirror at the time when they are making their voluntary\ncontributions. And the Lord told Moses what happened, and said, \"I\nhave seen this people, and behold it is a stiff-necked people. Now,\ntherefore, let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against them, and\nthat I may consume them.\" Moses would not comply with God's request,\nbut remonstrated, and expostulated, and begged him not to afford the\nEgyptians an opportunity of speaking against him. Moses succeeded in\nchanging the unchangeable, and the Lord repented of the evil which he\nthought to do unto his people.\n\nAlthough Moses would not let God's \"wrath wax hot\" his own \"anger waxed\nhot,\" and he broke, in his rage, the two tables of stone which God had\ngiven him, and on which the Lord had graven and written with his own\nfinger. We have now no means of knowing in what language God wrote,\nor whether Moses afterward took any pains to rivet together the broken\npieces. It is almost to be wondered at that the Christian Evidence\nSocieties have not sent missionaries to search for these pieces of the\ntables, which may even yet remain beneath the mount. Moses took the calf\nwhich they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and\nstrewed it upon water and made the children of Israel drink of it.\nAfter this Moses armed the priests and killed 3,000 Jews, \"and the\nLord plagued the people because they had made the calf which Aaron had\nmade.\"* Moses afterward pitched the tabernacle without the camp; and the\ncloudy pillar in which the Lord went, descended and stood at the door\nof the tabernacle; and the Lord talked to Moses \"face to face, as a man\nwould to his friend.\"** And the Lord then told Moses, \"Thou canst not\nsee my face, for there shall no man see me and live.\"*** Before this\nMoses and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of\nIsrael, \"saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet, as it\nwere, a paved work of sapphire stone,... and upon the nobles of the\nchildren of Israel he laid not his hand; also they saw God, and did eat\nand drink.\"****\n\n     * Exodus xxxii, 35.\n\n     ** Ib. xxxiii, 11.\n\n     *** Ib. xxxiii, 20.\n\n     **** Ib. xxiv,9.\n\nAaron, the brother of Moses, died under very strange circumstances. The\nLord said unto Moses, \"Strip Aaron of his garments and put them upon\nEleazar, his son, and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people and shall\ndie there.\" And Moses did as the Lord commanded, and Aaron died there on\nthe top of the mount, where Moses had taken him. There does not appear\nto have been any coroner's inquest in the time of Aaron, and the\nsuspicious circumstances of the death of the brother of Moses have been\npassed over by the faithful.\n\nWhen Moses was leading the Israelites over Moab, Balak the King of the\nMoabites sent to Balaam in order to get Balaam to curse the Jews. When\nBalak's messengers were with Balaam, God came to Balaam also, and asked\nwhat men they were. Of course God knew, but he inquired for his own\nwise purposes, and Balaam told him truthfully. God ordered Balaam not to\ncurse the Jews, and therefore the latter refused, and sent the Moabitish\nmessengers away. Then Balak sent again high and mighty princes under\nwhose influence Balaam went mounted on an ass, and God's anger was\nkindled against Balaam, and he sent an angel to stop him by the way; but\nthe angel did not understand his business well, and the ass first ran\ninto a field, and then close against the wall, and it was not until\nthe angel removed to a narrower place that he succeeded in stopping the\ndonkey; and when the ass saw the angel she fell down. Balaam did not see\nthe angel at first; and, indeed we may take it as a fact of history that\nasses have always been the most ready to perceive angels.\n\nMoses may have been a great author, but we have little means of\nascertaining what he wrote in the present day. Divines talk of Genesis\nto Deuteronomy as the five books of Moses, but Eusebius, in the fourth\ncentury, attributed them to Ezra, and Saint Chrysostom says that the\nname of Moses has been affixed to the books without authority, by\npersons living long after him. It is quite certain that if Moses lived\n3,300 years ago, he did not write in square letter Hebrew, and this\nbecause the character has not existed so long. It is indeed doubtful if\nit can be carried back 2,000 years. The ancient Hebrew character, though\nprobably older than this, yet is comparatively modern among the ancient\nlanguages of the earth.\n\nIt is urged by orthodox chronologists that Moses was born about 1450\nB. C., and that the Exodus took place about 1401 B. C. Unfortunately\n\"there are no recorded dates in the Jewish Scriptures that are\ntrustworthy.\" Moses, or the Hebrews, not being mentioned upon Egyptian\nmonuments from the twelfth to the seventeenth century B. C. inclusive,\nand never being alluded to by any extant writer who lived prior to the\nSeptuagint translation at Alexandria (commencing in the third century\nB. C.), there are no extraneous aids, from sources alien to the Jewish\nBooks through which any information, worthy of historical acceptance,\ncan be gathered elsewhere about him or them.*\n\nMoses died in the land of Moab when he was 120 years of age. The Lord\nburied Moses in a valley of Moab, over against Bethpeor, but no man\nknoweth of his sepulcher unto this day. Josephus says that \"a cloud\ncame over him on the sudden and he disappeared in a certain valley.\" The\ndevil disputed about the body of Moses, contending with the Archangel\nMichael;** but whether the devil or the angel had the best of the\ndiscussion, the bible does not tell us.\n\nDe Beauvoir Priaulx,*** looking at Moses as a counselor, leader, and\nlegislator, says: \"Invested with this high authority, he announced to\nthe Jews their future religion, and announced it to them as a state\nreligion, and as framed for a particular state, and that state only.\n\n     * Gliddon's Types of Mankind:  Mankind's Chronology, p. 711.\n\n     ** Jude, v. 9.\n\n     *** Questiones Mosaic\u00e6, p. 488.\n\nHe gave this religion, moreover, a creed so narrow and negative--he\nlimited it to objects so purely temporal, he crowded it with observances\nso entirely ceremonial or national--that we find it difficult to\ndetermine whether Moses merely established this religion in order\nthat by a community of worship he might induce in the tribe-divided\nIsraelites that community of sentiment which would constitute them a\nnation; or, whether he only roused them to a sense of their national\ndignity, in the hope that they might then more faithfully perform the\nduties of priests and servants of Jehovah. In other words, we hesitate\nto decide whether in the mind of Moses the state was subservient to the\npurposes of religion, or religion to the purposes of state.\"\n\nThe same writer observes* that, according to the Jewish writings, Moses\n\"is the friend and favorite of the Deity. He is one whose prayers and\nwishes the Deity hastens to fulfill, one to whom the Deity makes\nknown his designs. The relations between God and the prophet are most\nintimate. God does not disdain to answer the questions of Moses, to\nremove his doubts, and even occasionally to receive his suggestions, and\nto act upon them even in opposition to his own predetermined decrees.\"\n\n     * Questiones Mosaic\u00e6 p. 418.\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF JONAH\n\nJonah was the son of Amittai of Gath-hepher, which place divines\nidentify with Gittah-hepher of the Children of Zebulun. Dr. Iuman says\nthat Gath-hepher means \"the Heifer's trough.\" Gesenius translates it\n\"the wine-press of the well.\" Bible dictionaries say that Gath-hepher\nis the same as el-Meshhad, and affirm that the tomb of Jonah was \"long\nshown on a rocky hill near the town.\" The blood of Saint Januarius is\nshown in Naples to this day. Nothing is known of the sex or life of\nAmittai, except that Jonah was his or her son, and that Gath-hepher was\nher or his place of residence; but to a true believer these two facts,\neven though standing utterly alone, will be pregnant with instruction.\nTo the skeptic and railer, Amittai is as an unknown quantity in an\nalgebraic problem. Jonah was not a very common proper name, [------]\nmeans a dove, and some derive it from the Arabic root--to be weak,\ngentle; so that one meaning of Jonah, according to Gesenius, would be\nfeeble, gentle bird. The prophet Jonah was by no means a feeble, gentle\nbird; he was rather a bird of prey. Certainly it was his intention to\nbecome a bird of passage. The date of the birth of Jonah is not given;\nthe margin of my bible dates the book of Jonah B. C. cir. 862, and my\nbible dictionary fixes the date of the matter to which the book relates\nat \"about B. C. 830.\" If from any reason either of these dates should be\ndisagreeable to the reader, he can choose any other date without fear\nof anachronism. Jonah was a prophet; so is Dr. Cumming, so is Brigham\nYoung; there is no evidence that Jonah followed any other profession.\nJonah's profit probably hardly equaled that realized by the Archbishop\nof Canterbury, but he had money enough to pay his fare \"from the\npresence of the Lord\" to Tarshish. The exact distance of this voyage may\nbe easily calculated by remembering that the Lord is omnipresent, and\nthen measuring from his boundary to Tarshish. The fare may be worked out\nby the differential calculus after evening prayer.\n\nThe word of the Lord came to Jonah; when or how the word came the text\ndoes not record, and to any devout mind it is enough to know that it\ncame. The first time in the world's history that the word of the Lord\never came to anybody, may be taken to be when Adam and Eve \"heard the\nvoice of the Lord\" \"walking in the Garden\" of Eden \"in the cool of the\nday.\" Between the time of Adam and Jonah a long period had elapsed; but\nhuman nature, having had many prophets, was very wicked. The Lord wanted\nJonah to go with a message to Nineveh. Nineveh was apparently a city of\nthree days' journey in size. Allowing twenty miles for each day,\nthis would make the city about 60 miles across, or about 180 miles\nin circumference. Some faint idea may be formed of this vast city,\nby adding together London, Paris, and New York, and then throwing\nin Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Marseilles, Naples,\nSpurgeon's Tabernacle. Jonah knowing that the Lord did not always carry\nout his threats or perform his promises, did not wish to go to Nineveh,\nand \"rose up to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord,\" The\nTarshish for which Jonah intended his flight was either in Spain or\nIndia or elsewhere. I am inclined, after deep reflection and examination\nof the best authorities, to give the preference to the third-named\nlocality. When Cain went \"out of the presence of the Lord,\" he went into\nthe Land of Nod, but whether Tarshish is in that or some other country\nthere is no evidence to determine. To get to Tarshish, Jonah--instead\nof going to the port of Tyre, which was the nearest to his reputed\ndwelling, and by far the most commodious--went to the more distant and\nless convenient port of Joppa, where he found a ship going to Tarshish;\n\"so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them\ninto Tarshish, from the presence of the Lord.\" Jonah was, however, very\nshort-sighted. Just as in the old Greek mythology, winds and waves are\nmade warriors for the gods, so the God of the Hebrews \"sent out a great\nwind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that\nthe ship was like to be broken.\" Luckily she was not an old leaky\nvessel, over-laden and heavily insured; one which the sanctimonious\nowners desired to see at the bottom, and which the captain did not care\nto save. Christianity and civilization were yet to bring forth that\nglorious resultant, a pious English ship-owner, with a newly-painted,\nbut, under the paint, a worn and rusty iron vessel, long abandoned\nas unfit, but now fresh named, and so insured that Davy Jones' locker\nbecomes the most welcome haven of refuge. \"The mariners were afraid....\nand cast forth the wares\" into the sea to lighten the ship. But where\nwas Jonah during this noise? Men trampling on deck, hoarse and harsh\nwords of command, and the fury of the storm troubled not our prophet.\nSea-sickness, which spares not the most pious, had no effect upon him.\n\"Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship, and he lay and was fast\nasleep.\" The battering of the waves against the sides disturbed not his\ndevout slumbers; the creaking of the vessel's timbers spoiled not his\nrepose. Despite the pitching and rolling of the vessel Jonah \"was fast\nasleep.\" Had he been in the comfortable berth of a Cunarder, it would\nnot have been easy to sleep through such a storm. Had he been in the\nhold of a smaller vessel on the Bay of Biscay, finding himself now with\nhis head lower than his heels, and now with his body playing hide and\nseek among loose articles of cargo, it would have required great absence\nof mind to prevent waking. Had he only been on an Irish steamer carrying\ncattle on deck, between Bristol and Cork, with a portion of the bulwarks\nwashed away, and a squad of recruits \"who cried every man to his God,\"\nhe would have found the calmness of undisturbed slumber difficult.\nBut Jonah was on board the Joppa and Tarshish boat, and he \"was fast\nasleep.\" As the crew understood the theory of storms, they of course\nknew that when there is a tempest at sea it is sent by God, because he\nis offended by some one on board the vessel. Modern scientists scout\nthis notion, and pretend to track storm waves across the world, and to\naffix storm signals in order to warn mariners. They actually profess to\npredict atmospheric changes, and to explain how such changes take place.\nChurch clergymen know how futile science is, and how potent prayers are,\nfor vessels at sea. The men on the Joppa vessel said, \"every one to his\nfellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause\nthis evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.\"\nIt was always a grave question in sacred metaphysics as to whether\nGod directed Jonah's lot, and, if yes, whether the casting of lots\nis analogous to playing with loaded dice. The Bishop of Lincoln, who\nunderstands how far cremation may render resurrection awkward, is the\nonly divine capable of thoroughly resolving this problem. For ordinary\nChristians it is enough to know that the lot fell upon Jonah.\n\nBefore the crew commenced casting lots to find out, they had cast lots\nof their wares overboard, so that when the lot fell on Jonah it was much\nlighter than it would have been had the lot fallen upon him during his\nsleep. Still, if not stunned by the lot which fell upon him, he stood\nconvicted as the cause of the tempest and the crews. \"Then said they\nunto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us;\nWhat is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country?\nand of what people art thou? And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew;\nand I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the\ndry land. Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why\nhast thou done this? For the men-knew that he fled from the presence of\nthe Lord, because he had told them. Then said they unto him, What shall\nwe do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought,\nand was tempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me\nforth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you; for I know that\nfor my sake this great tempest is upon you. Nevertheless the men rowed\nhard to bring it to the land; but they could not; for the sea wrought,\nand was tempestuous against them. Wherefore they cried unto the Lord,\nand said, We beseech thee, O Lord, we beseech thee, let us not perish\nfor this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O\nLord, hast done as it pleased thee. So they took up Jonah, and cast\nhim forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.\" No pen can\nimprove this story; it is so simple, so natural, so child-like. Every\none has heard of casting oil on troubled waters. It stands to reason\nthat a fat prophet would produce the same effect. What a striking\nillustration of the power of faith it will be when bishops leave their\nown sees in order to be in readiness to calm an ocean storm. Or if not\na bishop, at least a curate; and even a lean curate, for with sea air,\na ravenous appetite, and a White Star Line cabin bill of fare of\nbreakfast, lunch, dinner, tea, and supper, fatness would soon be arrived\nat. In the interests of science I should like to see an episcopal\nprophet occasionally thrown overboard during a storm. The experiment\nmust in any case be advantageous to humanity; should the tempest be\nstilled, then the ocean would be indeed the broad way, not leading to\ndestruction; should the storm not be conquered, there would even then be\npromotion in the Church, and happiness to many at the mere cost of one\nbishop. \"Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.\"\nJesus says the fish was a whale. A whale would have needed preparation,\nand the statement has an air of _vraisemblance_. The fish did swallow\nJonah. \"Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.\"\nPoor Jonah! and poor fish! Poor Jonah, for it can scarcely be pleasant,\neven if you escape suffocation, to be in a fish's belly with too much\nto drink, and no room to swallow, and your solids either raw or too much\ndone. Poor fish! for even after preparation it must be disagreeable to\nhave one's poor stomach turned into a sort of prayer meeting. Jonah was\ntaken in; but the fish found that taking in a parson was a feat neither\neasy nor healthy. After Jonah had uttered guttural sounds from inside\nthe fish's belly for three days and three nights, the Lord spake unto\nthe fish, and the fish was sick of Jonah, \"and it vomited out Jonah upon\nthe dry land.\" Some skeptics urged that a whale could not have swallowed\nJonah; but once, at Todmorden, a Church of England clergyman, who had\nbeen curate to the Reverend Charles Kingsley, got rid of this as an\nobjection by assuring us that he should have equally believed the story\nhad it stated that Jonah had swallowed the whale. And then the word of\nthe Lord came to Jonah once more, and this time Jonah obeyed. He was to\ntake God's message to the citizens of Nineveh. \"And Jonah began to enter\ninto the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days,\nand Nineveh shall be overthrown.\" Should Jonah come to London in the\npresent day with a similar message, he would meet scant courtesy from\nour clergy. A foreigner and using a strange tongue, he would probably\nfind himself in Colney Hatch or Hanwell. To come to England in the name\nof Mahomet or Buddha, or Osiris or Jupiter, would have little effect.\nBut the Ninevites do not seem even to have raised the question that the\nGod of the Hebrews was not their God. They listened to Jonah, and\n\"the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on\nsackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word\ncame unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid\nhis robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth and sat in ashes.\nAnd he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the\ndecree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast,\nherd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor drink water: but\nlet man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God:\nyea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence\nthat is in their hands.\" The consumption of sackcloth for covering\nevery man and beast must have been rather large, and the Nineveh\nsackcloth manufacturers must have had enormous stocks on hand to supply\nthe sudden demand. The city article of the _Nineveh Times_, if such a\npaper existed, would probably have described \"sackcloth firm, with\na tendency to rise.\" Man and beast, all dressed in or covered with\nsackcloth! It would be sometimes difficult to distinguish a Ninevite\nman from a Ninevite beast, the dress being similar for all. This is a\ndifficulty, however, other nations have shared with the Ninevites. Men\nand women may sometimes be seen in London dressed in broadcloth and\nsatins, and, though their clothing is distinguishable enough, their\nconduct is sometimes so beastly that the naked beasts are the more\nrespectable.\n\nNineveh was frightened, and Nineveh moaned, and Nineveh determined to\ndo wrong: no more. \"And God saw their works, that they turned from their\nevil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would\ndo unto them; and he did it not.\" God, the unchangeable, changed his\npurpose, and spared the city, which in his infinite wisdom he had\ndoomed. \"But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.\" It\nwas enough to vex a saint to be sent to prophesy the destruction of the\ncity in six weeks, and then nothing at all to happen. \"And he prayed\nunto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying,\nwhen I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish.\"\nJonah did not like to be a discredited prophet and cried, \"Therefore\nnow, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for\nme to die than to live. Then said the Lord, Doest thou well to be angry?\"\nJonah, knowing the Lord, was still curious and uncertain as well as\nangry. He was a prophet and a skeptic. \"So Jonah went out of the city,\nand sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and\nsat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the\ncity. And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over\nJonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his\ngrief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd. But God prepared a\nworm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it\nwithered. And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared\na vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he\nfainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to\ndie than to live. And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for\nthe gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death. Then\nsaid the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou\nhast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and\nperished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city,\nwherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that can not discern\nbetween their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?\"\nThe Lord seems to have overlooked that Jonah had more pity on himself\nthan the gourd, whose only value to him was as a shade from the sun.\nJonah, too, might have reminded the Lord that there were more than\n120,000 persons similarly situated at the deluge and at the slaughter\nof the Midianites, and that the \"much cattle\" had never theretofore been\nreckoned in the divine decrees of mercy.\n\nHere ends the new life of Jonah. Of the prophet's childhood we know\nnothing; of his middle age no more than we have here related; of his old\nage and death we have nothing to say. It is enough for good Christians\nto know that \"Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;\nso shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of\nthe earth.\" According to Jesus the story of Jonah is as true as Gospel.\n\n\n\n\nWHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nMany persons will consider the question heading this pamphlet as one to\nwhich the Gospels have given a sufficient answer, and that no further\ninquiry is necessary. We, in reply, point out that while the general\nChristian body affirm that Jesus was God incarnate on earth, the\nUnitarian Christians, less in numerical strength, but numbering a large\nproportion of the more intelligent and humane, absolutely deny this\ndivinity; and even in the earliest ages of the Christian Church\nheretics were found who scrupled not to deny that Jesus had ever existed\nin the flesh. Under these circumstances, it is well to prosecute the\ninquiry to the uttermost, that our faith may rest on sure foundations.\n\nThe history of Jesus Christ is contained in four books, or gospels. We\nknow not with any degree of certainty, and have now no means of knowing,\nwhen these gospels were written, we know not where they were written,\nand we know not by whom they were written. Until after the year A. D.\n200, no author, except Iren\u00e6us, professes to mention any gospels by\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and there is no sufficient evidence to\nidentify the gospels we have with the writings to which Irenseus refers.\nThe Church has, however, kindly provided us with an author for each\ngospel, and the early Fathers have proved there ought to be four\ngospels, because there are four seasons, four principal points to the\ncompass, etc. Our duty is simply to believe. With regard to the gospel\nfirst in order, it is true that divines themselves disagree as to the\nlanguage in which it was written. Some allege that the original was in\nHebrew, others deny that our Greek version has any of the characters\nof a translation. This increases our difficulty, but if we wish\nfor temporal welfare we must believe with the party which is most\nfashionable, and if we simply wish for truth, we had better disregard\nall parties and avoid their creeds. Our authorized English translation\nof the four gospels is made from the received Greek version; this\nversion was made at Alcala in Spain, and the MSS. from which it was\nobtained were afterward sold by the pious Christians and manufactured\ninto sky-rockets by one Torjo, a firework maker. So that the same\nChristians who threaten us with the pains of hell if we reject the\ngospels, actually condemned their own books to brimstone and fire. The\nonly variation in the mode of burning is this--the holy MSS., when made\ninto sky-rockets, were shot upward and burnt in their ascent to the\nheavenly regions, and we are to burn in our descent into the lower\nregions of the bottomless pit.\n\nWe do not know the hour, the day, the month, or the year, in which Jesus\nwas born. The only point on which divines generally agree is, that he\nwas not born on Christmas Day. The Oxford chronology places the matter\nin no clearer light, and more than thirty learned authorities give us a\nperiod of over seven years difference in their reckoning. The place of\nhis birth is also uncertain, as may be ascertained by careful reference\nto the text. For instance, the Jews in the very presence of Jesus\nreproached him that he ought to have been born at Bethlehem, and he\nnever ventured to say, \"I was born there.\" (John vii, 41, 42, 52.)\n\nJesus was the son of David the son of Abraham (Matthew i), and his\ndescent from Abraham is traced through Isaac, who was born of Sarai\n(whom the writer of the Epistle to Galatians, chap, iv, v. 24, says was\na covenant and not a woman), and ultimately through Joseph, who was not\nonly not his father, but is not shown to have had any relationship to\nJesus at all, and through whom the genealogy should not be traced.\nThere are two genealogies in the four gospels which have the merit of\ncontradicting each other, and these in part may be collated with the Old\nTestament genealogy, which has the advantage of agreeing with neither.\nMuch prayer and faith will be required in this introduction to the\nhistory of Jesus. The genealogy of Matthew possesses peculiar points\nof interest to a would-be believer. It is self-contradictory, counts\nthirteen names as fourteen without explanation, and omits the names of\nthree kings without apology. Matthew (i, 13), says Abiud was the son\nof Zorobabel. Luke says Zorobabel's son was Rhesa. The Old Testament\ncontradicts both, and gives Meshullam and Hananiah and Shelomith, their\nsister (1 Chron. iii, 19), as the names of Zorobabel's children. Some\nGreek MSS. insert \"Joram\" into Luke iii, 33. I do not know whether we\nshall be damned for omitting or for inserting Joram: those who believe\nhad better look to this. Jesus was born without a father after his\nmother had been visited by the angel Gabriel, who \"came in unto her\"\nwith a message from God. His reputed father, Joseph, had two fathers,\none named Jacob, the other named Heli. The divines feeling this to be a\ndifficulty, have kindly invented a statement that Heli was the father\nof Mary. The birth of Jesus was miraculously announced to Mary and to\nJoseph by visits of an angel, but they so little regarded the miraculous\nannunciation that they marveled soon after at things spoken by Simeon,\nwhich were much less wonderful in character. Jesus was the Son of God,\nor God manifest in the flesh, and his birth was first discovered by\nsome wise men or astrologers. The God of the bible, who is a spirit, had\npreviously said that these men were an abomination in his sight, and\nhe therefore, doubtless, preferred them to be his first visitors in the\nflesh to keep up his character for incomprehensibility. These men saw\n_his_ star in the East, but it did not tell them much, for they were\nobliged to come and ask information from Herod the king. Herod inquired\nof the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right,\nif he said, \"The prophets prophecy falsely and the priests bear rule by\ntheir means,\" for these chief priests, like the Brewin Grants and the\nBrindleys of the present day, misquoted to suit their purposes, and\ninvented a false prophecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a\nfew words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after they\nknew where to go, and no longer required its aid, led the wise men and\nwent before them, until it came and stood over where the young child\nwas. The story will be better understood if the reader will walk out\nat night and notice some star, and then see how many houses it will be\nover. The writer of the third gospel does not appear to have been aware\nof the star story, and he therefore invents an angel who tells some\nshepherds; but as this last named adventure does not appear to have\nhappened in the reign of Herod at all, perhaps Jesus was born twice.\nAfter the wise men had left Jesus, an angel warned Joseph to flee with\nhim and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly and remained there with the\nyoung child and his mother until the death of Herod; and this was done\nto fulfill a prophecy. On referring to Hosea (xi, 1), we find the words\nhave no reference whatever to Jesus, and that, therefore, either the\ntale of the flight is invented as a fulfillment of the prophecy, or the\nprophecy manufactured to support the tale of the flight. The Jesus of\nthe third gospel never went into Egypt at all in his childhood; perhaps\nthere were two Jesus Christs?\n\nWhen Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptized by John\nin the river Jordan. John, who knew him, according to the writer of the\nfirst gospel, forbade him directly he saw him; but, according to the\nwriter of the fourth gospel, he knew him not, and had, therefore, no\noccasion to forbid him. God is an \"invisible\" \"spirit,\" whom no man hath\nseen (John i, 18), or can see. (Exodus xxxiii, 20); but John, who was\na man, saw the spirit of God descending like a dove. God is everywhere,\nbut at that time was in heaven, from whence he said, \"This is my beloved\nSon, in whom I am well pleased.\" Although John heard this from God's own\nmouth, he did not always believe it, but sometime after sent two of his\ndisciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really the Christ (Matthew xi,\n2, 3).\n\nImmediately after the baptism, Jesus was led up of the spirit into the\nwilderness to be tempted of the devil. I do not know anything about\neither \"the spirit\" or \"the devil\" here mentioned, and the writer does\nnot explain anything about them; he speaks of them familiarly, as old\nacquaintances. Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights, and in those\ndays he did eat nothing. Of course it would be difficult to find a more\nsevere fast--forty days and nights is a long period to abstain from\nfood. Moses fasted twice that period. Such fasts take place in religious\nbooks, but they are seldom found in every-day life. Such fasts are\nnearly miraculous. Miraculous events are events which never happened in\nthe past, do not take place in the present, and never will occur in the\nfuture. Jesus was God, and by his power as God fasted. This all must\nbelieve. The only difficulty is, to understand on the hypothesis of his\ndivinity, what made him hungry. When Jesus was hungry the devil tempted\nhim by offering him stones, and asking him to make them bread. We\nhave heard of men having hard nuts to crack, but that stones should\nbe offered to a hungry man for extempore bread-making hardly seems a\nprobable temptation. Which temptation came next is a matter of doubt.\nThe Holy Ghost, which the clergy assert inspired Matthew and Luke, does\nnot appear to have inspired them both alike, and they relate the story\nof the temptation in different order. According to one, the devil next\ntaketh Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tempts him to throw\nhimself to the bottom, by quoting Scripture that angels should bear him\nin their arms. Jesus was, however, either a disbeliever in Scripture,\nor remembered that the devil, like other gentlemen in black, grossly\nmisquoted to suit his purpose, and the temptation failed. The devil then\ntook Jesus to an exceedingly high mountain, from whence he showeth him\nall the kingdoms of the world, and the glory thereof, in a moment of\ntime, which was very quick. It is urged that this did not include a view\nof the antipodes, but only referred to the kingdoms then known. If this\nbe true, it must have been a long look from Judea to China, which was\nthen a known kingdom. The eye of faith will, however, see things afar\noff and sometimes will also see things which are not. The mountain must\nhave been very high--much higher than the diameter of the earth; it must\nhave been solid in proportion, therefore would have capsized the earth\nin its revolutions, if even temporarily placed upon it. The devil then\noffered Jesus, who was the same as God, and therefore omnipotent, all\nthe kingdoms of the world, if he, Jesus the omnipotent God, would fall\ndown and worship his own creature, the devil. Some object that if God is\nthe creator and omnipotent ruler of the world, then the devil would have\nno control over the kingdoms of the world, and that the offer could be\nno temptation as it was made to Jesus, who was both God omnipotent and\nall-wise, as well as man. These objectors may easily be answered by\nasserting that it requires a proper submission of the intellect, and\nan abhorrence of worldly reason, in order properly to understand these\nbooks. After this Jesus taught the multitudes. His teachings will form\nthe subject of a separate tract. We are here only endeavoring to answer\nour preliminary question by a narration of his history.\n\nAfter the temptation, Jesus is alleged to have worked many miracles,\ncasting out devils, and otherwise creating marvels among the inhabitants\nof Judea. Bedevilment is now at a sad discount, and if a second Jesus of\nNazareth were in this heretical age to boast that he possessed the power\nof casting out devils, he would stand a fair chance of expiating\nhis offense by a three months' penance with hard labor in the highly\npolished interior of some borough jail. Now if men be sick and they have\na little wisdom, the physician is resorted to, who administers medicine\nto cure the disease. If men have much wisdom they study physiology,\nwhile they have health, in order to prevent sickness altogether. In the\ntime of the early Christians prayer and faith (James v, 14, 15) occupied\nthe position of utility since usurped by rhubarb, jalap, _et similibus_.\nMen who had lost their sight in the time of Christ were attacked not by\ndisease but by the devil; we have heard of men seeing double who have\nallowed spirits to get into their heads. In the days of Jesus one spirit\nwould make a man blind, or deaf, or dumb; occasionally a number of\ndevils would get into a man and drive him mad. We do not doubt this, nor\ndo we ask our readers to doubt. We are grieved to be obliged to add\nthat although we do not doubt the story of devils, neither do we believe\nthem. Our state of mind is neither that of doubt, nor of absolute\nconviction of their correctness. On one occasion, Jesus met either one\nman (Mark v, 2) or two men (Matthew viii, 28) possessed with devils. I\nam not in a position to advance greater reasons for believing that it\nwas one man who was possessed than for believing there were two in the\nclutches of the devils. The probabilities are equal--that is, the\namount of probability is not greater upon the one side than upon the\nother--that is, there is no probability on either side. The devils knew\nJesus and addressed him by name. Jesus was not so familiar with the imp,\nor imps, and we find inquired the name of the particular devil he was\naddressing. The answer given in Latin would induce a belief that the\ndevils usually spoke in that tongue. This may be an error, but, of\ncourse, it is well to give consideration to every particular when we\nknow we are to be eternally damned if we happen to believe the wrong\nstatement. Jesus wanted to cast out the devils, this they do not seem\nto have cared about, but they appear to have had a decided objection to\nbeing cast out of the country. Whether Palestine was the native country\nof the devils, and that therefore they were loth to quit it, I know not,\nbut it is likely enough, as Christianity is alleged to have had its rise\nthere. A compromise was agreed to, and at their own request the devils\nwere transferred to a herd of swine. People who believe this may be said\nto \"go the whole hog.\" The Jesus of the four gospels is also alleged\nto have fed large multitudes of people under circumstances of a most\nultra-thaumaturgic character. To the first book of Euclid is, prefixed\nan axiom that \"the whole is greater than its part.\" John Wesley\nis alleged to have eschewed mathematics lest it should lead him to\nInfidelity. John Wesley was wise, for if any man be foolish enough to\naccept Euclid's axiom, he will be compelled to reject the miraculous\nfeeding of 5,000 people with five loaves and two small fishes. It is\ndifficult under any circumstances to perform a miracle. The original\ndifficulty is rather increased than diminished by the assertion that\nafter the multitude had been fed, twelve baskets full of fragments\nremained. Perhaps the loaves were very large or the baskets very small.\n\nJesus is related to have walked on the sea at a time when it was very\nstormy, and when, to use the words of the text, \"the sea arose by reason\nof a great wind that blew.\" Walking on the water is a great feat if it\nbe calm, but when the waves run high it is still more wonderful. Perhaps\nit was because Jesus must have been often engulfed by the angry waves,\nthat one sect prefers baptism by complete immersion. We admire this\nmiracle; we know how difficult it is for a man to keep his head above\nwater in the affairs of life.\n\nThe miracle of turning water into wine at Cana, in Galilee, is worthy of\nconsiderable attention, in the endeavor to answer the question, Who\nwas Jesus Christ? Jesus and his disciples had been called to a marriage\nfeast, and when there the company fell short of wine. The mother of\nJesus to whom the Catholics offer worship, and pay great adoration,\ninformed Jesus of the deficiency. Jesus, who was very meek and gentle,\nanswered her in the somewhat uncourteous and unmeaning phrase, \"Woman,\nwhat have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.\" His mother\nseemed to have expected a miracle by her conduct, yet if the fourth\ngospel speak the truth, that was the beginning of miracle working on the\npart of Jesus. Perhaps something had previously happened which is not\nrecorded, and which would explain this apparent inconsistency. We must\nexert our faith to fill up any little gap which may be in the way of\nsalvation. Jesus having obtained six waterpots full of water, turned\nthem into wine. Teetotalers who reject spirits in bottles, but accept\nspiritual teachings, and who can not believe God would specially provide\nmeans of drunkenness, urge that this wine was not of intoxicating\nquality. We will hope their hypothesis is a correct one, but there\nis nothing to justify it in our text. In fact, the curious connection\nbetween the phrase \"well drunk\" and the time at which the miracle was\nperformed, would almost warrant the allegation that the guests were\nalready in such a state as to render unnecessary the administration of\nfurther intoxicants. The moral effects of this miracle are not easily\nconceivable by carnal minds.\n\nShortly after this Jesus went to the temple, and in a meek and quiet\nmanner, with a scourge of small curds drove thereout the cattle dealers\nand money changers who had assembled there in the ordinary course of\ntheir business. It is hardly probable that the Jews would have permitted\nthis without violent resistance to so rough a course of procedure. The\nwriter of the fourth gospel placed this event very early in the public\nlife of Jesus. The writer of the third gospel fixes the occurrence\nmuch later. Perhaps it happened twice, or perhaps they have both made a\nmistake in the time.\n\nThe Jesus of the four gospels is alleged to have been God all-wise;\nbeing hungry, he went to a fig-tree, when the season of figs was not yet\ncome. Of course there were no figs upon the tree, and Jesus then caused\nthe tree to wither away. This is an interesting account to a true\northodox trinitarian. Such a one will believe: first, that Jesus was\nGod, who made the tree, and prevented it from bearing figs; second, that\nGod the all-wise, who is not subject to human passions, being hungry,\nwent to the fig-tree, on which he knew there would be no figs, expecting\nto find some there; third, that God the all-just then punished the tree\nbecause it did not bear figs in opposition to God's eternal ordination.\nThis account is a profound mystery to a truly religious man. He bow's\nhis head, flings his carnal reason away, and looks at the matter in a\nprayerful spirit, with an eye of faith. Faith as a grain of mustard\nseed will remove a mountain. The only difficulty is to get the grain\nof faith; all is easy when that is done. The \"eye of faith\" is a great\nhelp, it sometimes enables men to see that which does not exist. Jesus\nhad a disciple named Peter, who, having much faith, was a great rascal\nand denied his leader in his hour of need. Jesus was previously aware\nthat Peter would be a rascal, and he gave him the keys of the kingdom of\nheaven, and told him that whatsoever be bound on earth should be bound\nin heaven. Many an honest man has been immured in a dungeon, and has had\nthe key turned on him by a rascally jailor. It is to be regretted that\nthe like should be promised for all eternity. Peter was to have denied\nJesus three times before the cock should crow (Matt. 26, 34). The cock\nwas doubtless an infidel cock, and would not wait. He crowed before\nPeter's second denial (Mark xiv, 68).\n\nCommentators urge that the words used do not refer to the crowing of any\nparticular cock, but to a special hour of the morning called \"cockcrow.\"\nThe commentators have but one difficulty to get over, and that is, that\nif the gospel be true, their explanation is false.\n\nPeter's denial becomes the more extraordinary when we remember that he\nhad seen Moses, Jesus, and Elias talking together, and had heard a voice\nfrom a cloud say, \"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.\"\nIf Peter could thus deny Jesus after having heard God vouch his\ndivinity, and if Peter not only escapes punishment but gets the office\nof gatekeeper to heaven, how much should we escape punishment and\nobtain reward, who only deny because we can not help it, and who have no\ncorroborative evidence of sight or hearing to compel our faith?\n\nThe Jesus of the first gospel promised that, as Jonas was three days and\nthree nights in the whale's belly, so he (Jesus) would be three days\nand three nights in the heart of the earth. Yet he was buried on Friday\nevening, and was out of the grave before Saturday was over. Of course\nthis is susceptible of explanation; you must have faith and believe\nthat in some other language something else was said which ought to be\ntranslated differently. Or, if you can not believe thus, then you must\nhave faith until you stretch the one day and part of another day, and\none night and part of another night, into three days and three nights.\n\nOur orthodox translators have made Jesus perform a curious equestrian\nfeat on his entry into Jerusalem. The text says, they \"brought the ass\nand the colt and put on them their clothes and set him thereon.\" Perhaps\nthis does not mean that he rode on both at one time.\n\nOn the cross, the Jesus of the four gospels, who was God, cried out, \"My\nGod, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" God can not forsake himself.\nJesus was God himself. Yet God forsook Jesus, and the latter cried out\nto know why he was forsaken. This is one of the mysteries of the holy\nChristian religion which, \"unless a man rightly believe without doubt he\nshall perish everlastingly.\"\n\nAt the crucifixion of Jesus wonderful miracles took place. \"The graves\nwere opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came\nout of the grave after his resurrection and appeared unto many.\" We do\nnot know which saints these were. Whether they numbered among them St.\nAbraham, who permitted his wife to incur the risk of dishonor, and who\naccepted riches to gild his shame; who turned his wife into the desert\nwith one bottle of water and some bread. Saint Lot, of whom the less\nsaid the purer our pages; Saint Judah, who wanted to burn alive a woman\nhe had gotten with child; Saint Jacob, the liar and cheat; Saint Joseph,\nthe model prime minister, who bought the people's rights with their own\ncorn; Saint Moses, the conjuror, who killed 3,000 Jews because his own\nbrother Aaron had persuaded them to make a golden calf; Saint Jael, the\nblessed above all women, because she drove most treacherously a nail\ninto the skull of a sleeping guest; Saint Samson, who slew one thousand\nmen with the jawbone of an ass; Saint Gideon, who frightened a\nlarge body of Midianites, with trumpets, pitchers, and lanterns. Poor\nMidianites, they had all been exterminated long before Gideon's time;\nit must have been an extraordinary providence to bring them into life\nin order to frighten them; but God's ways are not as our ways. This is\na digression--in plain language, we do not know who \"the saints\" were.\nThey \"appeared unto many,\" but there is not the slightest evidence that\nany one ever saw them. Their \"bodies\" came out of the graves, so we\nsuppose that the bodies of the saints do not decompose like those of\nordinary human beings. As the saints rose, so did Jesus. As they had\ntheir bodies, so had he. He must have much changed in the grave, for his\ndisciples did not know him when he stood on the shore (John xxi, 4).\n\nAccording to the first gospel Jesus appeared to two women after his\nresurrection, and afterward met eleven of his disciples by appointment\non a mountain in Galilee. We do not know when the appointment was made;\nthe only verse on which divines rely as being capable of bearing this\nconstruction is Matt, xxxi, 32, and that voice is silent both as to\nplace and time--in fact, gives no promise of any meeting whatever.\nAccording to the second gospel, he appeared first to one women, and\nwhen she told the disciples they did not believe it. Yet we are bound\nto unhesitatingly accept that which the disciples of Jesus rejected. We\nhave an advantage which perhaps the disciples lacked. We have several\ndifferent stories of the same event, and we can select that which\nappears to us the most probable. The disciples might have been so\nunfortunate as to have only one account. By the second gospel we learn\nthat instead of the eleven going to Galilee after Jesus, he came to\nthem as they sat at meat. In the third gospel, wo are told that he first\nappeared to two of his disciples at Emmaus, and they did not know him\nuntil they had been a long time in his company--in fact, according to\nthe text, it was evening before they recognized him, so we suppose the\nlight of faith supplied the want of the light of day. Unfortunately\ndirectly they saw him they did not see him, for as soon as they knew him\nhe vanished out of their sight. He immediately afterward appeared to the\neleven at Jerusalem, and not at Galilee, as stated in the first Gospel.\nJesus asked for some meat, and the disciples gave him a portion of a\nbroiled fish and of a honeycomb, and he did eat. In these degenerate\ndays it is hard to believe in a ghost eating fried fish, yet we must try\nto do it for our soul's sake, which otherwise may be burned for ever\nin the fire that is never quenched. There is certainly nothing more\nimprobable in God the Son eating broiled fish after he was dead, than\nthere is in believing God the Father ate dressed calf, tender and good,\nprepared for him by Abraham (_vide_ Genesis xviii). A truly pious and\ndevout mind will not look at the letter which killeth, but for the\nspirit which maketh alive. Jesus was afterward taken up into heaven, a\ncloud received him, and he was missed. God of course is everywhere,\nand heaven is not more above than below, but it is necessary we should\nbelieve that Jesus has ascended into heaven to sit on the right hand\nof God, who is infinite and has no right hand. Our question at the\ncommencement was, \"Who was Jesus Christ?\" Was he a man?--surely not.\nBorn without a father, in the lifetime of Herod, according to Luke.\nResiding in Egypt, according to Matthew, at a period in which, if Luke\nbe true, he never could have visited Egypt at all. His whole career\nis, not simply a series of improbabilities, not simply a series of\nabsurdities, but, in truth, a series of fables destitute of foundation\nin fact.\n\nWho was Christ? born of a virgin. So was Chrishna, the Hindoo god\nincarnate. The story of Chrishna is identical in many respects with that\nof Jesus. The story of Chrishna was current long prior to the birth of\nJesus. The story of Chrishna is believed by the inhabitants of Hindostan\nand disbelieved by the English, who say it is a myth, a fable. We add\nthat both are equally true, and that both are equally false.\n\nWho was Jesus Christ? A man or a myth? His history being a fable, is\nthe hero a reality? Do you allege that it was impossible to forge\nbooks so large as the gospels? then the answer is that Christians\nwere skilled in the art of forging epistles, gospels, acts, decrees of\ncouncils, etc. Will you urge that this only applies to the Romish Church?\nThen you will admit that your stream runs from a polluted fountain?\nWho was Jesus Christ? Who was Saint Patrick, who excelled the reptiles\nfrom Ireland? Who was Fin ma coul? Who was Odin? Perhaps there was\na man who really lived and performed some special actions attracting\npopular attention, but beyond this Jesus Christ is a fiction.\n\n\n\n\nWHAT DID JESUS TEACH?\n\nThe doctrines of Jesus may be sought for and found in a small compass.\nFour thin gospels are alleged to contain nearly the entirety of his\nsayings, and as most Englishmen are professedly Christians, it might be\nfairly supposed that the general public were conversant with Christ's\nteachings. This, however, is not the case. The bulk of professors\nbelieve from custom rather than from reading. They profess a faith as\nthey follow a fashion--because others have done so before them. What\ndid Jesus teach? Manly self-reliant resistance of wrong, and practice\nof right? No; the key-stone of his whole teaching may be found in the\ntext, \"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of\nheaven.\"*\n\n     * Matthew v, 3.\n\nIs poverty of spirit the chief among virtues, that Jesus gives it the\nprime place in his teaching? Is poverty of spirit a virtue at all?\nSurely not. Manliness of spirit, honesty of spirit, fullness of rightful\npurpose, these are virtues; but poverty of spirit is a crime. When men\nare poor in spirit, then do the proud and haughty in spirit oppress and\ntrample upon them, but when men are true in spirit and determined (as\ntrue men should be) to resist and prevent evil, wrong, and injustice\nwhenever they can, then is their greater opportunity for happiness here,\nand no lesser fitness for the enjoyment of further happiness, in some\nmay-be heaven, hereafter. Are you poor in spirit, and are you smitten;\nin such case what did Jesus teach? \"Unto whom that smiteth thee on the\none cheek, offer also the other.\"* 'Twere better far to teach that \"he\nwho courts oppression shares the crime.\" Rather say, if smitten once,\ntake careful measure to prevent a future smiting. I have heard men\npreach passive resistance, but this teaches actual invitation of injury,\na course degrading in the extreme.\n\nShelley breathed higher humanity in his noble advice:\n\n     \"Stand ye calm and resolute,\n     Like a forest close and mute,\n     With folded arms and looks, which are\n     Weapons of an unvanquished war.\"\n\nThere is a wide distinction between the passive resistance to wrong and\nthe courting of further injury at the hands of the wrongdoer. I have in\nno case seen this better illustrated than in Mr. George Jacob Holyoake's\nhistory of his imprisonment in Gloucester Jail,** where passive\nresistance saved him from the indignity of a prison dress, and also from\ncompulsory attendance at morning prayer in the prison chapel, which in\nhis case would have been to him an additional insult. But the teaching\nof Jesus goes much beyond this kind of conduct; the poverty of spirit\nprinciple is enforced to the fullest extent--\"Him that taketh away thy\ncloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that\nasketh of thee, and from him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not\nagain.\"*** Poverty of person is the only possible sequence to this\nextraordinary manifestation of poverty of spirit.\n\n     * Luke vi, 29.\n\n     ** \"Last trail by Jury for Atheism.\"\n\n     *** Luke vi, 29, 30.\n\n\nPoverty of person is attended with many unpleasantnesses; and if Jesus\nknew that poverty of goods would result from his teaching, we might\nexpect some notice of this. And so there is--as if he wished to keep the\npoor content through their lives with poverty, he says, \"Blessed be ye\npoor for yours is the kingdom of God.\"* \"But woe unto you that are rich,\nfor you have received your consolation.\"** He pictures one in hell,\nwhose only related vice is that in life he was rich; and another in\nheaven, whose only related virtue is that in life he was poor.*** He at\nanother time tells his hearers that it is as difficult for a rich man\nto get into heaven as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.****\nThe only intent of such teaching could be to induce the poor to remain\ncontent with the want and misery attendant on their wretched state in\nthis life, in the hope of a higher recompense in some future life. Is\nit good to be content with poverty? Nay, 'tis better far to investigate\nthe cause of such poverty, with a view to its cure and prevention. The\ndoctrine is a most horrid one which declares that the poor shall not\ncease from the face of the earth. Poor in spirit and poor in pocket.\nWith no courage to work for food, or money to purchase it! We might well\nexpect to find the man who held these doctrines with empty stomach also;\nand what does Jesus teach?--\"Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye\nshall be filled.\"***** He does not say when the filling shall take\nplace, but the date is evidently postponed until the time when you will\nhave no stomachs to replenish. It is not in this life that the hunger\nis to be sated. Do you doubt me, turn again to your Testament and read,\n\"Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger.\"****** This must\nsurely settle the point.\n\n     * Luke vi, 20.\n\n     ** Luke vi, 24.\n\n     *** Luke xvi, 19--81.\n\n     **** Luke xviii, 25.\n\n     ***** Luke vi, 21.\n\n     ****** Luke vi, 25.\n\nIt would be but little vantage to the hungry man to bless him by filling\nhim, if, when he had satisfied his appetite, he were met by a curse\nwhich had awaited the completion of his repast. Craven in spirit,\nwith an empty purse and hungry mouth--what next? The man who has not\nmanliness enough to prevent wrong will probably bemoan his hard fate,\nand cry bitterly that so sore are the misfortunes he endures. And what\ndoes Jesus teach?--\"Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.\"*\nIs this true, and if true, when? \"Blessed are they that mourn, for they\nshall be comforted.\"** Aye, but when? Not while they mourn and weep.\nWeeping for the past is vain; 'tis past, and a deluge of tears will\nnever wash away its history. Weeping for the present is worse than\nvain--it obstructs your sight. In each minute of your life the aforetime\nfuture is present-born, and you need dry and keen eyes to give it and\nyourself a safe and happy deliverance. When shall they that mourn be\ncomforted? Are slaves that weep salt teardrops on their steel shackles\ncomforted in their weeping? Nay, but each pearly overflow, as it falls,\nrusts mind as well as fetter. Ye who are slaves and weep, will never\nbe comforted until ye dry your eyes and nerve your arms, and, in the\nplenitude of your manliness,\n\n     \"Shake your chains to earth like dew,\n     Which in sleep have fallen on you.\"\n\nJesus teaches that the poor, the hungry and the wretched shall be\nblessed? This is not so. The blessing only comes when they have ceased\nto be poor, hungry and wretched. Contentment under poverty, hunger and\nmisery is high treason, not to yourself alone, but to your fellows.\nThese three, like foul diseases, spread quickly wherever humanity is\nstagnant and content with wrong.\n\n     * Luke vi, 31.\n\n     ** Matthew v, 4.\n\nWhat did Jesus teach? \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\"* So\nfar well, but how if thy neighbor will not hear thy doctrine when thou\npreacheth the \"glad tidings of great joy\" to him? Then forgetting all\nthy love, and with bitter hatred that a theological disputant alone can\nmanifest, thou \"shalt shake off the dust from your feet,\" and by so\ndoing make it more tolerable in the day of judgment for the land of\nSodom and Gomorrah than for your unfortunate neighbor who has ventured\nto maintain an opinion of his own, and who will not let you be his\npriest.** It is, indeed, a mockery to speak of love, as if love to one\nanother could result from the dehumanizing and isolating faith required\nfrom the disciple of Jesus. Ignatius Loyola in this, at least, was more\nconsistent than his Protestant brethren, \"If any man come unto\nme, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and\nbrethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my\ndisciple.\"*** \"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came\nnot to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set men at variance\nagainst his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the\ndaughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes they shall\nbe of his own household.****\" \"Every one that hath forsaken houses, or\nbrethren, or sisters, or father or mother, or wife or children, or\nlands for my sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit\neverlasting life.\"***** The teaching of Jesus is, in fact, save\nyourself by yourself. The teaching of humanity should be, to save\nyourself save your fellow.\n\n     * Matthew xix, 19.\n\n     ** Matthew x, 14,15.\n\n     *** Luke xiv, 26.\n\n     **** Matthew x, 84--86.\n\n     ***** Matthew xix, 29.\n\nThe human family is a vast chain, each man and woman a link. There is\nno snapping off one link and preserving for it an entirety of happiness;\nour joy depends on our brother's also. But what does Jesus teach? That\n\"many are called, but few are chosen;\" that the majority will inherit\nan eternity of misery, while it is but the minority who obtain eternal\nhappiness. And on what is the eternity of bliss to depend? On a\ntruthful course of life? Not so. Jesus puts Father Abraham in Heaven,\nwhose reputation for faith outstrips his character for veracity. The\npassport througli Heaven's portals is faith. \"He that believeth and\nbaptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned.\"*\nAre you married? Have you a wife you love? She dies and you. You from\nyour first speech to your last had ever said, \"I believe,\" much as a\nclever parrot might say it, if well taught. You had never examined your\nreasons for your faith for, like a true believer should, you distrusted\nthe efficacy of your carnal reason. You said, therefore, \"I believe in\nGod and Jesus Christ,\" because you had been taught to say it, and you\nwould have as glibly said, \"I believe in Allah, and in Mahomet his\nprophet,\" had your birthplace been a few degrees more eastward, and your\nparents and instructors Turks. You believed in this life and awake in\nHeaven. Your much-loved wife did not think as you did--she could not.\nHer organization, education and temperament were all different from your\nown. She disbelieved because she could not believe. She was a good\nwife, but she disbelieved, A good and affectionate mother, but she\ndisbelieved. A virtuous and kindly woman, but she disbelieved. And you\nare to be happy for an eternity in Heaven, while she is writhing in\nagony in Hell.\n\n     * Mark xvi,16.\n\nIf true, I could say with Shelley, of this Christianity, that it\n\n     \"Peoples earth with demons, hell with men,\n     And heaven with slaves.\"\n\nIt is often urged that Jesus is the Savior of the world, that he brought\nredemption without let or stint to the whole human race. But what did\nJesus teach? \"Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and into any city of\nthe Samaritan enter ye not.\"* These were his injunctions to those whom\nhe first sent out to preach. \"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of\nthe house of Israel,\" is his hard answer to the poor Syrophenician woman\nwho is entreating succor for her child. Christianity, as first taught by\nJesus, was for the Jews alone, and it is only upon his rejection by them\nthat the world at large has the opportunity of salvation afforded it.\n\"He came unto his own and his own received him not,\"** Why should the\nJews be more God's own than the Gentiles? Is God the creator of all?\nand did he create the descendant of Abraham with greater right and\nprivilege than all other men? Then, indeed, is great and grievous\ninjustice done. You and I had no choice whether we would be born Jews\nor Gentiles; yet to the accident of such a birth is attached the first\noffer of a salvation which if accepted, shuts out all beside. The\nKingdom of Heaven is a prominent feature in the teachings of Jesus, and\nit may be well to ascertain, as precisely as we can, the picture drawn\nby God incarnate of his own special domain. 'Tis likened to a wedding\nfeast, to which the invited guests coming not, servants are sent out\ninto the highways to gather all they can find--both good and bad. The\nKing comes in to see his motley array of guests, and findeth one without\na wedding garment.\n\n     * Matt. x, 5.\n\n     ** John i, 11.\n\nThe King inquired why he came into the feast without one, and the man,\nwhoso attendance has been compulsorily enforced, is speechless. And who\ncan wonder? he is a guest from necessity, not choice, he neither chose\nthe fashion of his coming or his attiring. Then comes the King's decree,\nthe command of the all-merciful and loving King of Heaven: \"Bind him\nhand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping\nand gnashing of teeth.\" Commentators urge that it was the custom to\nprovide wedding garments for all guests, and that this man is punished\nfor his nonacceptance of the customary and ready robe. The text does not\nwarrant this position, but assigns, as an explanation of the parable,\nthat an invitation to the heavenly feast will not insure its partakal,\nfor that many are called, but few are chosen. What more of the\nKingdom of Heaven? \"There shall be joy in Heaven over one sinner that\nrepenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no\nrepentance.\"* Nay, it is urged that the greater sinner one has been, the\nbetter saint he makes, and the more he has sinned, so much the more he\nloves God. \"To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.\"** Is\nnot this indeed asserting that a life of vice, with its stains washed\naway by a death-bed repentance, is better than a life of consistent and\nvirtuous conduct? Why should the fatted calf be killed for the prodigal\nson?*** Why should men be taught to make to themselves friends of the\nmammon of unrighteousness?\n\nThese ambiguities, these assertions of punishment and forgiveness of\ncrime, instead of directions for its prevention and cure, are serious\ndetractions from a system alleged to have been inculcated by one for\nwhom his followers claim divinity.\n\n     * Luke xv, 7.\n\n     ** Luke 7, 47.\n\n     *** Luke xv, 27.\n\nWill you again turn back to the love of Jesus as the redeeming feature\nof the whole? Then, I ask you, read the story of the fig-tree* withered\nby the hungry Jesus. The fig-tree, if he were all-powerful God, was\nmade by him, he limited its growth and regulated its development. He\nprevented it from bearing figs, expected fruit where he had rendered\nfruit impossible, and in his _infinite love_ was angry that the tree had\nnot upon it that which it could not have. Tell me the love expressed in\nthat remarkable speech which follows one of his parables, and in which\nhe says: \"For, I say unto you, that unto every one which hath shall\nbe given, and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be\ntaken away from him. But those, mine enemies, which would not that I\nshould reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me.\"**\nWhat love is expressed by that Jesus who, if he were God, represents\nhimself as saying to the majority of his unfortunate creatures (for it\nis the few who are chosen): 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting\nfire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'***\n\n     * Matt xxi, 18-22; Mark xi, 12-24.\n\n     ** Luke xix, 26,17.\n\n     *** Matt, xxv, 41.\n\nFar from love is this horrid notion of eternal torment. And yet the\npopular preachers of to-day talk first of love and then of\n\n     \"Hell, a red gulf of everlasting fire,\n     Where poisonous and undying worms prolong\n     Eternal misery to those hapless slaves,\n     Whose life has been a penance for its crimes.\"\n\nIn reading the sayings attributed to Jesus, all must be struck by the\npassage which so extraordinarily influenced the famous Origen.* If he\nunderstood it aright, its teachings are most terrible. If he understood\nit wrongly, what are we to say for the wisdom of teaching which\nexpresses so vaguely the meaning which it rather hides than discovers\nby its words? The general intent of Christ's teaching seems to be an\ninculcation of neglect of this life, in the search for another. \"Labor\nnot for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which en-dureth unto\neverlasting life.\"** \"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat,\nor what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on....\ntake no thought, saying, what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or\nwherewithal shall we be clothed?.... But seek ye first the Kingdom of\nGod and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto\nyou.\" The effect of these texts, if fully carried out, would be most\ndisastrous; they would stay all scientific discoveries, prevent all\ndevelopment of man's energies. It is in the struggle for existence here\nthat men are compelled to become acquainted with the conditions which\ncompel happiness or misery. It is only by the practical application of\nthat knowledge, that the wants of society are understood and satisfied,\nand disease, poverty, hunger, and wretchedness, prevented. Jesus\nsubstitutes \"I believe,\" for \"I think,\" and puts \"watch and pray,\"\ninstead of \"think and act.\" Belief is made the most prominent feature,\nand is, indeed, the doctrine which pervades, permeates, and governs all\nChristianity. It is represented that, at the judgment, the world will\nbe reproved \"Of sin because they believe not.\" This teaching is most\ndisastrous; man should be incited to active thought: belief is a cord\nwhich would bind him to the teachings of an uneducated past.\n\n     * Matt. xix, 12.\n\n     ** Matt, xxiv, 41.\n\nThought, mighty thought, mighty in making men most manly, will\nburst this now rotting cord, and then--shaking off the cobwebbed and\ndust-covered traditions of dark old times, humanity shall stand crowned\nwith a most glorious diadem of facts, which, like gems worn on a bright\nsummer's day, shall grow more resplendent as they reflect back the rays\nof truth's meridian sun. Fit companion to blind belief in slave-like\nprayer. Men pray as though God needed most abject entreaty ere he\nwould grant them justice. What does Jesus teach on this? What is his\ndirection on prayer? \"After this manner pray ye: Our Father, which art\nin heaven.\" Do you think that God is the Father of all, when you pray\nthat he will enable you to defeat some other of his children, with whom\nyour nation is at war? And why \"which art in Heaven?\" Where is Heaven?\nyou look upward, and if you were at the antipodes, would look upward\nstill. But that upward would be downward to us. Do you know where Heaven\nis, if not, why say \"which art in Heaven?\" Is God infinite, then he is\nin earth also, why limit him to Heaven? \"Hallowed be thy name.\" What is\nGod's name? and if you know it not, how can you hallow it? How can God's\nname be hallowed even if you know it? \"Thy kingdom come.\" What is God's\nkingdom, and will your praying bring it quicker? Is it the Judgment day,\nand do you say \"Love one another,\" pray for the more speedy arrival of\nthat day on which God may say to your fellow, \"depart ye cursed into\neverlasting fire?\" \"Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.\" How\nis God's will done in heaven? If the devil be a fallen angel, there must\nhave been rebellion even there. \"Give us this day our daily bread,\" Will\nthe prayer get it without work? No. Will work get it without the prayer?\nYes? Why pray then for bread to God, who says, \"Blessed be ye that\nhunger.... woe unto you that are full?\" \"And forgive us our debts, as we\nforgive our debtors.\" What debts have you to God? Sins? Samuel Taylor\nColeridge says, \"A sin is an evil which has its ground or origin in the\nagent, and not in the compulsion of circumstances. Circumstances are\ncompulsory, from the absence of a power to resist or control them: and\nif the absence likewise be the effect of circumstances.... the evil\nderives from the circumstances.... and such evil is not sin.\"* Do you\nsay that you are independent of all circumstances, that you can control\nthem, that you have a free will? Mr. Buckle says that the assertion\nof a free will \"involves two assumptions, of which the first, though\npossibly true, has never been proved, and the second is unquestionably\nfalse. These assumptions are that there is an independent faculty,\ncalled consciousness, and that the dictates of that faculty are\ninfallible.\"** \"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from\nevil.\" Do you think God will possibly lead you into temptation? if so,\nyou can not think him all-good, if not all-good he is not God, if God,\nthe prayer is a blasphemy.\n\n     * \"Aids to Reflection,\" 1843, p. 200.\n\n     ** \"History of Civilization,\" vol. i, p. 14.\n\nI close this paper with the last scene in Jesus' life, not meaning that\nI have--in these few pages--fully examined his teachings; but hoping\nthat enough is even here done to provoke inquiry and necessitate debate,\nJesus, according to the general declaration of Christian divines, came\nto die, and what does he teach by his death? The Rev. F. D. Maurice it\nis, I think, who well says, \"That he who kills for a faith must be\nweak, that he who dies for a faith must be strong.\" How did Jesus die?\nGiordano Bruno, and Julius Caesar Vanini, were burned for Atheism. They\ndied calm, heroic defiant of wrong. Jesus, who could not die, courted\ndeath, that he, as God, might accept his own atonement, and might pardon\nman for a sin which he had not committed, and in which he had no share.\nThe death he courted came, and when it came he could not face it, but\nprayed to himself that he might not die. And then, when on the cross,\nif two of the gospels do him no injustice, his last words--as there\nrecorded--were a bitter cry of deep despair, \"My God, my God, why hast\nthou forsaken me?\" The Rev. Enoch Mellor, in his work on the Atonement,\nsays, \"I seek not to fathom the profound mystery of these words. To\nunderstand their full import would require one to experience the agony\nof desertion they express.\" Do the words, \"My God, my God, why hast\nthou forsaken me?\" express an \"agony\" caused by a consciousness of\n\"desertion?\" Doubtless they do; in fact, if this be not the meaning\nconveyed by the despairing death-cry, then there is in it no meaning\nwhatever. And if those words do express a \"bitter agony of desertion,\"\nthen they emphatically contradict the teachings of Jesus. \"Before\nAbraham was, I am.\" \"I and my father are one.\" \"Thou shalt not tempt the\nLord thy God.\" These were the words of Jesus, words conveying (together\nwith many other such texts) to the reader an impression that divinity\nwas claimed by the man who uttered them. If Jesus had indeed been God,\nthe words \"My God, my God,\" would have been a mockery most extreme. God\ncould not have deemed himself forsaken by himself. The dying Jesus, in\nthat cry, confessed himself either the dupe of some other teaching, a\nself-deluded enthusiast, or an arch-imposter, who, in the bitter cry,\nwith the wide-opening of the flood-gates through which life's stream ran\nout, confessed aloud that he, at least, was no deity, and deemed himself\na God-forsaken man. The garden scene of agony is fitting prelude to this\nmost terrible act. Jesus, who is God, prays to himself, in \"agony he\nprayed most earnestly.\"* He refuses to hear his own prayers, and he,\nthe omnipotent, is forearmed against his coming trial by an angel from\nheaven, who \"strengthened\" the great Creator. Was Jesus the son of God?\nPraying, he said, \"Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that\nthy Son also may glorify thee.\"** And was he glorified? His death\nand resurrection most strongly disbelieved in the very city where they\nhappened, if, indeed, they ever happened at all. His doctrines rejected\nby the only people to whom he preached them. His miracles denied by\nthe only nation where they are alleged to have been performed; and he\nhimself thus on the cross, crying out, \"My God, my God, why hast thou\nforsaken me?\" Surely no further comment is needed on this head, to\npoint more distinctly to the most monstrous mockery the text reveals.\n\n     * Luke, xxii, 44.\n\n     ** John, xvii, 2.\n\nTo those who urge that the course I take is too bold, or that the\nproblems I deal with are two deep or sacred, I will reply in Herschel's\nversion of Schiller,\n\n     Wouldst thou reach perfection's goal,\n     Stay not! rest not!\n     Forward strain,\n     Hold not hand, and draw not rein.\n\n     Perseverance strikes the mark,\n     Expansion clears whatever is dark,\n     Truth in the abyss doth dwell,\n     My say is said--now fare the well.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TWELVE APOSTLES.\n\nAll, good Christians, indeed all Christians--for are there any who are\nnot models of goodness?--will desire that their fellow-creatures\nwho are unbelievers should have the fullest possible information,\nbiographical or otherwise, as to the twelve persons specially chosen by\nJesus to be his immediate followers. It is not for the instruction of\nthe believer that I pen this brief essay; he would be equally content\nwith his faith in the absence of all historic vouchers. Indeed a pious\nworshiper would cling to his creed not only without testimony in its\nfavor, but despite direct testimony against it. It is to those not\nwithin the pale of the church that I shall seek to demonstrate\nthe credibility of the history of the twelve apostles. The short\nbiographical sketch here presented is extracted from the first five\nbooks of the New Testament, two of which at least are attributed to two\nof the twelve. It is objected by heretical men who go as far in their\ncriticisms on the Gospels as Colenso does with the Pentateuch, that not\none of the gospels is original or written by any of the apostles; that,\non the contrary, they were preceded by numerous writings, since lost or\nrejected, these in their turn having for their basis the oral tradition\nwhich preceded them. It is alleged that the four gospels are utterly\nanonymous, and that the fourth gospel is subject to strong suspicions\nof spuriousness. It would be useless to combat, and I therefore boldly\nignore these attacks on the authenticity of the text, and proceed with\nmy history. The names of the twelve are as follows: Simon, surnamed\nPeter; Andrew, his brother; James and John, the sons of Zebedee; Andrew;\nPhilip; Bartholomew; Matthew; James, the son of Alphaeus; Simon, the\nCanaanite; Judas Iscariot; and a twelfth, as to whose name there is\nsome uncertainty; it was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is\nin Matthew alone (x, 3) that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned thus:\n\"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.\" We are told, on this point, by\nable biblicists, that the early MSS. have not the words \"whose surname\nwas Thaddaeus,\" and that these words have probably been inserted to\nreconcile the gospel according to Matthew with that attributed to Mark.\nHow good must have been the old fathers who sought to improve upon the\nHoly Ghost by making clear that which inspiration had left doubtful! In\nthe English version of the Rheims Testament used in this country by our\nRoman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation between Matthew and Mark is\ncompleted by omitting the words \"Lebbaeus whose surname was,\" leaving\nonly the name \"Thaddaeus\" in Matthew's text. This omission must be\ncorrect, being by the authority of an infallible church. If Matthew x,\n3, and Mark iii, 18, be passed as reconciled, although the first\ncalls the twelfth disciple Lebbaeus, and the second gives him the name\nThaddaeus, there is yet the difficulty that in Luke vi, 16, corroborated\nby John xiv, 22, there is a disciple spoken of as \"Judas, not Iscariot.\"\n\"Judas, the brother of James.\" Commentators have endeavored to clear\naway this last difficulty by declaring that Thaddaeus is a Syriac word,\nhaving much the same meaning as Judas. This has been answered by the\nobjection that if Matthew's Gospel uses Thadd\u00e6us in lieu of Judas, then\nhe ought to speak of Thaddaeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is\nfurther objected also that while there are some grounds for suggesting\na Hebrew original for the gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the\nslightest pretense for alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. It is to\nbe hoped that the unbelieving reader will not stumble on the threshold\nof his study because of a little uncertainty as to a name. What is in a\nname? The Jewish name which we read as Jesus is really Joshua, but the\nname to which we are most accustomed seems the one we should adhere to.\n\nSimon Peter being the first named among the disciples of Jesus, deserves\nthe first place in this notice. The word \"Simon\" may be rendered, if\ntaken as a Greek name, _flatnose_ or _ugly_. Some of the ancient Greek\nand Hebrew names are characteristic of peculiarities in the individual,\nbut no one knows whether Peter's nose had anything to do with his name.\nSimon is rather a Hebrew name, but Peter is Greek, signifying a _rock_\nor _stone_. Peter is supposed to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven,\nand his second name may express his stony insensibility to all appeals\nby infidels for admittance to the celestial regions. Lord Byron's\n\"Vision of Judgment\" is the highest known authority as to Saint Peter's\ncelestial duties, but this nobleman's poems are only fit for very pious\nreaders. Peter, ere he became a parson, was by trade a fisher, and\nwhen Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a vessel fishing with his\nbrother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of Galilee, Jesus walking by\nthe sea said to them, \"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of\nmen.\"* The two brothers did so, and they became Christ's disciples. The\nsuccessors of Peter have since reversed the apostles' early\npractice: instead of now casting their nets into the sea, the modern\nrepresentatives of the disciples of Jesus draw the sees into their nets,\nand, it is believed, find the result much more profitable. When Jesus\ncalled Peter no one was with him but his brother Andrew; a little\nfurther on, the two sons of Zebedee were in a ship with their father\nmending nets. This is the account of Peter's call given in the gospel\naccording to Matthew, and as Matthew was inspired by the Holy Ghost, who\nis identical with God the Father, who is one with God the Son, who is\nJesus, the account is doubtless free from error. In the Gospel according\nto John, which is likewise inspired in the same manner, from the\nsame source, and with similar infallibility, we learn that Andrew was\noriginally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first\nsaw Jesus, Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter who,\nif fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him \"we have found\nthe Messiah,\" and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said,\n\"Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.\" There\nis no mention in this gospel narrative of the sons of Zebedee being a\nlittle further on, or of any fishing in the sea of Galilee. This call is\nclearly on land, whether or not near the sea of Galilee does not appear.\nIn the Gospel according to Luke, which is as much inspired as either of\nthe two before-mentioned gospels, and, therefore equally authentic with\neach of them, we are told** that when the call took place, Jesus and\nPeter were both at sea. Jesus had been preaching to the people, who,\npressing upon him, he got into Simon's ship, from which he preached.\n\n     * Matthew iv, 18-22.\n\n     ** Luke v, 1-11.\n\nAfter this he directed Simon to put out into the deep and let down\nthe nets. Simon answered, \"Master, we have toiled all night and taken\nnothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will let down the net.\" No sooner\nwas this done than the net was filled to breaking, and Simon's partners,\nthe two sons of Zebedee, came to help, when, at the call of Jesus, they\nbrought their ships to land, and followed him. From these accounts the\nunbeliever may learn that when Jesus called Peter, either both Jesus and\nPeter were on the land, or one was on land and the other on sea, or both\nof them were at sea. He may also learn that the sons of Zebedee were\npresent at the time, having come to help to get in the great catch, and\nwere called with Peter; or that they were further on, sitting mending\nnets with their father, and were called afterward; or that they were\nneither present nor near at hand. He may also be assured that Simon was\nin his ship when Jesus came to call him, and that Jesus was on land\nwhen Andrew, Simon's brother, found Simon and brought him to Jesus to\nbe called. The unbeliever must not hesitate because of any apparent\nincoherence or contradiction in the narrative. With faith it is easy to\nharmonize the three narratives above quoted, especially when you know\nthat Jesus had visited Simon's house before the call of Simon,* but did\nnot go to Simon's house until after Simon had been called.** Jesus\nwent to Simon's house and cured his wife's mother of a fever. Robert\nTaylor,*** commenting on the fever-curing miracle, says: \"St. Luke tells\nus that this fever had taken the woman, not that the woman had taken the\nfever, and not that the fever was a very bad fever, or a yellow fever,\nor a scarlet fever, but that it was a great fever--that is, I suppose,\na fever six feet high at least; a personal fever, a rational and\nintelligent fever, that would yield to the power of Jesus' argument, but\nwould never have given way to James' powder. So we are expressly told\nthat Jesus rebuked the fever--that is, he gave it a good scolding; asked\nit, I dare say, how it could be so unreasonable as to plague the poor\nold woman so cruelly, and whether it wasn't ashamed of itself; and\nsaid, perhaps, _Get out you naughty, wicked fever, you_; and such like\nobjurgatory language, which the fever, not used to being rebuked in such\na manner, and being a very sensible sort of fever, would not stand, but\nimmediately left the old woman in high dudgeon.\" This Robert Taylor,\nalthough a clergyman of the Church of England, has been convicted of\nblasphemy and imprisoned for writing in such wicked language about the\nbible. Simon Peter, as a disciple, performed many miracles, some when in\ncompany with Jesus, and more when separately by himself. These miracles,\nthough themselves un-vouched by any reliable testimony, and disbelieved\nby the people among whom they worked, are strong evidence in favor of\nthe apostolic character claimed for Peter.\n\n          * Luke iv, 88.\n\n          ** Matthew viii, 14.\n\n          *** Devil's Pulpit, vol. i., p. 148.\n\nOn one occasion the whole of the disciples were sent away by Jesus in a\nship, the Savior remaining behind to pray. About the fourth watch of the\nnight, when the ship was in the midst of the sea, Jesus went unto his\ndisciples, walking on the sea. Though Jesus went unto his disciples, and\nas an expeditious way, I suppose, of arriving with them, he would have\npassed by them, but they saw him, and supposing him to be a spirit,\ncried out. Jesus bid them be of good cheer, to which Peter answered,\n\"Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee.\"* Jesus said, \"Come,\" and\nPeter walked on the water to go to Jesus. But the sea being wet and\nthe wind boisterous, Peter became afraid, and instead of walking on\nthe water began to sink into it, and cried out \"Lord save me,\" and\nimmediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught Peter.\n\nSome object that the two gospels according to John and Mark, which both\nrecord the feat of water-walking by Jesus, omit all mention of Peter's\nattempt. Probably the Holy Ghost had good reasons for omitting it.\nA profane mind might make a jest of an Apostle \"half seas over,\" and\nridicule an apostolic gatekeeper who could not keep his head above\nwater.\n\nPeter's partial failure in this instance should drive away all unbelief,\nas the text will show that it was only for lack of faith that Peter lost\nhis buoyancy. Simon is called Bar-Jonah, that is, son of Jonah; but I\nam not aware if he is any relation to the Jonah who lived under water in\nthe belly of a fish three days and three nights.\n\nIt was Simon Peter who, having told Jesus he was the Son of God, was\nanswered, \"Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah, flesh and blood hath not\nrevealed it unto thee.\"** We find a number of disciples shortly before\nthis, and in Peter's presence, telling Jesus that he was the Son of\nGod,*** but there is no real contradiction between the two texts. It\nwas on this occasion that Jesus said to Simon, \"Thou art Peter, and\nupon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not\nprevail against it, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of\nHeaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in\nHeaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in\nHeaven.\"\n\n     * Matt, xiv, 23; Mark vi, 45.\n\n     ** Matt. xvi, 17.\n\n     *** Matt, xiv, 33.\n\nUnder these extraordinary declarations from the mouth of God the Son,\nthe Bishops of Rome have claimed, as successors of Peter, the same\nprivileges, and their pretensions have been, acceded to by some of the\nmost powerful monarchs of Europe.\n\nUnder this claim the Bishops, or Popes of Rome, have at various times\nissued Papal Bulls, by which they have sought to bind the entire world.\nMany of these have been very successful, but in 1302, Philip the Fair,\nof France, publicly burned the Pope Boniface's Bull after an address in\nwhich the States-General had denounced, in words more expressive than\npolite, the right of the Popes of Rome to Saint Peter's keys on earth.\nSome deny that the occupiers of the episcopal seat in the seven-hilled\ncity are really of the Church of Christ, and they point to the bloody\nquarrels which have raged between men contending for the Papal dignity.\nThey declare that those Vicars of Christ have more than once resorted to\nfraud, treachery, and murder, to secure the Papal dignity. They point to\nStephen VII, the son of an unmarried priest, who cut off the head of his\npredecessor's corpse; to Sergius III, convicted of assassination; to\nJohn X, who was strangled in the bed of his paramour Theodora; to John\nXI, son of Pope Sergius III, famous only for his drunken debauchery;\nto John XII, found assassinated in the apartments of his mistress; to\nBenedict IX, who both purchased and sold the Pontificate; to Gregory VII,\n_pseudo_ lover of the Countess Matilda, and the author of centuries of\nwar carried on by his successors. And if these suffice not, they point\nto Alexander Borgia, whose name is but the echo of crime, and whose\ninfamy will be as lasting as history.\n\nIt is answered, \"by the fruit ye shall judge of the tree.\" It is useless\nto deny the vine's existence because the grapes are sour. Peter,\nthe favored disciple, it is declared was a rascal, and why not his\nsuccessors? They have only to repent, and there is more joy in heaven\nover one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine righteous\nmen. Such language is very terrible, and arises from allowing the carnal\nreason too much freedom.\n\nAll true believers will be familiar with the story of Peter's sudden\nreadiness to deny his Lord and teacher in the hour of danger, and will\neasily draw the right moral from the mysterious lesson here taught, but\nunbelievers may be a little puzzled by the common infidel objections on\nthis point. These objections, therefore, shall be first stated, and\nthen refuted in the most orthodox fashion. It is objected that all the\ndenials were to take place before the cock should crow,* but that only\none denial actually took place before the cock crew.** That the first\ndenial by Peter that he knew Jesus, or was one of his disciples, was at\nthe door to the damsel,*** but was inside while sitting by the fire,****\nthat the second denial was to a man, and apparently still sitting by the\nfire,***** but was to a maid when he was gone out into the porch.\nThat these denials, or, at any rate, the last denial, were all in the\npresence of Jesus,****** who turned and looked at Peter, but that the\nfirst denial was at the door, Jesus being inside the palace, the second\ndenial out in the porch, Jesus being still inside,******* and the third\ndenial also outside.\n\n     * Matt. xxvi, 34.\n\n     ** Luke xxii, 34.\n\n     *** John xiii, 38.\n\n     **** Mark xiv, 68.\n\n     ***** John xviii, 17.\n\n     ****** Luke xxii, 57., Luke xxii, 58., Luke xxii, 61.\n\n     ******* Mark xiv, 69.\n\nThe refutation of these paltry objections is simple, but as none but an\ninfidel would need to hear it, we refrain from penning it. None but a\ndisciple of Paine, or follower of Voltaire, would permit himself to be\ndrawn to the risk of damnation on the mere question of when some cock\nhappened to crow, or the particular spot on which a recreant apostle\ndenied his master.\n\nTwo of the twelve apostles, whose names are not, given, saw Jesus after\nhe was dead, on the road to Emmaus, but they did not know him; toward\nevening they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight. In broad\ndaylight they did not know him; at evening time they knew him. While\nthey did not know him they could see him; when they did know him they\ncould not see him. Well may true believers declare that the ways of the\nLord are wonderful. One of the apostles, Thomas called Didymus, set the\nworld an example of unbelief. He disbelieved the other disciples when\nthey said to him \"we have seen the Lord,\" and required to see Jesus,\nthough dead, alive in the flesh, and touch the body of his crucified\nmaster. Thomas the apostle had his requirements complied with--he saw,\nhe touched, and he believed. The great merit is to believe without any\nevidence-- \"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\" How it was that Thomas the Apostle did\nnot know Jesus when he saw him shortly after near the sea of Tiberias,\nis another of the mysteries of the Holy Christian religion. The acts of\nthe apostles after the death of Jesus deserve treatment in a separate\npaper; the present essay is issued in the meantime to aid the Bishop of\nLondon in his labors to stem the rising tide of infidelity.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT.\n\n     \"Quel est donc ce Dieu qui fait mourir Dieu pour apaiser\n     Dieu?\"\n\nAdam's sin is the corner-stone of Christianity; the keystone of the\narch. Without the fall there is no redeemer, for there is no fallen one\nto be redeemed. It is, then, to the history of Adam that the examinant\nof the atonement theory should first direct his attention. To try\nthe doctrine of the atonement by the aid of science would be fatal to\nChristianity. As for the man, Adam, 6,000 years ago the first of the\nhuman race, his existence is not only unvouched for by science, but is\nactually questioned by the timid, and challenged by the bolder exponents\nof modern ethnology. The human race is traced back far beyond the period\nfixed for Adam's sin. Egypt and India speak for humanity busy with wars,\ncities and monuments, prior to the date given for the garden scene in\nEden. The fall of Adam could not have brought sin upon mankind, and\ndeath by sin, if hosts of men and women had lived and died ages before\nthe words \"thou shalt surely die\" were spoken by God to man. Nor could\nall men inherit Adam's misfortune, if it be true that it is not to one\ncenter, but to many centers of origin that we ought to trace back the\nvarious races of mankind. The theologian who finds no evidence of death\nprior to the offense shared by Adam and Eve is laughed to scorn by the\ngeologist who point to the innumerable petrifactions on the earth's\nbosom, which with a million tongues declare more potently than\nloudest speech thai organic life in myriads of myriads was destroyed\nincalculable ages before man's era on our world.\n\nScience, however, has so little to offer in support of any religious\ndoctrine, and so much to advance against all purely theologic tenets,\nthat we turn to a point giving the Christian greater vantage ground;\nand, accepting for the moment his premises, we deny that he can maintain\nthe possibility of Adam's sin, and yet consistently affirm the existence\nof an All-wise, All-powerful, and All-good God. Did Adam sin? We will\ntake the Christian's bible in our hands to answer the question, first\ndefining the word sin. What is sin? Samuel Taylor Coleridge says, \"A\nsin is an evil which has its ground or origin in the agent, and not in\nthe compulsion of circumstances....\" An act to be sin must be original,\nand a state or act that has not its origin in the will may be calamity,\ndeformity, or disease, but sin it can not be. It is not enough that\nthe act appears voluntary, or that it has the most hateful passions or\ndebasing appetite for its proximate cause and accompaniment. All these\nmay be found in a madhouse, where neither law nor humanity permit us to\ncondemn the actor of sin. The reason of law declared the maniac not a\nfree agent, and the verdict follows, of course _Not guilty?_ Did Adam\nsin?\n\nThe bible story is that a Deity created one man and one woman; that he\nplaced them in a garden wherein he had also placed a tree which was good\nfor food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one\nwise. That although he had expressly given the fruit of every tree\nbearing seed for food, he, nevertheless, commanded them not to eat of\nthe fruit of this attractive tree, under penalty of death. Supposing\nAdam to have at once disobeyed this injunction, would it have been sin?\nThe fact that God had made the tree good for food, pleasant to the\neyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, would have surely been\nsufficient circumstance of justification on the God-created inducement\nto partake of its fruit. The inhibition lost its value as against the\nenticement. If the All-wise had intended the tree to be avoided, would\nhe have made its allurements so overpowering to the senses? But the\ncase does not rest here. In addition to all the attractions of the tree,\nand as though there were not enough, there is a subtle serpent, gifted\nwith suasive speech, who, either wiser or more truthful than the\nAll-perfect Deity, says that although God has threatened immediate death\nas the consequence of disobedience to his command, yet they \"shall not\ndie; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof your eyes shall be\nopened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.\" The tempter is\nstronger than the tempted, the witchery of the serpent is too great for\nthe spellbound woman, the decoy tree is too potent in its temptations;\noverpersuaded herself by the honey-tongued voice of the seducer,\nshe plucks the fruit and gives to her husband also. And for this their\noffspring are to suffer! The yet unborn children are to be the victims\nof God's vengeance on their parents' weakness--though he had made them\nweak; though, indeed, he had created the tempter sufficiently strong to\npractice upon this weakness, and had arranged the causes predisposing\nman and woman to commit the offense--if, indeed, it be an offense to\npluck the fruit of a tree which gives knowledge to the eater. It is for\nthis fall that Jesus is to atone. He is sacrificed to redeem the world's\ninhabitants from the penalties for a weakness (for sin it was not)\nthey had no share in. It was not sin, for the man was influenced by\ncircumstances pre-arranged by Deity, and which man was powerless to\nresist or control. But if man was so influenced by such circumstances,\nthen it was God who influenced man--God who punished the human race for\nan action to the commission of which he impelled their progenitor.\n\nAdam did not sin. He ate of the fruit of a tree which God had made good\nto be eaten. He was induced to this through the indirect persuasion of\na serpent God had made purposely to persuade him. But even if Adam did\nsin, and even he and Eve, his wife, were the first parents of the whole\nhuman family, what have we to do with their sin? We, unborn when the\nact was committed and without choice as to coming into the world. Does\nJesus atone for Adam's sin? Adam suffered for his own offense; he,\naccording to the curse, was to eat in sorrow of the fruit of the earth\nall his life as punishment for his offense. Atonement, after punishment,\nis surely a superfluity. Did the sacrifice of Jesus serve as atonement\nfor the whole world, and, if yes, for all sin, or for Adam's sin only?\nIf the atonement is for the whole world, does it extend to unbelievers\nas well as to believers in the efficacy? If it only includes believers,\nthen what has become of those generations who, according to the bible,\nfor 4,000 years succeeded each other in the world without faith in\nChrist because without knowledge of his mission? Should not Jesus have\ncome 4,000 years earlier, or, at least, should he not have come when the\nark on Ararat served as monument of God's merciless vengeance, which had\nmade the whole earth a battle-field, whereon the omnipotent had crushed\nthe feeble, and had marked his prowess by the innumerable myriads of\ndecayed dead? If it be declared that, though the atonement by Jesus\nonly applies to believers in his mission so far as regards human beings\nborn since his coming, yet that it is wider in its retrospective effect,\nthen the answer is that it is unfair to those born after Jesus to make\nfaith the condition precedent to the saving efficacy of atonement,\nespecially if belief be required from all mankind posterior to the\nChristian era, whether they have heard of Jesus or not. Japanese,\nChinese, savage Indians, Kaffirs, and others, have surely a right to\ncomplain of this atonement scheme, which insures them eternal damnation\nby making it requisite to believe in a Gospel of which they have no\nknowledge. If it be contended that belief shall only be required from\nthose to whom the gospel of Jesus has been preached, and who have had\nafforded to them the opportunity of its acceptance, then how great a\ncause of complaint against Christian missionaries have those peoples\nwho, without such missions, might have escaped damnation for unbelief.\nThe gates of hell are opened to them by the earnest propagandist, who\nprofesses to show the road to heaven.\n\nBut does this atonement serve only to redeem the human family from the\ncurse inflicted by Deity in Eden's garden for Adam's sin, or does\nit operate as satisfaction for all sin? If the salvation is from the\npunishment for Adam's sin alone, and if belief and baptism are, as\nJesus himself affirms, to be the sole conditions precedent to any saving\nefficacy in the much-lauded atonement by the Son of God, then what\nbecomes of a child that only lives a few hours, is never baptized,\nand, never having any mind, consequently never has any belief? Or what\nbecomes of one idiot born who, throughout his dreary life, never has\nmental capacity for the acceptance, or examination of, or credence in,\nany religious dogmas whatever? Is the idiot saved who can not believe?\nIs the infant saved that can not believe? I, with some mental faculties\ntolerably developed, can not believe. Must I be damned? If so,\nfortunate short-lived babe! lucky idiot! That the atonement should not\nbe effective until the person to be saved has been baptized is at least\nworthy of comment; that the sprinkling a few drops of water should\nquench the flames of hell is a remarkable feature in the Christian's\ncreed.\n\n     \"One can't but think it somewhat droll\n     Pump-water thus should cleanse a soul.\"\n\nHow many fierce quarrels have raged on the formula of baptism among\nthose loving brothers in Christ who believe he died for them! How\nstrange an idea that, though God has been crucified to redeem mankind,\nit yet needs the font of water to wash away the lingering stain of\nAdam's crime.\n\nOne minister of the Church of England, occupying the presidential chair\nof a well-known training college for church clergymen in the north of\nEngland, seriously declared, in the presence of a large auditory and of\nseveral church dignitaries, that the sin of Adam was so potent in its\neffect that if a man _had never been born, he would yet have been damned\nfor sin!_ That is, he declared that man existed before birth, and\nthat he committed sin before he was born; and if never born, would,\nnotwithstanding, deserve to suffer eternal torment for that sin!\n\nIt is almost impossible to discuss seriously a doctrine so monstrously\nabsurd, and yet it is not one whit more ridiculous than the ordinary\northodox and terrible doctrine that God, the undying, in his infinite\nlove, killed himself under the form of his son to appease the cruel\nvengeance of God, the just and merciful, who, without this, would have\nbeen ever vengeful, unjust and merciless. The atonement theory, as\npresented to us by the bible, is in effect as follows: God creates\nman, surrounded by such circumstances as the divine mind chose, in the\nselection of which man had no voice, and the effects of which on man\nwere all foreknown and predestined by Deity. The result is man's fall\non the very first temptation, so frail the nature with which he was\nendowed, or so powerful the temptation to which he was subjected. For\nthis fall not only does the All-merciful punish Adam, but also his\nposterity; and this punishment went on for many centuries, until God,\nthe immutable, changed his purpose of continual condemnation of men\nfor sins they had no share in, and was wearied with his long series of\nunjust judgments on those whom he created in order that he might judge\nthem. That, then, God sent his son, who was himself and was also his\nown father, and who was immortal, to die upon the cross, and, by this\nsacrifice, to atone for the sin which God himself had caused Adam to\ncommit, and thus to appease the merciless vengeance of the All-merciful,\nwhich would otherwise have been continued against men yet unborn for an\noffense they could not have been concerned in or accessory to. Whether\nthose who had died before Christ's coming are redeemed the bible does\nnot clearly tell us. Those born after are redeemed only on condition of\ntheir faith in the efficacy of the sacrifice offered, and in the truth\nof the history of Jesus's life. The doctrine of salvation by sacrifice\nof human life is the doctrine of a barbarous and superstitous age; the\noutgrowth of a brutal and depraved era. The God who accepts the bloody\noffering of an innocent victim in lieu of punishing the guilty culprit\nshows no mercy in sparing the offender: he has already satiated his lust\nfor vengeance on the first object presented to him.\n\nYet sacrifice is an early and prominent, and, with slight exception,\nan abiding feature in the Hebrew record--sacrifice of life finds\nappreciative acceptance from the Jewish Deity. Cain's offering of fruits\nis ineffective but Abel's altar, bearing the firstlings of his flock,\nand the fat thereof, finds respect in the sight of the Lord. While the\nface of the earth was disfigured by the rotting dead, after God in his\ninfinite mercy had deluged the world, then it was that the ascending\nsmoke from Noah's burnt sacrifice of bird and beast produced pleasure in\nheaven, and God himself smelled a sweet savor from the roasted meats.\nTo reach atonement for the past by sacrifice is worse than folly--it\nis crime. The past can never be recalled, and the only reference to it\nshould be that, by marking its events, we may avoid its evil deeds and\nimprove upon its good ones. For Jesus himself--can man believe in him?\n--in his history contained in anonymous pamphlets uncorroborated by\ncontemporary testimony?--this history, in which, in order to fulfill\na prophecy which does not relate to him, his descent from David is\ndemonstrated by tracing through two self-contradictory genealogies the\ndescent of Joseph who was not his father--this history, in which the\ninfinite God grows, from babyhood and hus cradle through childhood to\nmanhood, as though he were not God at all--this history, full of absurd\nwonders, devils, magicians, and evil spirits, rather fit for an Arabian\nNight's legend than the word of God to his people--this history,\nwith its miraculous raisings of the dead to life, disbelieved and\ncontradicted by the people among whom they are alleged to have been\nperformed; but, nevertheless, to be accepted by us to-day with all\nhumility--this history, with the Man-God subject to human passions and\ninfirmities, who comes to die, and who prays to his heavenly father\n(that is, to himself) that he will spare him the bitter cup of\ndeath--who is betrayed, having himself, ere he laid the foundations\nof the world, predestined Judas to betray him, and who dies, being God\nimmortal crying with his almost dying breath, \"My God! my God! why hast\nthou forsaken me?\"\n\n\n\n\nWERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS?\n\nThis question, Were Adam and Eve our first parents? is indeed one of\nmost grave importance. If the answer be a negative one, it is, in fact,\na denial of the whole scheme of Christianity. The Christian theory is\nthat Adam, the common father of the whole human race, sinned, and that\nby his sin he dragged down all his posterity to a state from which\nredemption was needed; and that Jesus is, and was, the Redeemer, by\nwhom all mankind are and were saved from the consequences of the fall\nof Adam. If Adam, therefore, be proved not to be the first man--if it be\nshown that it is not to Adam the various races of mankind are indebted\nfor their origin, then the whole hypothesis of fall and redemption is\ndissipated.\n\nIn a pamphlet like the present it is impossible to give any statement\nand analysis of the various hypotheses as to the origin of the human\nrace. I frankly admit that my only wish and intent is, to compel people\nto examine the bible record for themselves, instead of making it their\nfetich, bowing down before it without thought. I am inclined to the\nopinion that the doctrine of a plurality of sources for the various\ntypes of the human race is a correct one; that wherever the conditions\nfor life have been found, there also has been the degree of life\nresultant on those conditions. My purpose in this essay is not to\ndemonstrate the correctness of my own thinking, but rather to illustrate\nthe incorrectness of the Geneiacal teaching. Were Adam and Eve our\nfirst parents? On the one hand an answer in the affirmative to this\nquestion can be obtained from the bible, which asserts Adam and Eve\nto be the first man and woman made by God, and fixes the date of their\nmaking about 6,000 years, little more or less, from the present time. On\nthe other hand, it seems to me that science emphatically declares man to\nhave existed on the earth for a far more extended period; affirms that,\nas far as we can trace man, we find him in isolated groups, diverse in\ntype, till we lose him in the ante-historic period; and, with nearly\nequal distinctness, denies that the various existing races find their\ncommon parentage in one pair. It is only on the first point that\nI attack the bible chronology of man's existence. I am aware that\ncompilations based upon the authorized version of the Old Testament\nScriptures are open to objection, and that while from the Hebrew\n1,656 years represent the period from Adam to the Deluge generally\nacknowledged, the Samaritan Pentateuch only yields for the same period\n1,307 years, while the Septuagint version furnishes 2,242 years; there\nis, I am also informed, on the authority of a most erudite Egyptologist,\na fatal objection to the Septuagint chronology--_i. e._, that it makes\nMethusaleh outlive the flood.*\n\nThe deluge occurred, according to the Septuagint, in the year of\nthe world 2,242, and, by adding up the generations previous to\nMethusaleh's--\n\n     Adam..............................................230\n\n     Seth..............................................205\n\n     Enos..............................................190\n\n     Cainan............................................170\n\n     Malaleel..........................................165\n\n     Jared.............................................162\n\n     Enoch.............................................165\n\n     .................................................1287\n\n     * Sharpe's History of Egypt, page 196.\n\n--we shall find that he was born in the year of the world 1,287. He\nlived 969 years, and therefore died in 2,256. But this is fourteen years\nafter the deluge.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, who wrote about 1,644, fixes the month of the\ncreation at September, 5,572 years preceding the date of his book,\nand says that Adam was expelled from Eden on the day in which he was\ncreated.* In the London _Ethnological Journal_, for which I am indebted\nto the kindness of its Editor, an able ethnologist and careful thinker,\nthe reader will find a chronology of Genesis ably and elaborately\nexamined. At present, for our immediate purpose, we will take the\nordinary. English bible, which gives the following result:\n\n   From Adam to Abraham (Gen. v and xi).............    2008\n\n   From Abraham to Isaac (Gen. xxi, 5)...............    100\n\n   From Isaac to Jacob (Gen. xxv, 26)..................   60\n\n   From Jacob going into Egypt (Gen. xlvii, 9).........  130\n\n   Sojourn in Egypt (Exod. xii, 41)..................... 480\n\n   Duration of Moses* leadership (Exod. vii, 7; xxxi, 2). 40\n\n   Thence to David, about.............................   400\n\n   From David to Captivity, fourteen generations (27),\n        about twenty-two reigns..........................478\n\n   Captivity to Jesus, fourteen generations, about...... 593\n\n   4234 Less disputed 230 years of sojourn in Egypt......230\n\n4004 From Adam to Abraham the dates are certain, if we take the bible\nstatement, and there is certainly no portion of the orthodox text,\nexcept the period of the Judges, which will admit any considerable\nextension of the ordinary Oxford chronology.\n\n     * Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and Harmony of the Old\n     Testament.\n\nThe book of Judges is not a book of history. Everything in it is\nrecounted without chronological order. It will suffice to say, that the\nciphers which we find in the book of Judges, and in the first book of\nSamuel, yield us, from the death of Joshua to the commencement of the\nreign of Saul, the sum total of 500 years, which would make, since the\nexode from Egypt, 565 years; whereas the first book of Kings counts but\n480 years, from the going out of Egypt down to the foundation of the\ntemple under Solomon. According to this we must suppose that several of\nthe Judges governed simultaneously.*\n\n     * Munk's Palestine, p. 231.\n\nIn reading Alfred Maury's profound essay on the classification of\ntongues, I was much struck with the fact that he, in his philological\nresearches, traces back some of the ancient Greek mythologies to\na Sanscrit source. He has the following remark, worthy of earnest\nattention: \"The God of Heaven, or the sky, is called by the Greeks _Zeus\nPater_; and let us here notice that the pronunciation of Z resembles\nvery much that of D, inasmuch as the word Zeus becomes in the genitive\n_Dios_. The Latins termed the same God _Dies-piter_, or Jupiter Now in\nthe Veda the God of Heaven is called Dyash-pitai.\" What is this but the\noriginal of our own Christian God, the father, the [------] (_Jeue_)\npater of the Old Testament? I introduce this remark for the purpose\nof shaking a very commonly entertained opinion that the Hebrew Records,\nwhether or not God-inspired, are at any rate the most antique, and are\nwritten in a primitive tongue. Neither is it true that Hebrew mythology\nis the most ancient, nor the Hebrew language the most primitive; on\nthe contrary, the mythology is clearly derived, and the language in a\nsecondary or tertiary state.\n\nWhat is the value of this book of Genesis, which is the sole authority\nfor the hypothesis that Adam and Eve, about 5,865 years ago, were\nthe sole founders of the peoples now living on the face of the earth?\nWritten we know not by whom, we know not when, and we know not in what\nlanguage. If we respect the book, it must be from its internal\nmerits; its author is to us unknown. Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Clemens\nAlexandrinus alike agree that the name of Moses should not stand at\nthe head of Genesis as the author of the book. As to its internal merit\nOrigen did not hesitate to declare the contents of the first and second\nchapters of Genesis to be purely figurative. Our translation of it has\nbeen severely criticised by the learned and pious Bellamy, and by\nthe more learned and less pious Sir William Drummond. Errors almost\ninnumerable have been pointed out, the correctness of the Hebrew\ntext itself questioned, and yet this book is an unerring guide to the\nstudents of ethnology. They may do anything, everything, except stray\nout of the beaten track. We have, therefore, on the one hand, an\nanonymous book, which indeed does not take you back so much as 6,000\nyears, for at least 1,600 years must be deducted for the Noachian\ndeluge, when the world's inhabitants were again reduced to one family,\none race, one type. On the other hand, we have now existing Eskimo men,\nof the Arctic realm; Chinamen, of the Asiatic realm; Englishmen, of the\nEuropean realm; Sahara negroes, of the African realm; Fuegians, of\nthe American realm; New Zealanders, of the Polynesian realm; the Malay,\nrepresentative of the realm which bears his name; the Tasmanian, of the\nAustralian realm, with other families of each realm too numerous\nfor mention here; dark and fair, black-skinned and white-skinned,\nwoolly-haired and straight-haired; low forehead, high forehead;\nHottentot limb, Negro limb, Caucasian limb. Do all these different and\ndiffering structures and colors trace their origin to one pair? To Adam\nand Eve, or rather to Noah and his family? Or are they (the various\nraces) indigenous to their nature, soils, and climates? And are these\nvarious types naturally resultant, with all their differences, from the\ndiffering conditions for life persistent to and consistent with them?\n\nThe question, then, really is this: Have the different races of men all\nfound their common parent in Noah, about 4,300 years ago? Assuming the\nunity of the races or species of men now existing, there are but three\nsuppositions on which the diversity now seen can be accounted for:\n\n\"1. A miracle, or direct act of the Almighty, in changing one type into\nanother.\n\n\"2. The gradual action of physical causes, such as climate, food, mode\nof life, etc.\n\n\"3. Congenital or accidental varieties.\"*\n\nWe may fairly dismiss entirely from our minds the question of miracle.\nSuch a miracle is nowhere recorded in the bible, and it lies upon any\none hardy enough to assert that the present diversity has a miraculous\norigin to show some kind of reasons for his faith, some kind of evidence\nfor our conviction, and until this is done we have no reason to dwell on\nthe first hypothesis.\n\nOf the permanence of type under its own climatic conditions--that is, in\nthe country to which it is indigenous--we have overwhelming proof in\nthe statue of an ancient Egyptian scribe, taken from a tomb of the fifth\ndynasty, 5,000 years old, and precisely corresponding to the Fellah of\nthe present day.**\n\n     * \"Types of Mankind,\" Dr. Nott, p. 57.\n\n     ** M. Pulzsky on Iconography--\"Indigenous Races,\" p. 111.\n\nThe sand had preserved the color of the statuette, which, from its\nportrait-like beauty, marks a long era of art-progress preceding its\nproduction. It antedates the orthodox era of the flood, carries us back\nto a time when, if the bible were true, Adam was yet alive, and still we\nfind before it kings reigning and ruling in mighty Egypt. Can the reader\nwonder that these facts are held to impeach the orthodox faith?\n\nOn the second point Dr. Nott writes: \"It is a commonly received error\nthat the influence of a hot climate is gradually exerted on successive\ngenerations, until one species of mankind is completely changed into\nanother.... This idea is proven to be false.... A sunburnt cheek is\nnever handed down to succeeding generations. The exposed parts of the\nbody are alone tanned by the sun, and the children of the white-skinned\nEuropeans in New Orleans, Mobile, and the West Indies are born as fair\nas their ancestors, and would remain so if carried back to a colder\nclimate.\"*\n\nPure negroes and negresses, transported from Central Africa to England,\nand marrying among themselves, would never acquire the characteristics\nof the Caucasian races; nor would pure Englishmen and Englishwomen,\nemigrating to Central Africa, and in like manner intermarrying, ever\nbecome negroes or negresses. The fact is, that while you don't bleach\nthe color of the dark-skinned African by placing him in London, you\nbleach the life out of him; and _vice versa_ with the Englishman.**\n\n     * \"Types of Mankind,\" p. 58.\n\n     ** \"Indigenous Races of the Earth,\" p. 458. The alleged\n     discovery of white-skinned negroes in Western Africa does\n     not affect this question: it is not only to the color of the\n     skin, but also the general negro characteristics that the\n     above remarks apply.\n\nFor a long time there has been ascribed to man the faculty of adapting\nhimself to every climate. The following facts will show the ascription a\nmost erroneous one: \"In Egypt the austral negroes are, and the Caucasian\nMemlooks were, unable to raise up even a third generation; in\nCorsica French families vanish beneath Italian summers. Where are the\ndescendants of the Romans, the Vandals, or the Greeks in Africa? In\nModern Arabia, 1830 years after Mahomed Ali had got clear of the Morea\nwar, 18,000 Arnaots (Albanians) were soon reduced to some 400 men.\nAt Gibraltar, in 1817, a negro regiment was almost annihilated by\nconsumption. In 1841, during the three weeks on the Niger, 130 Europeans\nout of 145 caught African fever, and 40 died; out of 158 negro sailors\nonly eleven were affected, and not one died. In 1809 the British\nExpedition to Walchereen failed in the Netherlands through marsh fever.\nAbout the same time, in St. Domingo, about 15,000 French soldiers died\nfrom malaria. Of 30,000 Frenchmen, only 8,000 survived exposure to that\nAntillian island; while the Dominicanized African negro, Tous-saint\nL'Overture, retransported to Europe, was perishing from the chill of his\nprison in France.\"\n\nOn the third point we again quote Dr. Nott: \"The only argument left,\nthen, is that of congenital varieties or peculiarities, which are said\nto spring up and be transmitted from parent to child, so as to form new\nraces. Let us pause for a moment to illustrate this fanciful idea. The\nnegroes of Africa, for example, are admitted not to be offsets from some\nother race which have been gradually blackened and changed in a moral\nand physical type by the action of climate, but it is asserted that\n'once, in the flight of ages,' some genuine little negro, or rather many\nsuch, were born of Caucasian, Mongol, or other light-skinned parents,\nand then have turned about and changed the type of the inhabitants of a\nwhole continent. So, in America, the countless aborigines found on this\ncontinent, which we have reason to believe were building mounds before\nthe time of Abraham, are the offspring of a race changed by accidental\nor congenital varieties. Thus, too, old China, India, Australia, Oceana,\netc., all owe their types, physical and mental, to congenital and\naccidental varieties, and are descended from Adam and Eve! Can human\ncredulity go further, or human ingenuity invent any argument more\nabsurd?\"\n\nBut even supposing these objections to the second and third suppositions\nset aside, there are two other propositions which, if affirmed, as I\nbelieve they may be, entirely overthrow the orthodox assertion \"that\nAdam and Eve, six thousand years ago, were the first pair; and that all\ndiversities now existing must find their common source in Noah--less\nthan four thousand three hundred years from the present time.\" These two\nare as follows.\n\n1. That man may be traced back on the earth long prior to the alleged\nAdamic era.\n\n2. That there are diversities traceable as existing among the human race\nfour thousand five hundred years ago as marked as in the present day.\n\nTo illustrate the position that man may be traced back to a period long\nprior to the Adamic era, we refer our readers to the chronology of the\nlate Baron Bunsen, who, while allowing about 22,000 years for man's\nexistence on earth, fixes the following dates, after a patient\nexamination of the Nilotic antiquities:\n\n     Egyptians under a republican form..............   10,000 B. C.\n\n     Ascension of Bytis, the Theban, first Priest King. 9,085\n\n     Elective Kings in Egypt.........................   7,280\n\n     Hereditary Kings in Upper and Lower Egypt (a\n     double empire) form.........................       5,143*\n\n\n     * Nott and Gliddon, \"Indigenous Races,\" page 687.\n\nThe assertion of such an antiquity for Egypt is no modern hypothesis.\nPlato puts language into the mouth of an Egyptian first claiming in that\nday an antecedent 10,000 years for painting and sculpture in Egypt. This\nhas long been regarded as fabulous because it was contrary to the Hebrew\nchronology.\n\nIf this be the result of the researches into Egyptian arch\u00e6ology, the\nreader will scarcely be surprised to find me endeavoring from other\nsources to get corroborative evidence of a still more astonishing\ncharacter.\n\nThere are few who now pretend that the whole _creation (?)_ took place\n6,000 years ago, although if it be true that God made all in six days,\nand man on the sixth, then the universe would only be more ancient than\nAdam by some five days. To state the age of the earth at 6,000 years\nis simply preposterous, when we ascertain that it would require about\n4,000,000 of years for the formation of the fossiliferous rocks alone,\nand that 15,000,000 of years have been stated as a moderate estimate\nfor the antiquity of our globe. The deltas of the great rivers afford\ncorroboration to our position as to man's duration. The delta of the\nNile, formed by immense quantities of sedimentary matter, which in\nlike manner is still carried down and deposited, has not perceptibly\nincreased during the last 3,000 years. \"In the days of the earliest\nPharaohs, the delta, as it now exists, was covered with ancient cities\nand filled with a dense population, whose civilization must have\nrequired a period going back far beyond any date that has yet been\nassigned to the deluge of Noah, or even to the creation of the world.\"*\n\nFrom borings which have been made at New Orleans to the depth of 600\nfeet, from excavations for public works, and from examinations in parts\nof Louisiana, where the range between high and low water is much greater\nthan it is at New Orleans, no less than ten distinct cypress forests\ndivided from each other by eras of aquatic plants, etc., have been\ntraced, arranged vertically above each other; and from these and other\ndata it is estimated by Dr. Benet Dowler that the age of the delta is\nat least 158,000 years; and in the excavations above referred to human\nremains have been found below the further forest level, making it appear\nthat the human race existed in the delta of the Mississippi more than\n57,000 years ago.**\n\nIt is further urged, by the same competent writer, that human bones\ndiscovered on the coast of Brazil near Santas, and on the borders of\na lake called Lagoa Santa, by Captain Elliott and Dr. Lund, thoroughly\nincorporated with a very hard breccia, every one in a fossil state,\ndemonstrate that aboriginal man in America antedates the Mississippi\nalluvia, and that he can even boast a geological antiquity, because\nnumerous species of animals have become extinct since American\nhumanity's first appearance.***\n\n     * Gliddon's \"Types of Mankind,\" page 335.\n\n     ** \"Types,\" pages 336 to 369.\n\n     *** \"Types,\" pages 350 and 357.\n\nWith reference to the second point, as to the possibility of tracing\nback the diversities of the Human Race to an antediluvian date, it\nis simply sufficient to point on the one side to the remains of the\nAmerican Indian disentombed from the Mississippi forests, and on\nthe other to the Egyptian monuments, tombs, pyramids, and stuccoes,\nrevealing to us Caucasian men, and Negro men, their diversities as\nmarked as in the present day. Sir William Jones, in his day, claimed for\nSanscrit literature a vast antiquity, and asserted the existence of the\nreligions of Egypt, Greece, India, and Italy, prior to the Mosaic\nera. So far as Egypt is concerned the researches of Lepsius, Bunsen,\nChampollion, Lenormant, Gliddon, and others, have fully verified the\nposition of the learned president of the Asiatic Society.\n\nWe have Egyptian statues of the third dynasty, going back far beyond\nthe 4,300 years, which would give the orthodox era of the deluge, and\ntaking us over the 4,500 years fixed by our second proposition. The\nfourth dynasty is rich in pyramids, tombs, and statues; and, according\nto Lepsius, this dynasty commenced 3,426 B. C, or about 5,287 years from\nthe present date.\n\nIn reading a modern work on the orthodox side,* I have been much pained\nby the constant assumption that the long chronologists must be in error,\nbecause their views do not coincide with orthodox teachings. Orthodox\nauthors treat their heterodox brethren as unworthy of credit, because\nof their heterodoxy. The writer asserts** that the earliest reference\nto the Negro tribes is in the era of the 12th dynasty. Supposing for a\nmoment this to be correct, I ask what even then will be the state of\nthe argument? The 12th dynasty, according to Lepsius, ends about 4,000\nyears ago. The orthodox chronology fixes the deluge about 300 years\nearlier. Will any sane man argue that there was sufficient lapse of\ntime in three centuries for the development of Caucasian and Negro man\nfrom one family?\n\n     * \"Archaia,\" by Dr. Dawson.\n\n     ** \"Archaia,\" page 306.\n\nThe fact is that we trace back the various types of man now known, not\nto one center, not to one country, not to one family, not to one pair,\nbut we trace them to different centers, to distinct countries, to\nseparate families, probably to many pairs. Wherever the conditions for\nlife are found, there are living beings also. The conditions of\nclimate, soil, etc., of Central Africa, differ from those of Europe. The\nindigenous races of Central Africa differ from those of Europe.\n\nWithout pretending, in the present limited essay, to do more than index\nsome of the most prominent features of the case, I yet hope that enough\nis here stated to interest my readers in the prosecution of future\ninquiry upon the important question which serves as the title to these\npages. I put forward no knowledge from myself, but am ready to listen\nto the teachings of wiser men; and while I shrink from the ordinary\northodox assertion of Adamic unity of origin, accompanied as it is by\nthreats of pains and penalties if rejected, I am yet ready to receive\nit, if it can be presented to me associated with facts, and divested\nof those future hell-fire torments and present societarian persecutions\nwhich now form its chief, if not sole, supports.\n\nThe rejection of the bible account of the peopling of the world involves\nalso the rejection, as has been already remarked, of the entire scheme\nof Christianity. According to the orthodox rendering of both New and\nOld Testament teaching, all men are involved in the curse which followed\nAdam's sin. But if the account of the Fall be mythical, not historical;\nif Adam and Eve--supposing them to have ever existed--were preceded on\nthe earth by many nations and empires, what becomes of the doctrine that\nJesus came to redeem mankind from a sin committed by one who was not the\ncommon father of all humanity?\n\nReject Adam, and you can not accept Jesus. Refuse to believe Genesis,\nand you can not give credence to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. The\nOld and New Testaments are so connected together that to dissolve the\nunion is to destroy the system. The account of the Creation and Fall of\nMan is the foundation-stone of the Christian Church. If this stone\nbe rotten, the superstructure can not be stable. It is therefore most\nimportant that those who profess a faith in Christianity should consider\nfacts which so vitally and materially affect the creed they hold.\n\n\n\n\nA PLEA FOR ATHEISM.\n\nGillespie says that \"an Atheist propagandist seems a nondescript monster\ncreated by Nature in a moment of madness.\" Despite this opinion, it is\nas the propagandist of Atheism that I pen the following lines, in the\nhope that I may succeed in removing some few of the many prejudices\nwhich have been created against not only the actual holders of Atheistic\nopinions, but also against those wrongfully suspected of entertaining\nsuch ideas. Men who have been famous for depth of thought, for excellent\nwit, or great genius, have been recklessly assailed as Atheists by\nthose who lacked the high qualifications against which the spleen of\nthe calumniators was directed. Thus, not only has Voltaire been without\nground accused of Atheism, but Bacon, Locke, and Bishop Berkeley\nhimself, have, among others, been denounced by thoughtless or\nunscrupulous pietists as inclining to Atheism, the ground for the\naccusation being that they manifested an inclination to improve human\nthought.\n\nIt is too often the fashion with persons of pious reputation to speak in\nunmeasured language of Atheism as favoring immorality, and of Atheists\nas men whose conduct is necessarily vicious, and who have adopted\natheistic views as a disparate defiance against a Deity justly offended\nby the badness of their lives. Such persons urge that among the\nproximate causes of Atheism are vicious training, immoral and profligate\ncompanions, licentious living, and the like. Dr. John Pye Smith, in his\n\"Instructions on Christian Theology,\" goes so far as to declare that\n\"nearly all the Atheists upon record have been men of extremely\ndebauched and vile conduct.\" Such language from the Christian advocate\nis not surprising, but there are others who, professing great desire for\nthe spread of Freethought, and with pretensions to rank among acute and\nliberal thinkers, declare Atheism impracticable, and its teachings cold,\nbarren, and negative. In this brief essay I shall except to each of the\nabove allegations, and shall endeavor to demonstrate that Atheism\naffords greater possibility for human happiness than any system yet\nbased on Theism, or possible to be founded thereon, and that the lives\nof true Atheists must be more virtuous, because more human, than those\nof the believers in Deity, the humanity of the devout believer often\nfinding itself neutralized by a faith with which it is necessarily in\nconstant collision. The devotee piling the faggots at the _auto de fe_\nof a heretic, and that heretic his son, might, notwithstanding, be a\ngood father in every respect but this. Heresy, in the eyes of the\nbeliever, is highest criminality, and outweighs all claims of family or\naffection.\n\nAtheism, properly understood, is in nowise a cold, barren negative; it\nis, on the contrary, a hearty, fruitful affirmation of all truth, and\ninvolves the positive assertion and action of highest humanity.\n\nLet Atheism be fairly examined, and neither condemned--its defense\nunheard--on the _ex parte_ slanders of the professional preachers of\nfashionable orthodoxy, whose courage is bold enough while the pulpit\nprotects the sermon, but whose valor becomes tempered with discretion\nwhen a free platform is afforded and discussion claimed; nor misjudged\nbecause it has been the custom to regard Atheism as so unpopular as to\nrender its advocacy impolitic. The best policy against all prejudice is\nto assert firmly the verity. The Atheist does not say \"There is no God,\"\nbut he says, \"I know not what you mean by God: I am without idea of\nGod; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct\naffirmation. I do not deny God, because I can not deny that of which I\nhave no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so\nimperfect that he is unable to define it to me.\" If you speak to the\nAtheist of God as a creator, he answers that the conception of creation\nis impossible. We are utterly unable to construe it in thought as\npossible that the complement of existence has been either increased\nor diminished, much less can we conceive an absolute origination of\nsubstance. We can not conceive either, on the one hand, nothing becoming\nsomething, or on the other, something becoming nothing. The Theist who\nspeaks of God creating the universe, must either suppose that Deity\nevolved it out of himself, or that he produced it from nothing. But the\nTheist can not regard the universe as evolution of Deity, because this\nwould identify Universe and Deity, and be Pantheism rather than Theism.\nThere would be no distinction of substance--in fact, no creation. Nor\ncan the Theist regard the universe as created out of nothing, because\nDeity is, according to him, necessarily eternal and infinite. His\nexistence being eternal and infinite, precludes the possibility of the\nconception of vacuum to be filled by the universe if created. No one can\neven think of any point of existence in extent or duration and say here\nis the point of separation between the creator and the created.\nIndeed, it is not possible for the Theist to imagine a beginning to\nthe universe. It is not possible to conceive either an absolute\ncommencement, or an absolute termination of existence; that is, it is\nimpossible to conceive a beginning before which you have a period when\nthe universe has yet to be: or to conceive an end, after which the\nuniverse, having been, no longer exists. It is impossible in thought\nto originate or annihilate the universe. The Atheist affirms that he\ncognizes to-day effects, that these are at the same time causes and\neffects--causes to the effects they precede, effects to the causes they\nfollow. Cause is simply everything without which the effect would not\nresult, and with which it must result. Cause is the means to an end,\nconsummating itself in that end. The Theist who argues for creation must\nassert a point of time, that is, of duration, when the created did not\nyet exist. At this point of time either something existed or nothing;\nbut something must have existed, for out of nothing nothing can come.\nSomething must have existed, because the point fixed upon is that of the\nduration of something. This something must have been either finite or\ninfinite; if finite, it could not have been God; and if the something\nwere infinite, then creation was impossible, as it is impossible to add\nto infinite existence.\n\nIf you leave the question of creation and deal with the government of\nthe universe, the difficulties of Theism are by no means lessened. The\nexistence of evil is then a terrible stumbling-block to the Theist.\nPain, misery, crime, poverty, confront the advocate of eternal goodness,\nand challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity as\nall-good, all-wise, and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God, or\nexists independently; but it can not be caused by God, as in that case\nhe would not be all-good; nor can it exist independently, as in\nthat case he would not be all-powerful. Evil must either have had a\nbeginning, or it must be eternal; but, according to the Theist, it can\nnot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a\nbeginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God,\nor outside of God; but, according to the Theist, it can not have\noriginated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all-goodness evil\ncan not originate; nor can evil have originated outside of God, for,\naccording to the Theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go\noutside of or beyond infinity.\n\nTo the Atheist this question of evil assumes an entirely different\naspect. He declares that evil is a result, but not a result from God or\nDevil. He affirms that by conduct founded on knowledge of the laws of\nexistence it is possible to ameliorate and avoid present evil, and, as\nour knowledge increases, to prevent its future recurrence.\n\nSome declare that the belief in God is necessary as a check to crime.\nThey allege that the Atheist may commit murder, lie, or steal, without\nfear of any consequences. To try the actual value of this argument, it\nis not unfair to ask, Do Theists ever steal? If yes, then in each such\ntheft, the belief in God and his power to punish has been inefficient as\na preventive of the crime. Do Theists ever lie or murder? If yes, the\nsame remark has farther force--hell-fire failing against the lesser\nas against the greater crime. The fact is that these who use such an\nargument overlook a great truth--i.e., that all men seek happiness,\nthough in very diverse fashions. Ignorant and miseducated men often\nmistake the true path to happiness, and commit crime in the endeavor to\nobtain it. Atheists hold that by teaching mankind the real road to human\nhappiness, it is possible to keep them from the by-ways of criminality\nand error. Atheists would teach men to be moral now, not because God\noffers as an inducement reward by and by, but because in the virtuous\nact itself immediate good is insured to the doer and the circle\nsurrounding him. Atheism would preserve man from lying, stealing,\nmurdering now, not from fear of an eternal agony after death, but\nbecause these crimes make this life itself a course of misery.\n\nWhile Theism, asserting God as the creator and governor of the\nuniverse, hinders and checks man's efforts by declaring God's will to\nbe the sole directing and controlling power, Atheism, by declaring all\nevents to be in accordance with natural laws--that is, happening in\ncertain ascertainable sequences--stimulates man to discover the best\nconditions of life, and offers him the most powerful inducements to\nmorality. While the Theist provides future happiness for a scoundrel\nrepentant on his death bed, Atheism affirms present and certain\nhappiness for the man who does his best to live here so well as to have\nlittle cause for repenting hereafter.\n\nTheism declares that God dispenses health and inflicts disease, and\nsickness and illness are regarded by the Theist as visitations from an\nangered Deity, to be borne with meekness and content. Atheism declares\nthat physiological knowledge may preserve us from disease by preventing\nour infringing the law of health, and that sickness results not as\nthe ordinance of offended Deity, but from ill-ventilated dwellings and\nworkshops, bad and insufficient food, excessive toil, mental suffering,\nexposure to inclement weather, and the like--all these finding root in\npoverty, the chief source of crime and disease; that prayers and piety\nafford no protection against fever, and that if the human being be kept\nwithout food he will starve as quickly whether he be Theist or Atheist,\ntheology being no substitute for bread.\n\nWhen the Theist ventures to affirm that his God is an existence other\nthan and separate from the so-called material universe, and when\nhe invests this separate, hypothetical existence with the several\nattributes of omniscence, omnipresence, omnipotence, eternity, infinity,\nimmutability, and perfect goodness, then the Atheist, in reply says, \"I\ndeny the existence of such a being.\"\n\nIt becomes very important, in order that injustice may not be done\nto the Theistic argument, that we should have--in lieu of a clear\ndefinition, which it seems useless to ask for--the best possible clue to\nthe meaning intended to be conveyed by the word God. If it were not\nthat the word is an arbitrary term, invented for the ignorant, and\nthe notions suggested by which are vague and entirely contingent upon\nindividual fancies, such a clue could be probably most easily and\nsatisfactorily obtained by tracing back the word \"God,\" and ascertaining\nthe sense in which it was used by the uneducated worshipers who have\ngone before us; collating this with the more modern Theism, qualified\nas it is by the superior knowledge of to-day. Dupuis says: \"The word God\nappears intended to express the force universal, and eternally active,\nwhich endows all nature with motion according to the laws of a constant\nand admirable harmony; which develops itself in the diverse forms of\norganized matter, which mingles with all, gives life to all; which seems\nto be one through all its infinitely varied modifications, and inheres\nin itself alone.\"\n\nIn the \"Bon Sens\" of Cure Meslier, it is asked, \"Qu'est ce que Dieu?\"\nand the answer is: \"It is an abstract word coined to designate the\nhidden force of Nature, or rather it is a mathematical point having\nneither length, breadth, nor thickness.\"\n\nThe orthodox fringe of the Theism of to-day is Hebraistic in its\norigion--that is, it finds its root in the superstition and ignorance\nof a petty and barbarous people nearly destitute of literature, poor in\nlanguage, and almost entirely wanting in high conceptions of humanity.\nIt might, as Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, be fairly\nexpected that the ancient Jewish Records would aid us in our search\nafter the meaning to be attached to the word \"God.\" the most prominent\nwords in Hebrew rendered God or Lord in English are [------] _Jeue_, and\n[------] _Aleim_. The first word, Jeue, called by our orthodox Jehovah,\nis equivalent to \"that which exists,\" and indeed embodies in itself the\nonly possible trinity in unity--i. e. past, present, and future. There\nis nothing in this Hebrew word to help you to any such definition as is\nrequired for the sustenance of modern Theism. The most you can make of\nit by any stretch of imagination is equivalent to the declaration \"I\nam, I have been, I shall be.\" The word [----] is hardly ever spoken by\nreligious Jews, who actually in reading substitute for it, Adonai, an\nentirely different word. Dr. Wall notices the close resemblance in\nsound between the word _Yehowa_ or _Yeue_, or Jehovah, and Jove. In\nfact [--------], Jupiter and Jeue, pater, (God the father) present still\ncloser resemblance in sound. Jove is also [----] or [----] or [----],\nwhence the word Deus and our Deity. The Greek mythology, far more\nancient than that of the Hebrews, has probably found for Christianity\nmany other and more important features of coincidence than that of a\nsimilarly sounding name. The word [----] traced back affords us no help\nbeyond that it identifies Deity with the universe. Plato says that the\nearly Greeks thought that the only Gods were the sun, moon, earth, stars\nand heaven. The word Aleim, assists us still less in defining the\nword God, for Parkhurst translates it as a plural noun signifying \"the\ncurser,\" deriving it from the verb _to curse_. Finding that philology\naids us but little, we must endeavor to arrive at the meaning of the\nword \"God\" by another rule. It is utterly impossible to fix the\nperiod of the rise of Theism among any particular people, but it is,\nnotwithstanding, comparatively easy, if not to trace out the development\nof Theistic ideas, at any rate to point to their probable course of\ngrowth among all peoples.\n\nKeightley, in his \"Origin of Mythology,\" says: \"Supposing, for the sake\nof hypothesis, a race of men in a state of total or partial ignorance\nof Deity, their belief in many gods may have thus commenced. They saw\naround them various changes brought about by human agency, and hence\nthey knew the power of intelligence to produce effects. When they beheld\nother and greater effects, they ascribed them to some unseen being,\nsimilar but superior to man.\" They associated particular events with\nspecial unknown beings (gods), to each of whom they ascribed either a\npeculiarity of power, or a sphere of action not common to other gods.\nThus one was god of the sea, anothor god of war, another god of love,\nanother ruled the thunder and lightning; and thus through the various\nelements of the universe and passions of humankind, so far as they were\nthen known.\n\nThis mythology became modified with the advancement of human knowledge.\nThe ability to think has proved itself oppugnant to and destructive of\nthe desire to worship. Science has razed altar after altar heretofore\nerected to the unknown gods, and pulled down deity after deity from\nthe pedestals on which ignorance and superstition had erected them. The\npriest who had formerly spoken as the oracle of God lost his sway, just\nin proportion as the scientific teacher succeeded in impressing mankind\nwith a knowledge of the facts around them. The ignorant who had hitherto\nlistened unquestioning during centuries of abject submission to their\nspiritual preceptors, at last commenced to search and examine for\nthemselves, and were guided by experience rather than by church\ndoctrine. To-day it is that advancing intellect which challenges the\nreserve guard of the old armies of superstition, and compels a\nconflict which humankind, must in the end have great gain by the forced\nenunciation of the truth.\n\nFrom the word \"God\" the Theist derives no argument in his favor;\nit teaches nothing, defines nothing, demonstrates nothing, explains\nnothing. The Theist answers that this is no sufficient objection, that\nthere are many words which are in common use to which the same objection\napplies. Even admitting that this were true, it does not answer the\nAtheist's objection. Alleging a difficulty on the one side is not a\nremoval of the obstacle already pointed out on the other.\n\nThe Theist declares his God to be not only immutable, but also\ninfinitely intelligent, and says: \"Matter is either essentially\nintelligent, or essentially non-intelligent; if matter were essentially\nintelligent, no matter could be without intelligence; but matter can\nnot be essentially intelligent, because some matter is not intelligent,\ntherefore matter is essentially non-intelligent: but there is\nintelligence, therefore there must be a cause for the intelligence,\nindependent of matter; this must be an intelligent being--i.e.., God.\"\nThe Atheist answers, I do not know what is meant, in the mouth of the\nAtheist, by \"matter.\" \"Matter,\" \"substance,\" \"existence,\" are three\nwords having the same signification in the Atheist's vocabulary. It is\nnot certain that the Theist expresses any very clear idea when he uses\nthe words \"matter\" and \"intelligence.\" Reason and understanding are\nsometimes treated as separate faculties, yet it is not unfair to presume\nthat the Theist would include them both under the word intelligence.\nPerception is the foundation of the intellect. The perceptive faculty,\nor perceptive faculties, differs or differ in each animal, yet in\nspeaking of matter that Theist uses the word \"intelligence\" as though\nthe same meaning were to be understood in every case. The recollection\nof the perceptions is the exercise of a different faculty from the\nperceptive faculty, and occasionally varies disproportionately; thus an\nindividual may have great perceptive faculties, and very little memory,\nor the reverse, yet memory, as well as perception, is included in\nintelligence. So also the faculty of comparing between two or more\nperceptions; the faculty of judging and the faculty of reflecting--all\nthese are subject to the same remarks, and all these and other faculties\nare included in the word intelligence. We answer, then, that \"God\"\n(whatever that word may mean) can not be intelligent. He can never\nperceive; the act of perception results in the obtaining a new idea,\nbut if God be omniscient his ideas have been eternally the same. He\nhas either been always and always will be perceiving, or he has never\nperceived at all. But God can not have been always perceiving, because\nif he had he would always have been obtaining fresh knowledge, in which\ncase he must have some time had less knowledge than now; that is he\nwould have been less perfect; that is, he would not have been God: he\ncan never recollect or forget, he can never compare, reflect nor\njudge. There can not be perfect intelligence without understanding; but\nfollowing Coleridge, \"understanding is the faculty of judging according\nto sense.\" The faculty of whom? Of some person, judging according to\nthat person's senses? But has \"God\" senses? Is there anything beyond\n\"God\" for \"God\" to sensate? There can not be perfect intelligence\nwithout reason. By reason we mean that faculty or aggregation of\nfaculties which avails itself of past experience to predetermine, more\nor less accurately, experience in the future, and to affirm truths which\nsense perceives, experiment verifies, and experience confirms. To\nGod there can be neither past nor future, therefore to him reason is\nimpossible. There can not be perfect intelligence without will, but\nhas God will? If God wills, the will of the all-powerful must be\nirresistible; the will of the infinite must exclude all other wills.\n\nGod can never perceive. Perception and sensation are identical. Every\nsensation is accompanied by pleasure or pain. But God, if immutable, can\nneither be pleased nor pained. Every fresh sensation involves a change\nin mental and perhaps in physical condition. God, if immutable, can not\nchange. Sensation is the source of all ideas, but it is only objects\nexternal to the mind which can be sensated. If God be infinite there can\nbe no objects external to him, and therefore sensation must be to him\nimpossible. Yet without perception where is intelligence?\n\nGod can not have memory or reason--memory is of the past, reason for the\nfuture, but to God immutable there can be no past, no future. The words\npast, present, and future, imply change; they assert progression of\nduration. If God be immutable, to him change is impossible. Can you have\nintelligence destitute of perception, memory, and reason? God can not\nhave the faculty of judgment--judgment implies in the act of judging\na conjoining or disjoining of two or more thoughts, but this involves\nchange of mental condition. To God, the immutable, change is impossible.\nCan you have intelligence, yet no perception, no memory, no reason, no\njudgment? God can not think. The law of the thinkable is that the thing\nthought must be separated from the thing which is not thought. To think\notherwise would be to think of nothing--to have an impression with no\ndistinguishing mark, would be to have no impression. Yet this separation\nimplies change, and to God, immutable, change is impossible. Can you\nhave intelligence without thought? If the Theist replies to this that\nhe does not mean by infinite intelligence as an attribute of Deity an\ninfinity of the intelligence found in a finite degree of humankind,\nthen he is bound to explain, clearly and distinctly, what other\n\"intelligence\" he means, and until this be done the foregoing statements\nrequire answer.\n\nThe Atheist does not regard \"substance\" as either essentially\nintelligent or the reverse. Intelligence is the result of certain\nconditions of existence. Burnished steel is bright--that is, brightness\nis the necessity of a certain condition of existence. Alter the\ncondition, and the characteristic of the condition no longer exists. The\nonly essential of substance is its existence. Alter the wording of the\nTheist's objection. Matter is either essentially bright, or essentially\nnon-bright. If matter were essentially bright, brightness should be the\nessence of all matter; but matter can not be essentially bright, because\nsome matter is not bright, therefore matter is essentially non-bright;\nbut there is brightness, therefore there must be a cause for this\nbrightness independent of matter; that is, there must be an essentially\nbright being--i.e., God.\n\nAnother Theistic proposition is thus stated: \"Every effect must have\na cause; the first cause universal must be eternal: _ergo_, the first\ncause universal must be God.\" This is equivalent to saying that \"God\"\nis \"first cause.\" But what is to be understood by cause? Defined in\nthe absolute, the word has no real value. \"Cause,\" therefore, cannot be\neternal. What can be understood by \"first cause?\" To us the two words\nconvey no meaning greater than would be conveyed by the phrase \"round\ntriangle.\" Cause and effect are correlative terms--each cause is the\neffect of some precedent; each effect the cause of its consequent. It\nis impossible to conceive existence terminated by a primal or initial\ncause. The \"beginning,\" as it is phrased, of the universe, is not\nthought out by the Theist, but conceded without thought. To adopt the\nlanguage of Montaigne, \"Men make themselves believe that they believe.\"\nThe so-called belief in _Creation_ is nothing more than the prostration\nof the intellect on the threshold of the unknown. We can only cognize\nthe ever-succeeding phenomena of existence as a line in continuous and\neternal evolution. This line has to us no beginning; we trace it back\ninto the misty regions of the past but a little way; and however far\nwe may be able to journey, there is still the great beyond Then what is\nmeant by \"universal cause?\" Spinoza gives the following definition\nof cause, as used in its absolute signification: \"By cause of itself I\nunderstand that, the essence of which involves existence, or that, the\nnature of which can only be considered as existent.\" That is, Spinoza\ntreats \"cause\" absolute and \"existence\" as two words having the same\nmeaning. If his mode of defining the word be contested, then it has no\nmeaning other than its relative signification, of a means to an end.\n\"Every effect must have a cause.\" Every effect implies the plurality of\neffects, and necessarily that each effect must be finite; but how is\nit possible from a finite effect to logically deduce a universal, i.e.,\ninfinite, cause?\n\nThere are two modes of argument presented by Theists, and by which,\nseparately or combined, they seek to demonstrate the being of a\nGod. These are familiarly known as the arguments _a priori_ and _a\nposteriori_.\n\nThe a posteriori argument has been popularized in England by Paley, who\nhas ably endeavored to bide the weakness of his demonstration under an\nabundance of irrelevant illustration. The reasoning of Paley is very\ndeficient in the essential points where it most needed strength. It is\nutterly impossible to prove by it the eternity or infinity of Deity. As\nan argument founded on analogy, the design argument, at the best, could\nonly entitle its propounder to infer the existence of a finite cause,\nor, rather, of a multitude of finite causes. It ought not to be\nforgotten that the illustrations of the eye, the watch, and the man,\neven if admitted as instances of design, or, rather, of adaptation,\nare instances of eyes, watches, and men, designed or adapted out of\npre-existing substance, by a being of the same kind of substance, and\nafford, therefore, no demonstration in favor of a designer, alleged to\nhave actually created substance out of nothing, and also alleged to have\ncreated a substance entirely different from himself. The _a posteriori_\nargument can never demonstrate infinity for Deity. Arguing from an\neffect finite in extent, the most it could afford would be a cause\nsufficient for that effect, such cause being possibly finite in extent\nand duration. And as the argument does not demonstrate God's infinity,\nneither can it, for the same reason, make out his omniscience, as it is\nclearly impossible to logically claim infinite wisdom for a God possibly\nonly finite. God's omnipotence remains unproved for the same reason, and\nbecause it is clearly absurd to argue that God exercises power where\nhe may not be. Nor can the _a posteriori_ argument show God's absolute\nfreedom, for, as it does nothing more than seek to prove a finite God,\nit is quite consistent with the argument that God's existence is limited\nand controlled in a thousand ways. Nor does this argument show that God\nalways existed; at the best the proof is only that some cause, enough\nfor the effect, existed before it, but there is no evidence that this\ncause differs from any other causes, which are often as transient as\nthe effect itself. And as it does not demonstrate that God has always\nexisted, neither does it demonstrate that he will always exist, or even\nthat he now exists. It is perfectly in accordance with the arguement,\nand with the analagy of cause and effect that the effect may remain\nafter the cause has ceased to exist. Nor does the argument from design\ndemonstrate one God. It is quite consistent with this argument that a\nseparate cause existed for each effect, or mark of design, discovered,\nor that several causes contributed to some or one of such effects. So\nthat if the argument be true, it might result in a multitude of petty\ndeities, limited in knowledge, extent, duration, and power; and, still\nworse, each one of this multitude of gods may have had a cause which\nwould also be finite in extent and duration, and would require another,\nand so on, until the design argument loses the reasoner among an\ninnumerable crowd of deities, none of whom can have the attributes\nclaimed for God.\n\nThe design argument is defective as an argument from analogy, because it\nseeks to prove a Creator God who designed, but does not explain whether\nthis God has been eternally designing, which would be absurd; or,\nif he at some time commenced to design, what then induced him so to\ncommence. It is illogical, for it seeks to prove an immutable Deity by\ndemonstrating a mutation on the part of Deity.\n\nIt is unnecessary to deal specially with each of the many writers who\nhave used from different standpoints the _a posteriori_ form of argument\nin order to prove the existence of Deity. The objections already stated\napply to the whole class; and, although probably each illustration\nused by the theistic advocate is capable of an elucidation entirely at\nvariance with his argument, the main features of objection are the same.\nThe argument _a posteriori_ is a method of proof in which the premises\nare composed of some position of existing facts, and the conclusion\nasserts a position antecedent to those facts. The argument is from given\neffects to their causes. It is one form of this argument which asserts\nthat man has a moral nature, and from this seeks to deduce the existence\nof a moral governor. This form has the disadvantage that its premises\nare illusory. In alleging a moral nature for man, the Theist overlooks\nthe fact that the moral nature of man differs somewhat in each\nindividual, differs considerably in each nation, and differs entirely in\nsome peoples. It is dependent on organization and education: these are\ninfluenced by climate, food, and mode of life. If the argument from\nman's nature could demonstrate anything, it would prove a murdering God\nfor the murderer, a lascivious God for the licentious man, a dishonest\nGod for the thief, and so through the various phases of human\ninclination. The _a priori_ arguments are methods of proof in which the\nmatter of the premises exists in the order of conception antecedently to\nthat of the conclusion. The argument is from cause to effect. Among the\nprominent Theistic advocates relying upon the _a priori_ argument\nin England are Dr. Samuel Clarke, the Rev. Moses Lowman, and William\nGillespie. As this last gentleman condemns his predecessors for having\nutterly failed to demonstrate God's existence, and as his own treatise\non the \"Necessary Existence of God\" comes to us certified by the praise\nof Lord Brougham and the approval of Sir William Hamilton, it is to Mr.\nWilliam Gillespie that the reader shall be directed.\n\nThe propositions are first stated entirely, so that Mr. Gillespie may\nnot complain of misrepresentation:\n\n1. Infinity of extension is necessarily existing.\n\n2. Infinity of extension is necessarily indivisible.\nCorollary.--Infinity of extension is necessarily immovable.\n\n3. There is necessarily a being of infinity of extension.\n\n4. The being of infinity of extension is necessarily of unity and\nsimplicity.\n\nSub-proposition.--The material universe is finite in extension.\n\n5. There is necessarily but one being of infinity of expansion.\n\nPart 2, Proposition 1.--Infinity of duration is necessarily existing.\n\n2. Infinity of duration is necessarily indivisible. Corollary.--Infinity\nof duration is necessarily immovable.\n\n3. There is necessarily a being of infinity of duration.\n\n4. The being of infinity of duration is necessarily of unity and\nsimplicity.\n\nSub-proposition.--The material universe is finite in duration.\n\nCorollary.--Every succession of substances is finite in duration.\n\n5. There is necessarily but one being of infinity of duration.\n\nPart 3, Proposition 1.--There is necessarily a being of infinity of\nexpansion and infinity of duration.\n\n2. The being of infinity of expansion and infinity of duration is\nnecessarily of unity and simplicity.\n\nDivision 2, Part 1.--The simple sole being of infinity of expansion and\nof duration is necessarily intelligent and all-knowing.\n\nPart 2.--The simple sole being of infinity of expansion and of duration,\nwho is all-knowing, is necessarily all-powerful.\n\nPart 3.--The simple sole being of infinity of expansion and of duration,\nwho is all-knowing and all-powerful, is necessarily entirely free.\n\nDivision 3.--The simple sole being of infinity of expansion and of\nduration, who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and entirely free, is\nnecessarily completely happy.\n\nSub-proposition.--The simple sole being of infinity of expansion and\nof duration, who is all-knowing, all-powerful, entirely free, and\ncompletely happy, is necessarily perfectly good.\n\nThe first objection against the foregoing arguments is that it seeks to\nprove too much. It affirms one existence (God) infinite in extent and\nduration, and another entirely different and distinct existence (the\nmaterial universe) finite in extent and duration. It therefore seeks\nto substantiate everything and something more. The first proposition\nis curiously worded, and the argument to demonstrate it is undoubtedly\nopen to more than one objection.\n\nMr. Gillespie has not defined infinity, and it is possible therefore his\nargument may be misapprehended in this paper. Infinite signifies nothing\nmore than indefinite. When a person speaks of infinite extension he can\nonly mean to refer to the extension of something to which he has been\nunable to set limits. The mind can not conceive extension _per se_,\neither absolute or finite. It can only conceive something extended. It\nmight be impossible mentally to define the extension of some substance.\nIn such a case its extension would be indefinite; or, as Mr. Gillespie\nuses the word, infinite. No one can therefore possibly have any idea of\ninfinity of extension. Yet it is upon the existence of such an idea, and\non the impossibility of getting rid of it, that Mr. Gillespie grounds\nhis first proposition. If the idea does not exist, the argument is\ndestroyed at the first step.\n\nMr. Gillespie argues that it is utterly beyond the power of the human\nmind to conceive infinity of extension non-existent. He would have been\nmore correct in asserting that it is utterly beyond the power of the\nhuman mind to conceive infinity of extension at all, either existent or\nnon-existent. Extension can only be conceived as quality of substance.\nIt is possible to conceive substance extended. It is impossible in\nthought to limit the possible extension of substance. Mr. Gillespie\nhaving asserted that we can not but believe that infinity of extension\nexists, proceeds to declare that it exists necessarily. For, he says,\neverything the existence of which we can not but believe, exists\nnecessarily. It is not necessary at present to examine what Mr.\nGillespie means by existing necessarily; it is sufficient to have\nshown that we do not believe in the existence of infinity of extension,\nalthough we may and do believe in the existence of substance, to\nthe extension of which we may be unable to set limits. But, says Mr.\nGillespie, \"everything the existence of which we can not but believe is\nnecessarily existing.\" Then as we can not but believe in the existence\nof the universe (or, to adopt Mr. Gillespie's phrase, the material\nuniverse), the material universe exists necessarily. If by \"anything\nnecessarily existing,\" he means anything the essence of which involves\nexistence, or the nature of which can only be considered as existent,\nthen Mr. Gillespie, by demonstrating the necessary existence of the\nuniverse, refutes his own later argument, that God is its creator. Mr.\nGillespie's argument, as before remarked, is open to misconception,\nbecause he has left us without any definition of some of the most\nimportant words he uses. To avoid the same objection, it is necessary to\nstate that by substance or existence I mean that which is in itself and\nis conceived per se--that is, the conception of which does not involve\nthe conception of anything else as antecedent to it. By quality, that by\nwhich I cognize any mode of existence. By mode, each cognized condition\nof existence. Regarding extension as quality of mode of substance, and\nnot as substance itself, it appears absurd to argue that the quality\nexists otherwise than as quality of mode.\n\nThe whole of the propositions following the first are so built upon\nit, that if it fails they are baseless. The second proposition is, that\ninfinity of extension is necessarily indivisible. In dealing with\nthis proposition, Mr. Gillespie talks of the _parts_ of infinity of\nextension, and winds up by saying that he means parts in the sense of\npartial consideration only. Now not only is it denied that you can have\nany idea of infinity of extension, but it is also denied that infinity\ncan be the subject of partial consideration. Mr. Gillespie's whole proof\nof this proposition is intended to affirm that the parts of infinity of\nextension are necessarily indivisible from each other.\n\nI have already denied the possibility of conceiving infinity in parts;\nand, indeed, if it were possible to conceive infinity in parts, then\nthat infinity could not be indivisible, for Mr. Gillespie says that, by\nindivisible, he means indivisible, either really or mentally. Now\neach part of anything conceived is, in the act of conceiving, mentally\nseparated from, either other parts of, or from the remainder of, the\nwhole of which it is part. It is clearly impossible to have a partial\nconsideration of infinity, because the part considered must be mentally\ndistinguished from the unconsidered remainder, and, in that case, you\nhave, in thought, the part considered finite, and the residue certainly\nlimited, at least, by the extent of the part under consideration.\n\nIf any of the foregoing objections are well-founded, they are fatal to\nMr. Gillespie's argument.\n\nThe argument in favor of the corollary to the second proposition is\nthat the parts of infinity of extension are necessarily immovable among\nthemselves; but if there be no such thing as infinity of extension--that\nis, if extension be only a quality and not necessarily infinite; if\ninfinite mean only indefiniteness or illimitability, and if infinity can\nnot have parts--this argument goes for very little. The acceptance of\nthe argument that the parts of infinity of extension are immovable\nis rendered difficult when the reader considers Mr. Gillespie's\nsub-proposition (4) that the parts of the material universe are movable\nand divisible from each other. He urges that a part of the infinity of\nextension or of its substratum must penetrate the material universe and\nevery atom of it. But if infinity can have no parts, no part of it\ncan penetrate the material universe. If infinity have parts (which is\nabsurd), and if some part penetrate every atom of the material universe,\nand if the part so penetrating be immovable, how can the material\nuniverse be considered as movable, and yet as penetrated in every atom\nby immovability? If penetrated be a proper phrase, then, at the moment\nwhen the part of infinity was penetrating the material universe,\nthe part of infinity so penetrating must have been in motion. Mr.\nGillespie's logic is faulty. Use his own language, and there is either\nno penetration, or there is no immovability.\n\nIn his argument for the fourth proposition, Mr. Gillespie--having by his\nprevious proposition demonstrated (?) what he calls a substratum for the\nbefore demonstrated (?) infinity of extension--says, \"it is intuitively\nevident that the substratum of infinity of extension can be no more\ndivisible than infinity of extension.\" Is this so? Might not a complex\nand divisible substratum be conceived by us as possible to underlie a\n(to us) simple and indivisible indefinite extension, if the conception\nof the latter were possible to us? There can not be any intuition. It\nis mere assumption, as, indeed, is the assumption of extension at\nall, other than as the extension of substance. In his argument for\nproposition 5, Gillespie says that \"any one who asserts that he can\nsuppose two or more necessarily existing beings, each of infinity of\nexpansion, is no more to be argued with than one who denies, Whatever\nis, is.\" Why is it more difficult to suppose this than to suppose\none being of infinity, and, in addition to this infinity, a material\nuniverse? Is it impossible to suppose a necessary being of heat, one\nof light, and one of electricity, all occupying the same indefinite\nexpansion? If it be replied that you can not conceive two distinct and\ndifferent beings occupying the same point at the same moment, then it\nmust be equally impossible to conceive the material universe and God\nexisting together.\n\nThe second division of Mr. Gillespie's argument is also open to grave\nobjection. Having demonstrated to his own satisfaction an infinite\nsubstance, and also having assumed in addition a finite substance,\nand having called the first an infinite \"being\"--perhaps from a devout\nobjection to speak of God as substance--Mr. Gillespie seeks to prove\nthat the infinite being is intelligent. He says: \"Intelligence either\nbegan to be, or it never began to be. That is never began to be is\nevident in this, that if it began to be, it must have had a cause; for\nwhatever begins to be must have a cause. And the cause of intelligence\nmust be of intelligence; for what is not of intelligence can not make\nintelligence begin to be. Now intelligence being before intelligence\nbegan to be is a contradiction. And this absurdity following from\nthe supposition that intelligence began to be, it is proved that\nintelligence never began to be: to wit, is of infinity of duration.\"\nMr. Gillespie does not condescend to tell us why \"what is not of\nintelligence cannot make intelligence begin to be;\" but it is not unfair\nto suppose that he means that of things which have nothing in common one\ncan not be the cause of the other. Let us apply Mr. Gillespie's argument\nto the material universe, the existence of which is to him so certain\nthat he has treated it as a self-evident proposition.\n\nThe material universe--that is, matter--either began to be, or it never\nbegan to be. That it never began to be is evident in this, that if it\nbegan to be, it must have had a cause; for whatever begins to be must\nhave a cause. And the cause of matter must be of matter; for what is\nnot of matter can not make matter begin to be. Now matter being before\nmatter began to be is contradiction. And this absurdity following from\nthe supposition that matter--i. e., the material universe--began to be,\nit is proved that the material universe never began to be--to wit, is of\nindefinite duration.\n\nThe argument as to the eternity of matter is at least as logical as the\nargument for the eternity of intelligence. Mr. Gillespie may reply that\nhe affirms the material universe to be finite in duration, and that\nby the argument for his proposition, part 2, he proves that the one\ninfinite being (God) is the creator of matter. His words are:\n\n\"As the material universe is finite in duration, or began to be, it must\nhave had a cause; for whatever begins to be must have a cause. And this\ncause must be [Mr. Gillespie does not explain why], in one respect or\nother, the simple sole being of infinity of expansion and duration, who\nis all-knowing [the all-knowing or intelligence rests on the argument\nwhich has just been shown to be equally applicable to matter], inasmuch\nas what being, or cause independent of that being, could there be? And,\ntherefore, that being made matter begin to be.\" Taking Mr. Gillespie's\nown argument, that which made matter begin to be must be of matter, for\nwhat is not matter can not make matter begin to be, then Mr. Gillespie's\ninfinite being (God) must be matter. But there is yet another\nexception to the preposition, which is that the infinite being (God) is\nall-powerful. Having, as above, argued that the being made matter, he\nproceeds, \"and this being shown, it must be granted that the being is,\nnecessarily, all-powerful.\" Nothing of the kind need be granted. If it\nwere true that it was demonstrated that the infinite being (God) made\nmatter, it would not prove him able to make anything else; it might show\nthe being cause enough for that effect, but does not demonstrate him\ncause for all effects. So that if no better argument can be found to\nprove God all-powerful, his omnipotence remains unproved.\n\nMr. Gillespie's last proposition is that the being (God) whose existence\nhe has so satisfactorily (?) made out is necessarily completely happy.\nIn dealing with this proposition, Mr. Gillespie talks of unhappiness as\nexisting in various kinds and degrees. But, to adopt his own style of\nargument, unhappiness either began to be, or it never began to be. That\nit never began to be is evident in this, that whatever began to be must\nhave had a cause, for whatever begins to be must have a cause. And\nthe cause of unhappiness must be of unhappiness, for what is not of\nunhappiness can not make unhappiness begin to be. But unhappiness being\nbefore unhappiness began to be is a contradiction; therefore unhappiness\nis of infinity of duration. But proposition 5, part 2, says there is but\none being of infinity of duration. The one being of infinity of duration\nis therefore necessarily unhappy. Mr. Gillespie's arguments recoil on\nhimself, and are destructive of his own affirmations.\n\nIn his argument for the sub-proposition, Mr. Gillespie says that God's\nmotive, or one of his motives, to create, must be believed to have been\na desire to make happiness, besides his own consummate happiness, begin\nto be. That is, God, who is consummate happiness everywhere forever,\n_desired_ something. That is, he wanted more than then existed. That is,\nhis happiness was not complete. That is, Mr. Gillespie refutes himself.\nBut what did infinite and eternal complete happiness desire? It desired\n(says Mr. Gillespie) to make more happiness--that is, to make more than\nan infinity of complete happiness. Mr. Gillespie's proof, on the whole,\nis at most that there exists necessarily substance, the extension and\nduration which we can not limit. Part of his argument involves of the\nuse of the very _a posteriori_ reasoning just considered, regarded by\nhimself as utterly worthless for the demonstration of the existence of a\nbeing with such attributes as orthodox Theism tries to assert.\n\nIf Sir William Hamilton meant no flattery in writing that Mr.\nGillespie's works was one of the \"very ablest\" on the Theistic side, how\nwretched indeed must, in his opinion, have been the logic of the less\nable advocates for Theism. Every Theist must admit that if a God exists,\nhe could have so convinced all men of the fact of his existence that\ndoubt, disagreement, or disbelief would be impossible. If he could not\ndo this, he would not be omnipotent, or he would not be omniscient--that\nis, he would not be God. Every Theist must also agree that if a God\nexists, he would wish all men to have such a clear consciousness of his\nexistence and attributes that doubt, disagreement, or belief on this\nsubject would be impossible. And this, if for no other reason, because\nthat out of doubts and disagreements on religion have too often resulted\ncenturies of persecution, strife, and misery, which a good God would\ndesire to prevent. If God would not desire this, then he is not\nall-good--that is he is not God. But as many men have doubts, a large\nmajority of mankind have disagreements, and some men have disbeliefs as\nto God's existence and attributes, it follows either that God does not\nexist, or that he is not all-wise, or that he is not all-powerful, or\nthat he is not all-good.\n\nEvery child is born into the world an Atheist; and if he grows into a\nTheist, his Deity differs with the country in which the believer\nmay happen to be born, or the people among whom he may happen to\nbe educated. The belief is the result of education or organization.\nReligious belief is powerful in proportion to the want of scientific\nknowledge on the part of the believer. The more ignorant, the more\ncredulous. In the mind of the Theist \"God\" is equivalent to the sphere\nof the unknown; by the use of the Word he answers without thought\nproblems which might otherwise obtain scientific solution. The more\nignorant the Theist, the greater his God. Belief in God is not a faith\nfounded on reason, but a prostration of the reasoning faculties on the\nthreshold of the unknown. Theism is worse than illogical; its teachings\nare not only without utility; but of itself it has nothing to teach.\nSeparated from Christianity with its almost innumerable sects, from\nMaliometanism with its numerous divisions, and separated also from every\nother preached system, Theism is a Will-o'-the-wisp, without reality.\nApart from orthodoxy, Theism is a boneless skeleton; the various\nmythologies give it alike flesh and bone, otherwise coherence it hath\nnone. What does Christian Theism teach? That the first man made perfect\nby the all-powerful, all-wise, all-good God, was nevertheless imperfect,\nand by his imperfection brought misery into the world, when the all-good\nGod must have intended misery should never come. That this God made men\nto share this misery--men whose fault was their being what he made them.\nThat this God begets a son, who is nevertheless his unbegotten self, and\nthat by belief in the birth of God's eternal son, and in the death of\nthe undying who died to satisfy God's vengeance, man may escape the\nconsequences of the first man's error. Christian Theism declares that\nbelief alone can save man, and yet recognizes the fact that man's belief\nresults from teaching, by establishing missionary societies to spread\nthe faith. Christian Theism teaches that God, though no respecter of\npersons, selected as his favorites one nation in preference to all\nothers: that man can do no good of himself or without God's aid, but yet\nthat each man has a free will; that God is all-powerful, but that few\ngo to heaven and the majority to hell; that all are to love God, who has\npredestined from eternity that by far the largest number of human beings\nare to be burning in hell for ever. Yet the advocates for Theism venture\nto upbraid those who argue against such a faith.\n\nEither Theism is true or false. If true, discussion must help to spread\nits influence; if false, the sooner it ceases to influence human\nconduct the better for human kind. It will be useless for the clergy to\nurge that such a pamphlet deserves no reply. It is true the writer is\nunimportant, and the language in which his thoughts find expression\nlacks the polish of a Macaulay, and the fervor of a Burke; but they are\nnevertheless his thoughts, uttered because it is not only his right, but\nhis duty, to give them utterance. And this Plea for Atheism is put forth\nchallenging the Theists to battle for their cause, and in the hope that\nthe strugglers being sincere, truth may give laurels to the victor and\nthe vanquished; laurels to the victor in that he has upheld the truth;\nlaurels still welcome to the vanquished, whose defeat crowns him with a\ntruth he knew not of before.\n\n\n\n\nIS THERE A GOD?\n\nSome of those who have heard me venture to examine the question of the\nexistence of Deity _viva voce_, have desired to have my reasons for\nholding the Atheistic position briefly stated, and while I do not\npretend to exhaust the subject in these few pages, I trust to say enough\nto provoke thought and inquiry. I do not say, \"There is no God,\" and\nthe scarcely polite rejoinder of those who quote the Psalmist can not,\ntherefore, be applied with justice toward myself. I have never yet heard\nliving man give me a clear, coherent definition of the word \"God,\" and I\nhave never read any definition from either dead or living man expressing\na definite and comprehensible idea of Deity. In fact, it has always\nappeared to me that men use that word rather to hide their ignorance\nthan to express their knowledge.*\n\n     * In Sir William Hamilton's Essay on Cousin, I find a note\n     quoting Mr. Piesse on Kant, in which the word God stands\n     as the equivalent for a phase of the unknowable.\n\nClimatic conditions often, and diversity of human race always, govern\nand modify the meaning conveyed by the word. By \"God\" one nation or\nsect expresses love; another, vengeance; another, good; another, wisdom;\nanother, fire; another, water; another, air; another, earth; and\nsome even confound their notion of Deity with that of devil. Elihu Palmer\nwell observes: \"The Christian world worships three infinite gods, and\none omniscient devil.\" I do not deny \"God,\" because that word conveys\nto me no idea, and I can not deny that which presents to me no distinct\naffirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception. I can\nnot war with a nonentity. If, however, God is affirmed to represent an\nexistence which is distinct from the existence of which I am a mode,\nand which it is alleged is not the _noumenon_, of which the word \"I\"\nrepresents only a specialty of _phenomena_, then I deny \"God,\" and\naffirm that it is impossible \"God\" can be. That is, I affirm that there\nis one existence, and deny that there can be more than one. Atheists\nare sometimes content to say to their opponents, your \"proofs\" are no\nproofs, your \"evidences\" are failures, you do not and can not prove\nthe existence of Deity. This ground may be safe, but the conduct of its\noccupier is not daring. The swordsman who always guarded and parried,\nbut never ventured cut or thrust, might himself escape unwounded, but he\nwould thus make but little progress toward victory over his opponent.\n\nIt is well to show that the position of your antagonist is weak, but it\nis better to prove that you are strong.\n\nIn a paper as limited as the present, it is necessary to be brief both\nin answer to opponents and in the statements of my own opinions. This is\nrather intended as the challenging speech of a debate, not as a complete\nessay on the existence of Deity.\n\nThere are two modes in which Theists endeavor to prove the existence\nof God, and each of these modes is in its turn denounced by Theistic\nwriters--1st, the _a priori_; 2d, the _a posteriori_. Of the former,\nPearson, in his \"Prize Essay on Infidelity,\" says: \"The _a priori_ mode\nof reasoning is the exclusive idol of many of the German logicians....\nBut in their hands this kind of reasoning has completely failed. It\nconducts the mind to no firm resting place; it bewilders instead of\nelucidating our notions of God, of man, and the universe. It gives us\nno divine personal existence, and leaves us floating in a region of mere\nvague abstractions. Such reasonings are either altogether vain or are\nnot really what they profess to be. In our country the name of Dr.\nClarke is chiefly associated with the _a priori_ argument.... Clarke\nhimself found it necessary to stoop to the argument _a posteriori_, and\nthereby acknowledged the fallacy of attempting to reason exclusively _a\npriori_.... The fate of Dr. Clarke's pretended demonstration, and\nthe result, in so far as theology is concerned, of the transcendental\nreasoning of the continental philosophers, show the futility of\nattempting to rise up to the height of the great argument of the\nexistence of God by the _a priori_ method alone.\"\n\nOf the latter, William Gillespie, in his \"Treatise on the Necessary\nExistence of Deity,\" writes that it \"can never make it appear that\ninfinity belongs in any way to God.\" It \"can only entitle us to infer\nthe existence of a being of finite extension, for, by what rule in\nphilosophy can we deduce from the existence of an object finite in\nextent (and nothing is plainer than that the marks of design which we\ncan discover must be finite in their extent) the existence of a cause of\ninfinity of extension? What, then, becomes of the omnipresence of the\nDeity, according to those who are content to rest satisfied from the\nreasoning of experience?... It will be vain to talk of the Deity being\npresent by his energy? although he may not be present by his substance,\nto the whole universe. For, 'tis natural to ask not so much how it is\nproved that God is virtually present, though not substantially present,\nin every part of nature, as what can be meant by being everywhere\npresent by mere energy?\" This reasoning can no more make out that the\nDeity is omnipresent by his virtue, than that he is omnipresent as\nto his substance.... And, from the inaptitude of the reasoning under\nconsideration to show that immensity, or omnipresence, belongs to God,\nit will be found to follow, directly and immediately, that his wisdom\nand power can not be shown to be more than finite, and that he can never\nbe proved to be a free agent.... Omnipresence (let it be only by energy)\nis absolutely necessary in a being of infinity of wisdom. And therefore,\n'the design argument' is unable to evince that the Deity is in\npossession of this attribute. It likewise plainly follows, from the\ninaptitude of this argument to show that God is omnipresent, that\nthereby we can not prove infinity of power to belong to him. For, if\nthe argument can not make out that the being it discovers is everywhere\npresent, how can it ever make out that he is everywhere powerful? By\ncareful reflection, too, we may perceive that omnipotence of another\nkind than power, winch can exert itself in all places, requires the\nexistence of immensity. \"The design argument\" can never evince that God\nis a free agent....\n\nIf we can not prove the immensity or omnipresence of the Deity, we can\nfor that reason never show that he is omniscient, that he is omnipotent,\nthat he is entirely free.... If the Deity can not be proved to be of\ninfinity in any given respect, it would be nothing less than absurd to\nsuppose that he could be proved to be of infinity in any other respect.\nIt \"can do no more than prove that at the commencement of the phenomena\nwhich pass under its review, there existed a cause exactly sufficient to\nmake the effects begin to be. That this cause existed from eternity, the\nreasonings from experience by no means show. Nay, for aught they make\nknown, the designer himself may not have existed long before those marks\nof design which betoken his workmanship.\" This reasoning \"can not prove\nthat the God whom it reveals has existed from all eternity, therefore,\nfor anything it intimates, God may at some time cease to be, and the\nworkmanship may have an existence when the workman hath fallen into\nannihilation.... Such reasonings can never assure us of the unity of the\nDeity.\" Whether there be one God or not, the argument from experience\ndoth by no means make clear. It discovers marks of design in the\nphenomena of nature, and infers the existence of at least one\nintelligent substance sufficient to produce them. Further, however, it\nadvances not our knowledge. Whether the cause of the phenomena be one\nGod or many Gods, it pretends not to determine past all doubt.... But\ndid this designer create the matter in which the design appeared? Of\nthis the argument can not convince us, for it does no more than infer a\ndesigning cause from certain appearances, in the same way we would infer\nfrom finding some well-contrived machine in a desert that a human being\nhad left it there.... Now, because this reasoning can not convince us\nof such a creation, it can not convince us there is not a plurality of\ndeities, or of the causes of things.... If we can not prove the eternity\nof God, it is not possible we can prove the unity of God. To say that,\nfor anything we know to the contrary, he may have existed from all\neternity, being much the same as saying that, for anything we know to\nthe contrary, there may be another God or many Gods beside.\" Sir W.\nHamilton considered that the only valid arguments for the existence of\na God, and for the immortality of the human soul, rest on the ground of\nman's moral nature.\n\nDr. Lyman Beecher issued, some few years since, a series of lectures on\nAtheism, without merit or fairness, and which are here only alluded\nto as fairly illustrating a certain class of orthodox opposition. His\nstatements of Atheistic opinions are monstrous perversions, and his\nanswers are directed against the straw man built together by himself.\nThe doctrine of \"almighty chance\" which Dr. Beecher attacks, is one\nwhich I never heard an educated Atheist teach, and the misrepresentation\nof Freethought objects is so obvious that it can only be effectual with\nthose who have never freed themselves from the trammels which habit\nand fashion-faith bound upon them in their infancy, and which have\nstrengthened with their growth. The Rev. J. Orr, in his \"Treatise on\nTheism,\" says, \"All inquiry about chance is, however, impertinent in\nthe present day. The idea is an infantine one, possible of entertainment\nonly in the initial state of human knowledge. Chance is _not_ the\nposition relied upon by modern Atheism. And when, therefore, the Theist\nexpends the artillery of his argument upon this broken down and obsolete\nnotion, he is intermeddling with the dead, and after accomplishing the\ndestruction of the venerable fallacy, the modern Atheist will likely ask\nhim to come down to the nineteenths century and meet him there.\"\n\nThe only attempt at argument in Dr. Beecher's book is founded on the\nassumption:\n\n1st. That there is an existence called matter.\n\n2d. That there are certain effects perceivable which can not result from\nmatter.\n\n3d. That therefore there is a God the cause for these effects. Where are\nthere any Materialists who accept Dr. Beecher's limitation of matter?\nIt is a word I do not use myself.\n\nOn the question of evil, Coleridge, in his \"Aids to Reflection,\" says:\n\"1st. That evil must have had a beginning, since otherwise it must\neither be God or a co-eternal and co-equal rival with God. 2d. That it\ncould not originate in God; for if so, it would at once be evil and not\nevil, or God would be at once God--that is, infinite goodness--and\nnot God.\" If God be infinite goodness, can evil exist at all? It is\nnecessary above all that we should understand the meaning of each word\nwe use. Some men talk as if their words were intended rather to conceal\nthan to express their ideas. So far as this essay is concerned I will\nendeavor to avoid this difficulty by explicitly defining each special\nword I use. Dugald Stewart, indeed, says, \"That there are many\nwords used in philosophical discourse which do not admit of logical\ndefinition, is abundantly manifest. This is the case with all those\nwords that signify things un-compounded, and consequently unsusceptible\nof analysis--a proposition, one should think, almost self-evident;\nand yet it is surprising how very generally it has been overlooked by\nphilosophers.\"\n\nThe advantages, however, accruing from frequent definitions are very\ngreat; at the least they serve to explain what was meant by the persons\nusing the word, whereas sometimes two men confuse each word by using\nwords to which each attaches an opposite or a dissimilar value.\n\nMen will talk of \"First Cause,\" and \"Intelligent First Cause.\" Do they\nknow what they mean? I confess I do not, and from the manner in which\nthey use the words, the most charitable conclusion is that they use them\nbecause others have done so, and for no worse or better reason. They\ntalk of the \"Beauties of Creation,\" and \"Works of the Great Creator.\" If\nby creation is meant the origin of existence, then each utterance of the\nphrase is an absurdity. The human mind is utterly incapable of\nconstruing it in thought as possible that the complement of existence\nhas either been increased or diminished. Man can neither conceive\nnothing becoming something nor something becoming nothing.\n\nDefinitions.--1. By existence, or substance, I mean that which is in\nitself and is conceived _per se_--that is, the conception of which\ndoes not require the conception of anything else as antecedent to it.\nWhenever I use the words universe or matter, I use them in the same\nsense as representing the totality of existence. Existence can only be\nknown in its modes, and these by their attributes. 2. By attribute,\nI understand that by which I cognize any mode of existence. Hardness,\nbrightness, color, life, form, etc., are attributes of conditional\nexistence. 3. By mode, I understand each cognized condition or accident\nof existence. 4. By eternity I mean indefinite duration; that is\nduration which is to me illimitable. 5. By infinity, I mean indefinite\nextension. The axioms, so far as I shall give them, are in the precise\nlanguage of Spinoza. \"1. Everything which is, is in itself, or in some\nother thing.. 2. That which cannot be conceived through another _per\naliud_, must be conceived _per se_. 3. From a given determinate cause,\nthe effect necessarily follows; and, _vice versa_, if no determinate\ncause be given, no effect can follow. 4. The knowledge of an effect\ndepends on a knowledge of the cause, and includes it. 5. Things that\nhave nothing in common with each other, can not be understood by means\nof each other--that is, the conception of one does not involve the\nconception of the other.\"\n\nPropositions.--Existence is prior to its modes. This follows from\ndefinitions 1 and 3, because modes of existence are conceived relatively\nand in dependence on existence, which is absolutely precedent in such\nconception. Existences having different attributes have nothing in\ncommon with each other. This is founded on definition 1. Existences have\nnothing in common with each other, can not be the cause of, or affect\none another. If they have nothing in common, they can not be conceived\nby means of each other (per axiom 5), and they can not be conceived as\nrelating to each other, but must be conceived _per se_ (per definition\n1); and as (per axiom 4) the knowledge of an effect depends on the\nknowledge of the cause and includes it, it is impossible to conceive any\nexistence as an effect, so long as you can not conceive it in relation\nto any other existence. By \"cause\" in the absolute, I mean \"existence.\"\nIn its popular or relative sense, I use \"cause\" as an effect of some\nprecedent causative influence, itself the cause of some consequent\neffect, as the means toward an end, in the accomplishment of which end\nit completes itself.\n\nWhat fact is there so certain that I may base all my reasonings upon it?\nMy existence is this primary fact; this, to me, indubitable certainty. I\nam. This logic can neither prove nor disprove. The very nature of proof\nis to make a proposition more clear to the mind than it was before, and\nno amount of evidence can in-crease my conviction of the certainty of my\nown existence. I do not affirm that I am in existence, but I affirm that\nthere is existence. This existence is either eternal, that is, unlimited\nin duration, that is, indefinite in duration; or else it had a\nbeginning, that is, it has been created. If created, then such creation\nmust be by some existence the same as itself, or by some existence\ndiffering from itself. But it can not have been created by any existence\nthe same as itself, because to imagine such, would be to conceive\nno more than a continuance of the same existence--there would be\nno discontinuity. \"But,\" says S. T. Coleridge, \"where there is no\ndiscontinuity, there can be no origination.\" And it can not have been\ncreated by any existence differing from itself, because things which\nhave nothing in common with one another can not be the cause of, or\naffect, one another. Therefore, this existence has not been created,\nthat is, its duration is indefinite--that is, you can not conceive a\nbeginning--that is, it is eternal. This eternal existence is either\ninfinite in extent, that is, is unlimited in extent, or it is finite,\nthat is, limited. If limited, it must be limited by an existence the\nsame as itself, or by an existence differing from itself. But the same\narguments which applied to a limitation of duration, also apply to\na limitation of extension. Therefore, this existence is unlimited in\nextent; that is, is infinite and eternal--that is, there is only one\nexistence. It is at this point that Atheism separates from Pantheism.\nPantheism demonstrates one existence, but affirms for it infinite\nattributes. Atheism denies that attributes can be infinite. Attributes\nare but the distinguishing characteristics of modes, and how can that\nbe infinite which is only the quality of finity? Men do not talk of\ninfinite hardness or of infinite softness; yet they talk of infinite\nintelligence. Intelligence is not an existence, and the word is without\nvalue unless it strictly comprehend, and is included in, that which\nis intelligent. The hardness of the diamond, the brilliancy of the\nburnished steel, have no existence apart from the diamond or the steel.\nI, in fact, affirm that there is only one existence, and that all we\ntake cognizance of is mode, or attribute of mode, of that existence.\n\nI have carefully abstained from using the words \"matter\" and \"spirit.\"\nDr. Priestly says: \"It has generally been supposed that there are\n_two distinct kinds of substance_ in human nature, and they have been\ndistinguished by the terms _matter_, and _spirit_, or _mind_. The former\nof these has been said to be possessed of the property of _extension_,\nviz., of length, breadth and thickness, and also of _solidity_ or\nimpenetrability, and consequently of a _vis inerti\u00e6_; but it is said to\nbe naturally destitute of all other powers whatever. The latter has of\nlate been defined to be a substance entirely destitute of all extension,\nor relation to space, so as to have no property in common with matter;\nand therefore to be properly _immaterial_, but to be possessed of the\npowers of perception, intelligence, and self-motion. Matter is alleged\nto be that kind of substance of which our bodies are composed, whereas\nthe principle of perception and thought belonging to us is said to\nreside in a spirit, or immaterial principle, intimately united to the\nbody; while higher orders of intelligent beings, and especially the\nDivine Being, are said to be purely immaterial. It is maintained that\nneither matter nor spirit (meaning by the latter the subject of sense\nand thought) correspond to the definitions above mentioned. For that\nmatter is not that _inert_ substance that it has been supposed to be;\nthat powers of _attraction or repulsion_ are necessary to its very\nbeing, and that no part of it appears to be _impenetrable_ to other\nparts; I therefore define it to be a substance possessed of the property\nof extension, and powers of attraction or repulsion; and since it has\nnever yet been asserted that the powers of _sensation_ and _thought_\nare incompatible with these (_solidity or impenetrability_, and,\nconsequently, a _vis inerti\u00e6_, only having been thought to be repugnent\nto them), I therefore maintain that we have no reason to suppose that\nthere are in man two substances so distinct from each other as have been\nrepresented. It is likewise maintained that the notion of two substances\nthat have no common property, and yet are capable of intimate connection\nand mutual action, is absurd.\"\n\nI do not conceive _spirit or mind_ as an existence. By the word _mind_,\nI simply express the totality of perception, observation, collection,\nand recollection of perceptions, reflection and various other mental\nprocesses. Dugald Stewart, in his \"Essay on Locke,\" says: \"We are\nconscious of sensation, thought, desire, volition, but we are not\nconscious of the existence of the mind itself.\"\n\nIt is urged that the idea of God is universal. This is not only not\ntrue, but I, in fact, deny that any coherent idea exists in connection\nwith the word \"God.\" The chief object to which the emotions of any\npeople were directed in ancient times became their God. When these\nemotions were combined with vague traditions, and a priesthood became\ninterested in handing down the traditions, and increasing the emotions,\nthen the object becoming sacred was hallowed and adored, and uncertain\nopinions formed the basis of a creed. Any prominent phenomenon in the\nuniverse, which was not understood, was personified, as were also the\nvarious passions and phases of humanity. These, in time, were preached\nas religious truths, and thus diverted the people from inquiry into the\nnatural causes of phenomena, which they accounted for as ordained by\nGod, and when famine or pestilence occurred, instead of endeavoring to\nremove its cause or using preventive measures against a recurrence\nof the evil, they sought to discover why the supernatural power was\noffended, and how it might be appeased, and ascribing to it their own\npassions and emotions, they offered prayers and sacrifices. These errors\nbecoming institutions of the country, the people, prompted by their\npriests, regarded all those who endeavored to overturn them by free and\nscientific thought and speech as blasphemers, and the Religion of\neach State has, therefore, always been opposed to the education of the\npeople.\n\nArchbishop Whately, in his \"Elements of Rhetoric,\" part 1, chap, ii,\nsec. 5, urges that \"those who represent God or Gods as malevolent,\ncapricious, or subject to human passions and vices, are invariably to\nbe found among those who are brutal and uncivilized.\" We admit this, but\nask is it not the fact that both the Old and New Testament teachings do\nrepresent God as malevolent, capricious, and subject to human passions\nand vices--that is, are not these bible views of God relics of a brutal\nand uncivilized people?\n\nThere is, of course, not room in a short essay like the present to say\nmuch upon the morality of Atheism, and it should therefore suffice to\nsay, that truth and morality go hand in hand. That that is moral which\ntends to the permanent happiness of all. The continuance of falsehood\nnever can result in permanent happiness; and therefore if Atheism be\ntruthful, it must be moral, if it be against falsehood, it must tend to\nhuman happiness.\n\nYet if quoting great names will have effect, Lord Bacon, who is often\nquoted against Atheism, also says: \"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to\nphilosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation, all of which may\nbe guides to an outward moral virtue, _though religion were not_; but\nsuperstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy\nin the mind of men; therefore Atheism never did perturb states, for it\nmakes men wary of themselves as looking no further; and we see the times\ninclined to Atheism, as the times of Augustus Caesar were civil times;\nbut superstition has been the confusion of many states.\" George\nCombe says: \"I have known men in whom the reasoning organs were amply\ndeveloped and well cultivated, who assured me that they could not reach\nthe conviction of the being of a God. I have known such men equal\nin point of integrity and practical benevolence to the most orthodox\nbelievers.\" In the West Riding of Yorkshire, among the men themselves,\na wealthy employer bore favorable testimony to the conduct and\nintelligence of Atheistic working men. Nay, even the fanatical Dr. Lyman\nBeecher is obliged to concede that Atheism made converts among \"females\nof education and refinement--females of respectable standing in\nsociety.\"\n\n\n\n\nHAS MAN A SOUL?\n\n     [This lecture was originally delivered to the Sheffield\n     Secular Society, and was printed from the reporter's notes\n     without efficient correction from myself, I, at that time,\n     suffering under a severe attack of acute rheumatism. The\n     lecture has since been often re-delivered; and three\n     editions having been exhausted, I have again corrected and\n     revised the present edition. It is not intended as an answer\n     to the question which forms the title, but it is intended to\n     provoke thought upon this important subject.]\n\nWhat do you mean by soul? What is the soul? Is it I? Is it the body?\nIs it apart from the body? Is it an attribute of the body? Has it a\nseparate and distinct existence from the body? What is the soul? If I\nask one of those who claim to be considered orthodox men, they will\ntell me that the soul is a spirit--that the soul lives after the body is\ndead. They will tell me that the soul is immortal, and that the body is\nmortal; that the soul has nothing whatever in common with the body; that\nit has an existence entirely independent of the body. They will tell me\nthat after the body has decayed--after the body has become re-absorbed\nin the universe, of which it is but a part, that the soul still exists.\nIs there any proof of the existence of the same individual soul apart\nfrom all material conditions? I have endeavored to examine this\nsubject, and, up to the present time, I have not found one iota of proof\nin support of the positions thus put forward. I have no idea of any\nexistence except that of which I am part. I am. Of my own existence I am\ncertain I think. I am. But what is it that thinks? Is it my soul? Is\nit \"me,\" and yet distinct from me? I am but a mode of existence. I am\nonly part of the great universe. The elements of which I am composed are\nindissolubly connected with that great existence which is around me and\nwithin me, and which I help to make up. If men tell me I am a compound,\nand not a compound--a mixture, and not a mixture--a joining together,\nand not a joining together--of two entirely different existences, which\nthey call \"matter\" and \"spirit,\" I am compelled to doubt those men.\nThe ability to think is but an attribute of a certain modification of\nexistence. Intelligence is a word by which we express the sum of\ncertain abilities, always attending a certain mode of existence. I find\nintelligence manifested so far as organization is developed. I never\nfind intelligence without animal organization. I find intelligence\nmanifested in degree, only so far as I find a higher or lower type of\norganization--that is, I find man's intellectual faculties limited\nby his organization. But the orthodox tell me that my soul has an\nimmaterial existence, independent of all organization--independent of\nall climatic conditions--independent of all education. Is that so? When\ndoes the soul come into man? When does it go out of man? If the soul\nis immortal, why is it that standing here, in the prime of health and\nstrength, if part of that roof should fall fracturing my skull, and\npressing upon my brain--how is it, if my soul is not subject to material\nconditions, that it then ceases to act? Is the plaster roof more\npowerful than my immortal soul? Or is it that intelligence is the\nnecessary result of a certain condition of existence, and that\nthe moment you destroy that condition--the moment you destroy the\norganization--the result ceases to be realizable? By the course of\nreasoning you adopt (says the orthodox objector) you reduce man to the\nsame level as the beasts. And why not? I stand on the river's bank, I\nsee there a man full grown, possessed of the physical figure of man, but\nan idiot--an idiot from his birth upward--one who could not, even if he\nwould, think and act as other men. A little child is there playing on\nthe bank, and the idiot, having large destructive propensities, has\nthrust the child into the water, and he stands there jabbering and\ngesticulating while the little child is drowning in the river. And see\nhow half-vacantly, half-triumphantly, he points to the helpless child. A\nNewfoundland dog has come to the bank; it jumps in and brings the child\nout and saves its life. Yet theologians tell me that the idiot has a\nsoul, and that the Newfoundland dog has not one. I can not understand\nthese nice distinctions, which make the man so superior to the beast\nin matters in which he is positively inferior. Man has doubtless an\norganization on the whole far superior intellectually to that of\nany other animal, but he is only superior by virtue of his superior\norganization and its consequent susceptibility for development or\neducation. Many brutes can see more clearly than man; but they possess\nnot the capability for the manufacture of telescopes to aid their\nvision. Many brutes can run more swiftly, but they manifest no capacity\nfor the subjugation of a steam power which far outstrips their\nspeed. But man himself, a well-organized, thoughtful, intelligent,\nwell-educated man, by a fall from a horse, by a tile from a roof, may\nreceive an injury to his nervous encephalic apparatus, and may be,\neven while a man in shape, as low as the brute in the imbecility of his\nreason, and inferior to the brute in physical strength. There is as\nmuch difference between different races of men, there is, in fact, more\ndifference between a pure Caucasian and a Sahara negro, than between the\nSahara negro and the infant chimpanzee.\n\nWhen did the soul come into the body? Has it been waiting from all\neternity to occupy each body the moment of birth? Is this the theory\nthat is put forward to man--that there are many millions of souls still\nwaiting, perhaps, in mid air, 'twixt heaven and earth, to occupy the\nstill unborn babes? Is that the theory? Or do you allege that God\nspecially creates souls for each little child at the moment it is born\nor conceived? Which is the theory put forward? Is it that the soul\nbeing immortal--being destined to exist for ever, has existed from all\neternity? If not, how do you know that the soul is to exist for ever;\nwhen it only comes into existence with the child? May not that which\nhas recently begun to be, soon cease to be? In what manner does the\nsoul come into the child? Is it a baby's soul, and does it grow with\nthe child? or, does it possess its full power the moment the child is\nborn? When does it come into the child? Does it come in the moment\nthe child begins to form, or is it the moment the child is born into the\nworld? Whence is it this soul comes? Dr. Cooper, quoting Lawrence\non the \"Functions of the Brain,\" says: \"Sir Everard Home, with the\nassistance of Mr. Bauer and his microscope, has shown us a man eight\ndays old from the time of conception, about as broad and a little\nlonger than a pin's head. He satisfied himself that the brain of\nthis homunculus was discernible. Could the immaterial mind have been\nconnected with it at this time? Or was the tenement too small even for\nso etherial a lodger? Even at the full period of uterogestation, it is\nstill difficult to trace any vestiges of mind: and the believers in its\nseparate existence have left us quite in the dark on the precise time\nwhen they suppose this union of soul and body to take place.\" Many of\nthose who tell me that man has a soul, and that it is immortal--that man\nhas a soul, and that the beast has not one--forget or ignore the fact\nthat at a very early stage in the formation of the brain the state of\nthe brain corresponds to that of the avertebrated animal, or animal\nthat is without vertebra. If the brain had stopped in its first month's\ncourse of formation, would the child have had a soul? If it would have\nhad a soul, then have avertebrated animals souls also? If you tell me\nit would not have had a soul, then I ask, How do you know it? and I\nask you what ground you have for assuming that the soul did not begin\nto form with the formation of the brain? I ask you whether it was\npre-existing, or at what stage it came? In the second month this\nbrain corresponds then to the brain of an osseous fish. Supposing the\ndevelopment of the child had been then stopped, had it a soul at that\ntime? If so, have fishes souls? Again, if you tell me that the child\nhad not a soul, then, I ask, why not? How do you know it had not? What\nground have you for alleging that the soul did not exist in the child?\nWe go on still further, and in the third month we find that brain\ncorresponds then to that of a turtle, and in the fourth to that of a\nbird; and in the fifth month, to an order termed _rodentia_; sixth,\nto that of the _ruminantia_; seventh, to that of the _dugitigrada_;\neighth, to that of the _quadrumana_; and not till the ninth month does\nthe brain of the child attain a full human character. I, of course, here\nmean to allege no more than Dr. Fletcher, who says, in his \"Rudiments of\nPhysiology,\" quoted by the author of the \"Vestiges of Creation\": \"This\nis only an approximation to the truth; since neither is the brain of all\nosseous fishes, of all turtles, of all birds, nor of all the species of\nany of the above order of mammals, by any means precisely the same;\nnor does the brain of the human fetus at any time precisely resemble,\nperhaps, that of any individual whatever among the lower animals.\nNevertheless it may be said to represent, at each of the above-named\nperiods, the aggregate, as it were, of the brains of each of the tribes\nstated.\"\n\nNow, should a birth have taken place at any of the eight stages, would\nthe child thus prematurely born have had a soul? That is the question\nI propose to you. You who affirm that man has a soul, it lies upon\nyou, here, without charging me with blasphemy--without charging me with\nignorance--without charging me with presumption--it lies upon you who\naffirm, to state the grounds for your belief. At which stage, if at any,\ndid the soul come into the child? At the moment of the birth? Why when\na child is born into the world it can scarcely see--it can not speak--it\ncan not think--but after a short time I jingle my keys, and it begins\nto give faint smiles; and after a few weeks, it is pleased with the\njingling of my keys. Is it the soul which is learning to appreciate the\nsound of the jingling keys, and pleased with them? Is it the immaterial\nand immortal soul amused and pleased with my bundle of keys? Where is\nthe soul? How is it that the soul can not speak the moment the child is\nborn--can not even think? How is it, that if I keep that child without\ntelling it any thing of its soul until it become fourteen or fifteen\nyears of age, it would then speak and think as I had taught it to speak\nand think; and if I kept it without the knowledge of a soul, it would\nhave no knowledge of a soul at that age? How is that? Rajah Brooke,\nat a missionary meeting in Liverpool, told his hearers there that the\nDyaks, a people with whom he was connected, had no knowledge of God, of\na soul, or of any future state. How is it that the Dyaks have got this\nsoul and yet live knowing nothing whatever about it? And the Dyaks\nare by no means the only people who live and die knowing nothing of\nany immortal and immaterial soul. Again you tell me that this soul is\nimmortal. Do you mean that it has eternally existed--has never been\ncreated? If so, you deny a God who is the creator of all things. If the\nsoul began at some time to exist, where is the evidence that it will not\nalso at some time cease to exist? It it came into existence with the\nbody's birth, why not cease with the body's death? You say the soul is\nimmaterial; do you mean that it is susceptible to material conditions\nor do you not? If susceptible to material conditions, what do you mean\nby its being immortal and immaterial? If not susceptible to material\nconditions, then explain to me how it is that under good conditions\nit prospers and advances, and under bad conditions deteriorates and\nrecedes. If a child is born in some of the back streets of our city,\nand lives on bad food in a wretched cellar, it grows up a weak and puny\npale-faced child. If allowed to crawl into existence on the edge of a\ngutter, imperfectly educated, in fact mis-educated, it steals--steals,\nperhaps, to live--and it becomes an outcast from society. Is this\nimmortal soul affected by the bodily conditions? or is the soul\noriginally naturally depraved? And if the soul is primarily naturally\ndepraved, why is God so unjust as to give a naturally depraved soul to\nany body? If not, how is it that this immortal soul, when the body\nis kept without food, permits the man who has no money to buy food, to\nsteel to satisfy his hunger? You allege that the soul moves my body.\nYou assert that matter is inert, unintelligent; that it is my active,\nintelligent soul that moves and impels my inert and non-intelligent\nbody. Is my immortal soul hindered and controlled by the state of my\nbody's general health? Does my soul feel hungry and compel my body to\nsteal? Some theologians declare that my soul is immaterial--that there\nis no means by which I can take any cognizance whatever of it. What\ndoes that mean, except that they know nothing whatever about it? Sir\nW. Hamilton admits that we are entirely ignorant as to the connection\nbetween soul and body. Yet many who in so many words admit that they\nhave no knowledge, but only faith in the soul's existence, are most\npresumptuous in affirming it, and in denouncing those who dispute their\naffirmation. It is an easy method to hide ignorance, by denouncing your\nopponent as an ignorant blasphemer.\n\nJoseph Priestley, in his book upon matter and spirit, quotes from\nHallet's discourses, as follows; \"I see a man move and hear him speak\nfor some years. From his speech I certainly infer that he thinks, as I\ndo. I then see that man is a being who thinks and acts. After some time\nthe man falls down in my sight, grows cold and stiff, and speaks and\nacts no more. Is it not then natural to conclude that he thinks no more;\nas the only reason I had to believe that he did think was his motion and\nhis speech. And now that his motion and speech have ceased, I have lost\nthe only way of proving that he had the power of thought. Upon this\nsudden death, one visible thing, the one man, has greatly changed.\nWhence could I infer that the same being consisted of two parts, and\nthat the inward part continues to live and think, and flies away from\nthe body? When the outward part ceases to live and move, it looks as\nif the whole _man_ was gone, and that he, with all his powers, ceases at\nthe same time. His motion and thought both die together, as far as I\ncan discern. The powers of thought, of speech and motion, equally depend\nupon the body, and run the same fate in case of declining age. When a\nman dies through old age, I perceive his powers of speech, motion, and\nthought decay and die together, and by the same degrees. That moment he\nceases to move and breathe he appears to cease to think, too. When I\nam left to my reason it seems to me that my power of thought depends\nas much upon the body as my sight and hearing. I could not think in\ninfancy; my power of thought, of sight, and of feeling are equally\nliable to be obstructed by the body. A blow on the head has deprived a\nman of thought, who could yet see, and feel and move; so naturally the\npower of thinking seems as much to belong to the body as any power of\nman whatsoever. Naturally there appears no more reason to suppose that a\nman can think out of the body than he can hear sounds and feel cold out\nof the body.\"\n\nWhat do those mean who say that man is made up of two parts--matter and\nmind? I know of only one existence. I find that existence manifested\nvariously, each mode having certain variations of attributes by which\nit is cognized. One of these attributes, or a collection of certain\nattributes, I find in, or with, certain modifications of that existence,\nthat is, in or with animal life--this attribute, or these attributes, we\ncall intelligence. In the same way that I find upon the blade of a knife\nbrightness, consequent upon a certain state of the metal, so do I find\nin man, in the beast, different degrees, not of brightness, but of\nintelligence, according to their different states of organization. I am\ntold that the mind and the body are separate from one another. Are\nthe brightness and steel of the knife separate? Is not brightness the\nquality attaching to a certain modification of existence--steel? Is\nnot intelligence a quality attaching to a certain modification of\nexistence--man? The word brightness has no meaning, except as relating\nto some bright thing. The word intelligence, no meaning, except as\nrelating to some intelligent thing. I take some water and drop it upon\nthe steel, in due course the process of oxidation takes place and the\nbrightness is gone. I drop into man's brain a bullet; the process\nof destruction of life takes place, and his intelligence is gone.\nBy changing the state of the steel we destroy its brightness, and by\ndisorganizing the man destroy his intelligence. Is mind an entity or\nresult? an existence or a condition? Surely it is but the result of\norganic activity, a phenomenon of animal life. Dr. Engledue says: \"In\nthe same way as organism generally has the power of manifesting, when\nthe necessary stimuli are applied, the phenomena which are designated\nlife; so one individual portion--brain, having peculiar and distinct\nproperties, manifests on the application of its appropriate stimuli\na peculiar and distinct species of action. If the sum of all bodily\nfunction--life, be not an entity, how can the product of the action of\none portion of the body--brain, be an entity? Feeling and intelligence\nare but fractional portions of life.\" I ask those who are here to prove\nthat man has a soul, to do so apart from revelation. If the soul is a\npart of ourselves, we require no supernatural revelation to demonstrate\nits existence to us. D'Holbach says: \"The doctrine of spirituality,\nsuch as it now exists, affords nothing but vague ideas; it is rather a\npoisoner of all ideas. Let me draw your attention to this: The advocates\nof spirituality do not tell you anything, but in fact prevent you\nfrom knowing anything. They say that spirit and matter have nothing in\ncommon, and that mortal man can not take cognizance of immortality. An\nignorant man may set himself up as an orator upon such a matter. He says\nyou have a soul--an immortal soul. Take care you don't lose your soul.\nWhen you ask him what is my soul, he says he does not know--nobody\nknows--nobody can tell you. This is really that which they do. What is\nthis doctrine of spirituality? What does it present to the mind?\nA substance unsubstantial that possesses nothing of which our senses\nenable us to take cognizance.\" Theologians urge that each of us has a\nsoul superior to all material conditions, and yet a man who speaks can\nnot communicate by his speaking soul so freely with that man who is deaf\nand dumb; the conditions cramp that which is said to be uncontrolled\nby any conditions. If you cut out a man's tongue, the soul no longer\nspeaks. If you put a gag in his mouth, and tie it with a handkerchief,\nso that he can not get it out, his soul ceases to speak. The immaterial\nsoul is conquered by a gag, it can not utter itself, the gag is in the\nway. The orthodox say that the soul is made by God; and what do you know\nabout God? Why just as much as we know about the soul. And what do you\nknow about the soul? Nothing whatever. How is it that if the soul\nis immaterial, having nothing in common with matter, that it is only\nmanifest by material means? and how is it that it is incased\nand inclosed in my material frame? They affirm that my soul is a\nspirit--that I receive the same spirit from God. How is it that\nmy spirit is now by myself, and by my mortal body, denying its own\nexistence? Is my mortal soul acting the hypocrite, or is it ignorant of\nits own existence, and can not help itself to better knowledge? And if\nit can not help itself, why not, if it is superior to the body? and if\nyou think it a hypocrite, tell me why.\n\nWhat is meant by the declaration that man is a compound of matter and\nspirit?--things which the orthodox assert have nothing in common with\none another. Of the existence of what you call matter you are certain,\nbecause you and I, material beings, are here. Are you equally certain\nof the existence of mind, as an existence independent and separate from\nmatter? and if you are, tell me why. Have you ever found it apart from\nmatter? If so, when and where? Have you found that the mind has a\nseparate and distinct existence? if so, under what circumstances? and\ntell me--you who define matter as unintelligent, passive, inert, and\nmotionless--who talk of the _vis inerti\u00e6_ of matter--tell me what you\nmean when you give these definitions to it? You find the universe, and\nthis small portion of it on which we are, ceaselessly active. Why do you\ncall it passive, except it be that you want courage to search for true\nknowledge as to the vast capabilities of existence, and, therefore,\ninvent such names as God and Soul to account for all difficulties, and\nto hide your ignorance? What do you mean by passive and inert matter?\nYou tell me of this world--part of a system--that system part of\nanother--that of another--and point out to me the innumerable planets,\nthe countless millions of worlds, in the universe. You, who tell me of\nthe vast forces of the universe, what do you mean by telling me\nthat that is motionless? What do you mean by yet pointing to the\nimmeasurable universe and its incalculably mighty forces and affirming\nthat they are incapable of every perceptible effect? You, without one\nfact on which to base your theory, strive to call into existence another\nexistence which must be more vast, and which you allege produces this\nexistence and gives its powers to it. Sir Isaac Newton says: \"We are\nto admit no more causes of things than are sufficient to explain\nappearances.\" What effect is there which the forces of existence are\nincapable of producing?\n\nWhy do you come to the conclusion that the forces of the universe are\nincapable of producing every effect of which I take cognizance? Why do\nyou come to the conclusion that intelligence is not an attribute--why?\nWhat is there which enables you to convert it into a separate and\ndistinct existence? Is there anything? Is it spirit? What is spirit?\nThat of which the mortal man can know nothing, you tell me--that it\nis nothing which his senses can grasp--that is, no man, but one who\ndisregards his senses, can believe in it, and that it is that which no\nman's senses can take cognizance of. If a man who uses his senses can\nnever by their aid take cognizance of spirit, then as it is through the\nsenses alone man knows that which is around him, you can know nothing\nabout spirit until you go out of your senses. When I speak of the\nsenses, I do not limit myself to what are ordinarily termed man's five\nsenses--I include all man's sensitive faculties, and admit that I do not\nknow the extent of, and am not prepared to set a limit to, the sensitive\ncapabilities of man. I have had personal experience in connection with\npsycho-magnetic phenomena of faculties in man and woman not ordinarily\nrecognized, and am inclined to the opinion that many men have been\nmade converts to the theories of spiritualism because their previous\neducation had induced them to set certain arbitrary limits to the\ndomains of the natural. When they have been startled by phenomena\noutside these conventional limitations they at once ascribed them to\nsupernatural influences rather than reverse their previous rules of\nthinking.\n\nSome urge that the soul is life. What is life? Is it not the word by\nwhich we express the aggregate normal functional activity of vegetable\nand animal organisms necessarily differing in degree, if not in kind,\nwith each different organization? To talk of immortal life and yet to\nadmit the decay and destruction of the organization, is much the same as\nto talk of a square circle. You link together two words which contradict\neach other. The solution of the soul problem is not so difficult as many\nimagine. The greatest difficulty is, that we have been trained to\nuse certain words as \"God,\" \"matter,\" \"mind,\" \"spirit,\" \"soul,\"\n\"intelligence,\" and we have been further trained to take these words as\nrepresentatives of realities, which, in fact, they do not represent. We\nhave to unlearn much of our school lore. We have specially to carefully\nexamine the meaning of each word we use. The question, lies in a\nsmall compass. Is there one existence or more? Of one existence I am\nconscious, because I am a mode of it. I know of no other existence. I\nknow of no existence but that existence of which I am a mode. I hold it\nto be capable of producing every effect. It is for the man who alleges\nthat there is another, to prove it. I know of one existence. I do\nnot endeavor to demonstrate to you my existence, it needs no\ndemonstration--I am My existence is undeniable. I am speaking to you You\nare conscious of my existence. You and I are not separate entities, but\nmodes of the same existence. We take cognizance of the existence which\nis around us and in us, and which is the existence of which we are\nmodes. Of the one existence we are certain. It is for those who affirm\nthat the universe is \"matter,\" and who affirm that there also exists\n\"spirit,\" to remember that they admit the one existence I seek to prove,\nand that the onus lies on them to demonstrate a second existence--in\nfact, to prove there is the other existence which they term spiritual.\nThere can not exist two different substances or existences having the\nsame attributes, or qualities. There can not be two existences of\nthe same essence, having different attributes, because it is by the\nattributes alone that we can distinguish the existences. We can only\njudge of the substance by its modes. We may find a variety of modes\nof the same substance, and we shall find points of union which help to\nidentify them, the one with the other--the link which connects them with\nthe great whole. We can only judge of the existence of which we are a\npart (in consequence of our peculiar organization) under the form of\na continuous chain of causes and effects--each effect a cause to the\neffect it precedes, each cause an effect of the causative influence\nwhich heralded its advent. The remote links of that line are concealed\nby the darkness of the far off past. Nay, more than this, the mightiest\neffort of mind can never say, _This is the first cause_. Weakness and\nignorance have said it--but why? To cloak their weakness, to hide\ntheir ignorance. Knaves have said it--but why? To give scope to their\ncunning, and to enable them to say to the credulous, \"Thus far shalt\nthou go and no farther.\" The termination is in the as yet unknowable\nfuture; and I ask you, presumptuous men, who dare to tell me of God\nand soul, of matter and creation--when possessed you the power to sunder\nlinks of that great chain and write, \"In the beginning?\" I deny that by\nthe mightiest effort of the strongest intellect man can ever say of any\nperiod, at this point substance began to be--before this existence was\nnot.\n\nHas man a soul? You who tell me he has a soul, a soul independent\nof material conditions, I ask you how it is that these immortal souls\nstrive with one another to get mortal benefits? Has man a soul? If\nman's soul is not subject to material conditions, why do I find knavish\nsouls?--Why slavish souls?--tyrannous souls? Your doctrine that man has\na soul prevents him from rising. When you tell him that his soul is not\nimprovable by material conditions, you prevent him from making\nhimself better than he is. Man's intelligence is a consequence of his\norganization. Organization is improvable, the intelligence becomes more\npowerful as the organization is fully developed, and the conditions\nwhich surround man are made more pure. And the man will become higher,\ntruer, and better when he knows that his intelligence is an attribute,\nlike other attributes, capable of development, susceptible of\ndeterioration, he will strive to effect the first and to guard against\nthe latter.\n\nLook at the number of people putting power into the hands of one man,\nbecause he is a lord--surely they have no souls. See the mass cringing\nto a wretched idol--surely these have no souls. See men forming a\npyramid of which the base is a crushed and worn-out people, and the apex\na church, a throne, a priest, a king, and the frippery of a creed--have\nthose men souls? Society should not be such a pyramid, it should be\none brotherly circle, in which men should be linked together by a\nconsciousness that they are only happy so linked, conscious that when\nthe chain is broken, then the society and her peace is destroyed. What\nwe teach is not that man has a soul apart and independent of the body,\nbut that he has an ability, an intelligence, an attribute of his\nbody, capable of development, improvable, more useful, according as he\nelevates himself and his fellows. Give up blind adhesion to creeds and\npriests, strive to think and follow out in action the result of your\nthoughts. Each mental struggle is an enlargement of your mind, an\naddition to your brain power, an increase of your soul--the only soul\nyou have.\n\n\n\n\nLABOR'S PRAYER.\n\n\"Give us this day our daily bread\" is the entreaty addressed by the\ntiller of the soil to the \"Our Father,\" who has promised to answer\nprayer. And what answer cometh from heaven to this the bread\nwinner's petition? Walk among the cotton workers of Lancashire,\nthe cloth-weavers of Yorkshire, the Durham pitmen, the Staffordshire\npuddlers, the Cornish miners, the London dock laborers, go anywhere\nwhere hands are roughened with toil, where foreheads are bedewed with\nsweat of work, and see the Lord's response to the prayer, the father's\nanswer to his children! The only bread they get is the bread they take;\nin their hard struggle for life-sustenance the loaves come but slowly,\nand heaven adds not a crust, even though the worker be hungry, when he\nrises from his toil-won meal. Not even the sight of pale-faced wife, and\nthin forms of half-starved infants can move to generosity the Ruler of\nthe world. The laborer may pray, but, if work be scant and wages low, he\npines to death while praying. His prayer gives no relief, and misery's\nanswer is the mocking echo to his demand.\n\nIt is said by many a pious tongue that God helps the poor; the\nwretchedness of some of their hovel houses, found alas! too often,\nin the suburbs of our wealthiest cities, grimy black, squalid,\nand miserable; the threadbare raggedness of their garments; the\nunwholesomeness of the food they eat; the poisoned air they breathe in\ntheir narrow wynds and filthy alleys; all these tell how much God helps\nthe poor. Do you want to see how God helps the poor? go into any police\ncourt when some little child-thief is brought up for hearing; see him\nshoeless, with ragged trousers, threadbare, grimy, vest hardly hanging\nto his poor body, shirt that seems as though it never could have been\nwhite, skin dull brown with dirt, hair innocent of comb or brush,\neye ignorantly, sullenly-defiant, yet downcast; born poor, born wretched,\nborn in ignorance, educated among criminals, crime the atmosphere in\nwhich he moved; and society his nurse and creator, is now virtuously\naghast at the depravity of this its own neglected nursling, and a poor\ncreature whom God alone hath helped. Go where the weakly wife in a\nnarrow room huddles herself and little children day after day; and where\nthe husband crowds in to lie down at night; they are poor and honest,\nbut their honesty bars not the approach of disease, fever, sorrow,\ndeath--God helps not the line of health to their poor wan cheeks. Go\nto the county workhouse in which is temporarily housed the wornout farm\nlaborer, who, while, strength enough remained, starved through weary\nyears with wife and several children on eight shillings per week--it\nis thus God helps the poor. And the poor are taught to pray for a\ncontinuance of this help, and to be thankful and content to pray that\nto-morrow may be like to-day, thankful that yesterday was no worse than\nit was, and content that to-day is as good as it is. Are there many\nrepining at their miseries, the preacher, with gracious intonation,\nanswers rebukingly that God, in his wisdom, has sent these troubles\nupon them as chastisement for their sins. So, says the church, all\nare sinners, rich its well as poor; but rich sinners feel that the\nchastising rod is laid more lightly on their backs than it is upon those\nof their meaner brethren. Weekday and Sunday it is the same contrast;\none wears fustian, the other broadcloth; one prepares for heaven in the\nvelvet cushioned pew, the other on the wooden benches of the free seats.\nIn heaven it will be different--all there above are to wear crowns of\ngold and fine linen, and, therefore, here below the poor man is to be\nsatisfied with the state of life into which it has pleased God to\ncall him. The pastor, who tells him this, looks upon the laborer as an\ninferior animal, and the laborer by force of habit regards the landowner\nand peer, who patronizes his endeavors, as a being of a superior order.\nIs there no new form of prayer that labor might be taught to utter, no\nother power to which his petition might be addressed? Prayer to the\nunknown for aid gives no strength to the prayer. In each beseeching he\nloses dignity and self-reliance, he trusts to he knows not what, for an\nanswer which cometh he knows not when, and mayhap may never come at all.\nLet labor pray in the future in another fashion and at another altar.\nLet laborer pray to laborer that each may know labor's rights, and be\nable to fulfill labor's duties. The size of the loaf of daily bread must\ndepend on the amount of the daily wages, and the laborer must pray for\nbetter wages. But his prayer must take the form of earnest, educated\nendeavor to obtain the result desired. Let workmen, instead of praying\nto God in their distress, ask one another why are wages low? how can\nwages be raised? can we raise our own wages? having raised them, can\nwe keep them fixed at the sum desired? What causes produce a rise and\nfall in wages? are high wages beneficial to the laborer? These are\nquestions the pulpit has no concern with. The reverend pastor will tell\nyou that the \"wages of sin is death,\" and will rail against \"filthy\nlucre;\" but he has no inclination for answering the queries here\npropounded. Why are wages low? Wages are low because the wage-winners\ncrowd too closely. Wages are low because too many seek to share one\nfund. Wages are lower still because the laborer fights against unfair\nodds; the laws of the country, overriding the laws of humanity, have\nbeen enacted without the laborer's consent, although his obedience to\nthem is enforced. The fund is unfairly distributed as well as too widely\ndivided. Statutes are gradually being modified, and the working man may\nhope for ampler justice from the employer in the immediate future than\nwas possible in the past, but high and healthy wages depend on the\nworking man himself. Wages can be raised by the work-ing classes\nexercising a moderate degree of caution in increasing their numbers.\nWages must increase when capital increases more rapidly than population,\nand it is the duty of the working man, therefore, to take every\nreasonable precaution to check the increase of population and to\naccelerate the augmentation of capital.\n\nCan working-men, by combination, permanently raise the rate of wages?\nOne gentleman presiding at a meeting of the National Association for the\nPromotion of Social Science for the discussion of the labor question,\nvery fairly said, \"It is not in the power of the men alone, or of the\nmasters alone, or of both combined, to say what shall be the amount of\nwages at any particular time in any trade or country. The men and the\nmasters are, at most, competitors for the division, at a certain rate,\nof a certain fund, provided by [themselves and] others--that is, by the\nconsumers. If that fund is small, no device can make the rate of profit\nor rate of wages higher.\" This is in theory quite correct, if it means\nthat no device can make the total divisible greater than it is, but not\nif it refers to the increase of profit or wages by partial distribution.\nIn practice, although it is true that if the fund be small and the\nseekers to share it be many, the quotient to each must be necessarily\nvery small, yet it is also true that a few of the competitors--_i.e._\nthe capitalists, may and do absorb for their portions of profits an\nimproper and unfairly large amount, thus still further reducing\nthe wretchedly small pittance in any case receivable by the mass of\nlaborers. It is warmly contended that the capitalist and laborer contend\nfor division of the fund appropriable in fair and open field; that the\ncapitalist has his money to employ, the man his labor to sell; that\nif workmen are in excess of the capitalist's requirements, so that the\nlaborer has to supplicate for employment, wages can not rise, and will\nprobably fall; but that if, on the contrary, capital has need to invite\nadditional laborers, then wages must rise. That is the law of supply and\ndemand brought prominently forward. In great part this is true, but it\nis not true that capital and labor compete in fair and open field, any\nmore than it is true that an iron-clad war vessel, with heavy ordnance,\nwould compete in fair field with a wooden frigate, equipped with the\nmaterial in use thirty years ago. Capital is gold-plated, and carries\ntoo many guns for unprotected labor.\n\nThe intelligent capitalist makes the laws affecting master and servant,\nwhich the uneducated laborer must obey, but has no effective voice to\nalter. The capitalist forms the government of the country, which in\nturn protects capital against labor; this government the laborer must\nsustain, and dares not modify. The capitalist does combine, and\nhas combined, and the result of this combination has been an unfair\nappropriation of the divisible fund. Why should not the laborer combine\nalso? The answer is truly that no combination of workmen can increase\nthe rate of wages, if at the same time the number of laborers increases\nmore rapidly than the capital out of which their wages must be paid.\nBut the men may combine to instruct one another in the laws of political\neconomy; they may combine to apply their knowledge of those laws to the\ncontracts between employer and employed. They may combine to compel the\nrepeal of unjust enactments under which an unfair distribution of the\nlabor fund is not only possible but certain. Organizations of laborers\nare, therefore, wise and necessary; the object of such organizations\nshould be the permanent elevation and enfranchisement of the members. No\ncombination of workmen, which merely dictates a temporary cessation\nfrom labor, can ultimately and permanently benefit the laborer; while it\ncertainly immediately injures him and deteriorates his condition,\nmaking his home wretched, his family paupers. Nor can even co-operative\ncombination, praiseworthy as it certainly is, to procure for the laborer\na larger share of the profits of his labor permanently benefit him,\nexcept in so far that temporarily alleviating his condition, and giving\nhim leisure for study, it enables him to educate himself; unless, at the\nsame time, the co-operator is conscious that the increase or reduction\nin the amount of wages depends entirely on the ratio of relation\npreserved between population and its means of subsistence, the former\nalways having a tendency to increase more rapidly than the latter. It\nis with the problem of too many mouths for too little bread that the\nlaborer has really to deal: if he must pray, it should be for more bread\nand for fewer mouths. The answer often given by the workman himself to\nthe advocate of Malthusian views is, that the world is wide enough for\nall, that there are fields yet unplowed broad enough to bear more corn\nthan man at present could eat, and that there is neither too little\nfood nor are there too many mouths; that there is, in fact, none of that\nover-population with which it is sought to affright the working man.\nOver-population in the sense that the whole world is too full to contain\nits habitants, or that it will ever become too full to contain them,\nis certainly a fallacy, but overpopulation is a lamentable truth in\nits relative sense. We find evidences of over-population in every old\ncountry of the world. The pest of over-population is the existence of\npoverty, squalor, wretchedness, disease, ignorance, misery, and crime.\nLow rate of wages, and food dear, here you have two certain indices of\nrelative over-population. Wages depending on the demand for and supply\nof laborers, wherever wages are low it is a certain sign that there are\ntoo many candidates for employment in that phase of the labor market.\nThe increased cost of production of food, and its consequent higher\nprice, also mark that the cultivation has been forced, by the numbers of\nthe people to descend to less productive soils. Poverty is the test and\nresult of over-population.\n\nIt is not against some possible increase of their numbers, which may\nproduce possibly greater affliction, that the working men are entreated\nto agitate. It is against the existing evils which afflict their ranks,\nevils alleged by sound students of political economy to have already\nresulted from inattention to the population question, that the energies\nof the people are sought to be directed, The operation of the law of\npopulation has been for centuries entirely ignored by those who have\nfelt its adverse influence most severely. It is only during the last\nthirty years that any of the working classes have turned their attention\nto the question; and only during the last few years that it has to any\nextent been discussed among them. Yet all the prayers that labor ever\nuttered since the first breath of human life, have not availed so much\nfor human happiness as will the earnest examination by one generation\nof this, the greatest of all social questions, the root of all political\nproblems, the foundation of all civil progress. Poor, man must be\nwretched. Poor, he must be ignorant. Poor, he must be criminal; and poor\nhe must be till the cause of poverty has been ascertained by the poor\nman himself and its cure planned by the poor man's brain, and effected\nby the poor man's hand.\n\nOutside his own rank none can save the poor. Others may show him the\nabyss, but he must avoid its dangerous brink himself. Others may point\nout to him the chasm, but he must build his own bridge over. Labor's\nprayer must be to labor's head for help from labor's hand to strike\nthe blow that severs labor's chain, and terminates the too long era of\nlabor's suffering.\n\nDuring the last few years our daily papers, and various periodicals,\nmagazines, and reviews have been more frequently, and much less\npartially, devoted than of old to the discussion of questions relating\nto the laborer's condition, and the means of ameliorating it. In the\nLegislative Assembly debates have taken place which would have been\nimpossible fifty years since. Works on political economy are now more\neasily within the reach of the working man than they were some years\nago. People's editions are now published of treatises on political\neconomy which half a century back the people were unable to read. It\nis now possible for the laborer, and it is the laborer's duty, to make\nhimself master of the laws which govern the production and distribution\nof wealth. Undoubtedly there is much grievous wrong in the mode of\ndistribution of wealth, by which the evils that afflict the poorest\nstragglers are often specially and tenfold aggravated. The monopoly of\nland, the serf state of the laborer, are points requiring energetic\nagitation. The grave and real question is, however, that which lies at\nthe root of all, the increase of wealth as against the increase of those\nwhom it subsists. The leaders of the great trades unions of the country,\nif they really desire to permanently increase the happiness of the\nclasses among whom they exercise influence, can speedily promote this\nobject by encouraging their members to discuss freely the relations of\nlabor to capital; not moving in one groove, as if labor and capital\nwere necessarily antagonistic, and that therefore labor must always have\nrough-armed hand to protect itself from the attacks of capital; but,\ntaking new ground, to inquire if labor and capital are bound to each\nother by any and what ties, ascertaining if the share of the laborer\nin the capital fund depends, except so far as affected by inequality in\ndistribution, on the proportion between the number of laborers and the\namount of the fund. The discussing, examining, and dealing generally\nwith these topics, would necessarily compel the working man to a more\ncorrect appreciation of his position.\n\nAny such doctrine as that \"the poor shall never cease out of the land;\"\nor that we are to be content with the station in life into which it has\npleased God to call us; or that we are to ask and we shall receive,\nmust no longer avail. Schiller most effectively answers the advocates of\nprayer:\n\n     \"Help, Lord, help!\n     Look with pity down!\n     A paternoster pray;\n     What God does, that is justly done,\n     His grace endures for aye.\"\n\n     \"Oh, mother! empty mockery,\n     God hath not justly dealt by me:\n     Have I not begged and prayed in vain;\n     What boots it now to pray again?\"\n\nLabor's only and effective prayer must be in life action for its own\nredemption; action founded on thought, crude thought, and sometimes\nerring at first, but ultimately developed into useful thinking, by much\npatient experimenting for the right and true.\n\n\n\n\nPOVERTY: ITS EFFECTS ON THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE.\n\n\"Political Economy does not itself instruct how to make a nation rich,\nbut whoever would be qualified to judge of the means of making a nation\nrich must first be a political economist.\"--John Stuart Mill.\n\n\"The object of political economy is to secure the means of subsistence\nof all the inhabitants, to obviate every circumstance which might render\nthis precarious, to provide everything necessary for supplying the wants\nof society, and to employ the inhabitants so as to make the interests\naccord with their supplying each other's wants.\"--Sir James Stewart.\n\nOn one occasion in the world's history, a people rose searching for\nupright life, who had previously, for several generations, depressed by\npoverty and its attendant hand-maidens of misery, prowled hunger-striken\nand disconsolate, stooping and stumbling through the byways of\nexistence. A mighty revolution resulted in much rough justice and some\nbrutal vengeance, much rude right, and some terrific wrong. Among the\nwriters who have since narrated the history of this people's struggle,\nsome penmen have been assiduous and hasty to search for, and chronicle\nthe errors, and have even not hesitated to magnify the crimes of the\nrebels; while they have been slow to recognize the previous demoralizing\ntendency of the system rebelled against. In this pamphlet it is proposed\nto very briefly deal with the state of the people in France immediately\nprior to the grand convulsion which destroyed the Bastile Monarchy, and\nset a glorious example of the vindication of the rights of man against\nopposition the most formidable that can be conceived; believing that\neven in this slight illustration of the condition of the masses in\nFrance who sought to erect on the ruins of arbitrary power the glorious\nedifice of civil and religious liberty, an answer may be found to the\nquestion: \"What is the effect of poverty on the political condition of\nthe people.\"\n\nIn taking the instance of France, it is not that the writer for one\nmoment imagines that poverty is a word without meaning in our own lands.\nThe clamming factory hands in the Lancanshire valleys, the distressed\nribbon weavers of Conventry, and the impoverished laborers in various\nparts of Ireland and Scotland would be able to give us a definition of\nthe word fearful in its distinctness. But in England poverty is happily\npartial, while in France in the eighteenth century poverty was universal\noutside the palaces of the nobles and the mansions of the church, where\nluxury, voluptuousness, and effeminacy were regnant. In the seventeenth\nand eighteenth centuries travelers in France could learn from \"the\nsadness, the solitude, the miserable poverty, the dismal nakedness of\nthe empty cottages, and the starving, ragged population, how much men\ncould endure without dying.\" On the one side a discontented, wretched,\nhungry mass of tax-providing slaves, and on the other a rapacious,\npampered, licentious, spendthrift monarchy. This culminated in the\nrefusal of the laborers to cultivate the fertile soil because, the\ntax-gatherer's rapacity left an insufficient remnant to provide\nthe cultivator with the merest necessaries of life. Then followed\n\"uncultivated fields, unpeopled villages, and houses dropping to decay;\"\nthe great cities--as Paris, Lyons, and Bordeaux--crowded with begging\nskeletons, frightful in their squallid disease and loathsome aspect.\n\nEven after the National Assembly had passed some measures of temporary\nalleviation, the distress in Paris itself was so great that at the\ngratuitious distributions of bread \"old people have been seen to expire\nwith their hand stretched out to receive the loaf, and women waiting in\ntheir turn in front of the baker's shop were prematurely delivered of\ndead children in the open streets.\" The great mass of the people were as\nignorant as they were poor; were ignorant indeed because they were poor.\nIgnorance is the pauper's inalienable heritage. When the struggle is\nfor the means of subsistence, and these are only partially obtained,\nthere is little hope for the luxury of a leisure hour in which other\nemotions can be cultivated than those of the mere desires for food and\nrest--sole results of the laborious monotonousness of machine work; a\nround of toil and sleep closing in death--the only certain refuge for\nthe worn out laborer. Without the opportunity afforded by the possession\nof more than will satisfy the immediate wants, there can be little or no\nculture of the mental faculties. The toiler badly paid and ill-fed, is\nseparated from the thinker. Nobly-gifted, highly-cultured though the\npoet may be, his poesy has no charms for the father to whom one hour's\nleisure means short food for his hungry children clamoring for bread.\nThe picture gallery, replete with the finest works of our greatest\nmasters, is forbidden ground to the pitman, the plowman, the poor\npariahs to whom the conceptions of the highest art-treasures are\nimpossible. The beauties of nature are almost equally inaccessible to\nthe dwellers in the narrow lanes of great cities. Out of your narrow\nwynds in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and on to the moor and mountain-side, ye\npoor, and breathe the pure life-renewing breezes. Not so; the moors are\nfor the sportsmen and peers, not peasants; and a Scotch Duke--emblem\nof the worst vices of a corrupt and selfish, but fast-decaying House of\nLords--closes miles of heather against the pedestrian's foot. But\neven this paltry oppression is unneeded. Duke Despicable is in unholy\nalliance with King Poverty, who mocks at the poor mother and her\nwretched, ragged family, when from the garret or cellar in a great\nBabylon wilderness they set out to find green fields and new life.\nWork days are sacred to bread, and clothes, and rent; hunger, inclement\nweather, and pressing landlord forbid the study of nature 'twixt Monday\nmorn and Saturday night, and on Sunday God's ministers require to\nteach a weary people how to die, as if the lesson were not unceasingly\ninculcated in their incessant toil. Oh! horrid mockery; men need\nteaching how to live. According to religionists, this world's bitter\nmisery is a dark and certain preface, \"just published,\" to a volume of\neternal happiness, which for 2,000 years has been advertised as in the\npress and ready for publication, but which after all may never appear.\nAnd notwithstanding that every-day misery is so very potent, mankind\nseem to heed it but very little. The second edition of a paper\ncontaining the account of a battle in which some 5,000 were killed and\n10,000 wounded, is eagerly perused, but the battle in which poverty\nkills and maims hundreds of thousands, is allowed to rage without the\nuplifting of a weapon against the common enemy.\n\nThe poor in France were awakened by Rousseau's startling declaration\nthat property was spoliation, they knew they had been spoiled, the logic\nof the stomach was conclusive, empty bellies and aching brains were the\npredecessors of a revolution which sought vengeance when justice was\ndenied, but which full-stomached and empty-headed Tories of later days\nhave calumniated and denounced.\n\nWarned by the past, ought we not to-day to give battle to that curse of\nall old countries--poverty? The fearful miseries of the want of food\nand leisure which the poor have to endure are such as to seriously\nhinder their political enfranchisement. Those who desire that men and\nwomen shall have their rights of citizens, should be conscious how low\nthe poor are trampled down, and how incapable poverty renders them for\nthe performance of the duties of citizenship. So that the question of\npolitical freedom is really determined by the wealth or poverty of the\nmasses; to this extent, at any rate, that a poverty-stricken people\nmust necessarily, after that state of pauperism has existed for several\ngenerations, be an ignorant and enslaved people.\n\nThe problem is, how to remove poverty, as it is only by the removal of\npoverty that the political emancipation of the nation can be rendered\npossible. It has been ascertained that the average food of the\nagricultural laborer in England is about half that alloted by the jail\ndietary to sustain criminal life. So that the peasant who builds and\nguards his master's haystack gets worse fed and worse lodged than the\nincendiary convicted for burning it down.\n\nHow can this poverty be removed and prevented?\n\nI quote the reply from one who has written most elaborately in\nelucidation of the views of Malthus and Mill: \"There is but one possible\nmode of preventing any evil--namely, to seek for and remove its cause.\nThe cause of low wages, or in other words of Poverty, is overpopulation;\nthat is, the existence of too many people in proportion to the food,\nof too many laborers in proportion to the capital. It is of the very\nfirst importance that the attention of all who seek to remove poverty\nshould never be diverted from this great truth. The disproportion\nbetween the numbers and the food is the _only real cause_ of social\npoverty. Individual cases of poverty may be produced by individual\nmisconduct, such as drunknness, ignorance, laziness, or disease; but\nthese and all other accidental influences must be wholly thrown out\nof the question in considering the permanent cause, and aiming at the\nprevention of poverty. Drunknness and ignorance, moreover, are far more\nfrequently the _effect_ than the cause of poverty. Population and food,\nlike two runners of unequal swiftness chained together, advance side by\nside; but the ratio of increase of the former is so immensely superior\nto that of the latter, that it is necessarily greatly _checked_; and the\nchecks are of course either more deaths or fewer births--that is, either\npositive or preventive.\"\n\nUnless the _necessity_ of the preventive or positive checks to\npopulation be perceived; unless it be clearly seen, that they must\noperate in one form, if not in another; and that _though individuals\nmay escape them, the race can not_; human society is a hopeless and\ninsoluble riddle.\n\nQuoting John Stuart Mill, the writer from whom the foregoing extracts\nhave been made, proceeds:\n\n\"The great object of statesmanship should be to raise the habitual\nstandard of comfort among the working classes, and to bring them into\nsuch a position as shows them most clearly that their welfare depends\nupon themselves. For this purpose he advises that there should be,\nfirst, an extended scheme of national emigration, so as to produce a\nstriking and sudden improvement in the condition of the laborers left\nat home, and raise their standard of comfort; also that the population\ntruths should be disseminated as widely as possible, so that a powerful\npublic feeling should be awakened among the working classes against\nundue procreation on the part of any individual among them--a feeling\nwhich could not fail greatly to influence individual conduct; and also\nthat we should use every endeavor to get rid of the present system of\nlabor--namely, that of employers, and employed, and adopt to a great\nextent that of independent or associated industry. His reason for this\nis, that a hired laborer, who has no personal interest in the work he\nis engaged in, is generally reckless and without foresight, living\nfrom hand to mouth, and exerting little control over his powers of\nprocreation; whereas the laborer who has a personal stake in his work,\nand the feeling of independence and self-reliance which the possession\nof property gives, as, for instance, the peasant proprietor, or member\nof a copartnership, has far stronger motives for self-restraint, and can\nsee much more clearly the evil effects of having a large family.\"\n\nThe end in view in all this is the attainment of a greater amount of\nhappiness for humankind. The rendering life more worth the living, by\ndistributing more equally than at present its love, its beauties, and\nits charms. In one of his most recent publications, Mr. John Stuart Mill\nobserves:\n\n\"In a world in which there is so much to interest, so much to enjoy, and\nso much also to correct and improve, every one who has a moderate amount\nof moral and intellectual requisites is capable of an existence which\nmay be called enviable; and unless such a person, through bad laws,\nor subjection to the will of others, is denied the liberty to use the\nsources of happiness within his reach, he will not fail to find tins\nenviable existence, if he escape the positive evils of life, the great\nsources of physical and mental suffering, such as indigence, disease,\nand the unkindness, worthlessness, or premature loss of objects of\naffection. Yet no one whose opinion deserves a moment's consideration,\ncan doubt that most of the great positive evils of the world are in\nthemselves removable, and will, if human affairs continue to improve, be\nin the end reduced within narrow limits. Poverty, in any sense implying\nsuffering, may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society,\ncombined with the good sense and providence of individuals. Even that\nmost intractable of enemies, disease, may be indefinitely reduced in\ndimensions by good physical and moral education and proper control of\nnoxious influences, while the progress of science holds out a promise\nfor the future of still more direct conquests over this detestable foe.\"\n\nIn a former pamphlet, \"Jesus, Shelly, and Malthus,\" the reader's\nattention was entreated to this grave question. In a few pages it is\nimpossible to do more than erect a fingerpost to point out a possible\nroad to a given end. To attempt in a narrow compass to give complete\ndetails, would be as unwise as it would be unavailing. My desire is\nrather to provoke discussion among the masses than to obtain willing\nauditors among the few, and I affirm it, therefore, as a proposition\nwhich I am prepared to support, \"That the political conditions of the\npeople can never be permanently reformed until the cause of poverty has\nbeen discovered and the evil itself prevented and removed.\"\n\n\n\n\nWHY DO MEN STARVE?\n\nWhy is it that human beings are starved to death, in a wealthy country\nlike England, with its palaces, its cathedrals, and its abbeys; with its\ngrand mansions, and luxurious dwellings, with its fine inclosed parks,\nand strictly guarded preserves; with its mills, mines, and factories;\nwith its enormous profits to the capitalist; and with its broad acres\nand great rent rolls to the landholder? The feet that men, old, young,\nand in the prime of life; that women, and that children, do so die, is\nindisputable. The paragraph in the daily journals, headed \"Death from\nStarvation,\" or \"Another Death from Destitution,\" is no uncommon one to\nthe eyes of the careful reader.\n\nIn a newspaper of one day, December 24, 1864, may be read the verdict\nof a London jury that \"the deceased, Robert Bloom, died from the mortal\neffects of effusion on the brain and disease of the lungs, arising from\nnatural causes, but the said death was accelerated by destitution, and\nby living in an ill-ventilated room, and in a court wanting in sanitary\nrequirements;\" and the verdict of another jury, presided over by the\nvery Coroner who sat on the last case, \"that the deceased, Mary Hale,\nwas found dead in a certain room from the mortal effects of cold and\nstarvation;\" as also the history of a poor wanderer from the Glasgow\nCity Poor House found dead in the snow.\n\nIn London, the hive of the world, with its merchant millionaires, even\nunder the shadow of the wealth pile, starvation is as busy as if in\nthe most wretched and impoverished village; busy, indeed, not always\nstriking the victim so obtrusively that the coroner's inquest shall\npreserve a record of the fact, but more often busy quietly, in the\nwretched court and narrow lane, up in the garret, and down in the\ncellar, stealing by slow degrees the life of the poor.\n\nWhy does it happen that Christian London, with its magnificent houses\nfor God, has so many squalid holes for the poor? Christianity from its\nthousand pulpits teaches, \"Ask and it shall be given to you,\" \"who if\nhis son ask bread, will he give him a stone?\" yet with much prayer the\nbread is too frequently not enough, and it is, alas! not seldom that the\nprayer for bread gets the answer in the stone of the paved street, where\nhe lays him down to die. The prayer of the poor outcast is answered\nby hunger, misery, disease, crime and death, and yet the Bible says,\n\"Blessed be ye poor.\"' Ask the orthodox clergyman why men starve, why\nmen are poor and miserable; he will tell you that it is God's will; that\nit is a punishment for man's sins. And so long as men are content to\nbelieve that it is God's will that the majority of humankind should have\ntoo little happiness, so long will it be impossible effectually to get\nthem to listen to the answer to this great question.\n\nMen starve because the great bulk of them are ignorant of the great\nlaw of population, the operation of which controls their existence and\ndetermines its happiness or misery. They starve because pulpit teachers\nhave taught them for centuries to be content with the state of life in\nwhich it has pleased God to call them, instead of teaching them how to\nextricate themselves from the misery, degradation, and ignorance which a\ncontinuance of poverty entails.\n\nMen starve because the teachers have taught heaven instead of earth, the\nnext world instead of this. It is now generally admitted by those who\nhave investigated the subject that there is a tendency in all animated\nlife to increase beyond the nourishment nature produces. In the human\nrace, there is a constant endeavor on the part of its members to\nincrease beyond the means of subsistence within their reach. The want\nof food to support this increase operates, in the end, as a positive\nobstacle to the further spread of population, and men are starved\nbecause the great mass of them have neglected to listen to one of\nnature's clearest teachings. The unchecked increase of population is in\na geometrical ratio, the increase of food for their subsistence is in\nan arithmetical ratio. That is, while humankind would increase in\nproportion as 1, 2, 4, 8,16, 32, 64, 128, 256, food would only increase\nas 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The more the mouths the less the proportion\nof food. While the restraint to an increase of population is thus a want\nof food, and starvation is the successful antagonist of struggling human\nlife, it is seldom that this obstacle operates immediately--its dealing\nis more often indirectly against its victims. Those who die of actual\nfamine are few indeed compared with those who die from various forms of\ndisease, induced by scarcity of the means of subsistence. If any of my\nreaders doubt this, their doubts may be removed by a very short series\nof visits to the wretched homes of the paupers of our great cities.\nSuicide is the refuge mainly of those who are worn out in a bitter,\nand, to them, a hopeless struggle against accumulated ills. Disease,\nsuffering, and misery are the chief causes of the prevalence of\nsuicide in our country, and suicide is therefore one form, although\ncomparatively minute, in which the operation of the law of population\nmay be traced.\n\nFrom dread of the pangs of poverty, men, women, and children are driven\nto unwholesome occupations, which destroy not only the health of the man\nand woman actually employed, but implant the germs of physical disease\nin their offspring. A starving woman seeking food mixes white lead with\noil and turpentine for a paltry pittance, which provides bare existence\nfor her and those who share it; in a few weeks, she is so diseased she\ncan work no longer, and the hospital and grave in turn receive her.\nMen and women are driven to procure bread by work in lead mines; they\nrapidly dig their own graves, and not alone themselves, but their\nwretched offspring, are death-stricken as the penalty; the lead poisons\nthe blood of parent and child alike. Young women and children work\nat artificial flower-making, and soon their occupation teaches that\nScheele's and Schweenfurth green, bright and pleasing colors to the eye,\nare death's darts too often fatally aimed.\n\nThe occupation may be objected to as unhealthy; but the need for food is\ngreat, and the woman's or child's wages, wretchedly little though they\nare, yet help to fill the mouths at home: so the wage is taken till the\nworker dies. Here, again, the checks to an increase of population all\nstop short of starvation--the victims are poisoned instead of starved.\nSo where some forty or fifty young girls are crowded into a badly\nventilated work-room, not large enough for half the number, from early\nin the morning till even near midnight, when orders press; or in some\nwork-room where slop clothes are made, and twenty-five tailors are\nhuddled together in a little parlor scarce wide enough for three--they\nwork to live, and die slowly while they work. They are not starved, but\nis this sort of asphyxiation much better? The poor, are not only driven\nto unhealthy, but also to noisome, dwellings. There are in London,\nLiverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, and other large cities,\nfearful alleys, with wretched houses, and small ill-ventilated rooms,\neach room containing a family, the individuals of which are crowded\ntogether under conditions so wretched that disease, and often speedy\ndeath, is the only possible result. In the East of London, ten, eleven,\nand, in some cases, fourteen persons have been found sleeping in one\nwretched little room. Is it wonderful that some of these misery-stricken\nones die before they have time to starve? From poverty the mother,\nobliged to constantly work that the miserable pittance she gets may\nyield enough to sustain bare life, is unable properly to nurse and care\nfor baby-child, and often quick death, or slow but certain disease,\nending ultimately in the grave, is the result.\n\nThe poor live by wages. Wages popularly signify the amount of money\nearned by the laborer in a given time; but the real value of the\nmoney-wages is the amount in quantity and quality of the means of\nsubsistence which the laborer can purchase with that money. Wages may\nbe nominally high, but really low, if the food and commodities to be\npurchased are, at the same time, dear in price. An undue increase\nof population reduces wages in more than one way; it reduces them in\neffect, if not in nominal amount, by increasing the price of the food\nto be purchased; and it also reduces the nominal amount, because the\nnominal amount depends on the amount of capital at disposal for employ,\nand the number of laborers seeking employment. No remedies for low\nwages, no scheme for the prevention and removal of poverty, can ever be\nefficacious until they operate on and through the minds and habits of\nthe masses.\n\nIt is not from rich men that the poor must hope for deliverance from\nstarvation. It is not to charitable associations the wretched must\nappeal. Temporary alleviation of the permanent evil is the best that can\nbe hoped for from such aids. It is by the people that the people must be\nsaved. Measures which increase the dependence of the poor on charitable\naid can only temporarily benefit one portion of the laboring class while\ninjuring another in the same proportion; and charity, if carried far,\nmust inevitably involve the recipients in ultimate ruin and degradation\nby destroying their mutual self-reliance. The true way to improve the\nworker, in all cases short of actual want of the necessaries of life,\nis to throw him entirely on his own resources, but at the same time to\nteach him how he may augment those resources to the utmost. It is only\nby educating the ignorant poor to a consciousness of the happiness\npossible to them, as a result of their own exertions, that you can\ninduce them effectually to strive for it. But, alas! as Mr. Mill justly\nobserves, \"Education is not compatible with extreme poverty. It is\nimpossible effectually to teach an indigent population.\" The time\noccupied in the bare struggle to exist leaves but few moments and fewer\nopportunities for mental cultivation to the very poor.\n\nThe question of wages and their relation to capital and population, a\nquestion which interests a poor man so much, is one on which he formerly\nhardly ever thought at all, and on which even now he thinks much too\nseldom. It is necessary to impress on the laborer that the rate of wages\ndepends on the proportion between population and capital. If population\nincreases without an increase of capital, wages fall; the number or\ncompetitors in the labor market being greater, and the fund to provide\nfor them not having increased proportionately, and, if capital increases\nwithout an increase of population, wages rise. Many efforts have been\nmade to increase wages, but none of them can be permanently successful\nwhich do not include some plan for preventing a too rapid increase\nof laborers. Population has a tendency to increase, and has increased\nfaster than capital; this is evidenced by the poor and miserable\ncondition of the great body of the people in most of the old countries\nof the world, a condition which can only be accounted for upon one of\ntwo suppositions, either that there is a natural tendency in population\nto increase faster than capital, or that capital has, by some means,\nbeen prevented from increasing as rapidly as it might have done. That\npopulation has such a tendency to increase that, unchecked, it would\ndouble itself in a small number of years--say twenty-five--is a\nproposition which most writers of any merit concur in, and which may be\neasily proven. In some instances, the increase has been even still more\nrapid. That capital has not increased sufficiently is evident from\nthe existing state of society. But that it could increase under any\ncircumstances with the same rapidity as is possible to population is\ndenied. The increase of capital is retarded by an obstacle which does\nnot exist in the case of population.. The augmentation of capital is\npainful. It can only be effected by abstaining from immediate enjoyment.\nIn the case of augmentation of population precisely the reverse obtains.\nThere the temporary and immediate pleasure is succeeded by the\npermanent pain. The only possible mode of raising wages permanently, and\neffectually benefiting the poor, is by so educating them that they shall\nbe conscious that their welfare depends upon the exercise of a greater\ncontrol over their passions.\n\nIn penning this brief paper, my desire has been to provoke among the\nworking classes a discussion and careful examination of the teachings of\npolitical economy, as propounded by Mr. J. S. Mill and those other\nable men who, of late, have devoted themselves to elaborating and\npopularizing the doctrines enunciated by Malthus. While I am glad to\nfind that there are some among the masses who are inclined to preach\nand put in practice the teachings of the Malthusian School of political\neconomists, I know that they are yet few in comparison with the great\nbody of the working classes who have been taught to look upon the\npolitical economist as the poor man's foe. It is nevertheless among\nthe working men alone, and, in the very ranks of the starvers, that the\neffort must be made to check starvation. The question is again before\nus: How are men to be prevented from starving? Not by strikes, during\nthe continuance of which food is scarcer than before. No combinations of\nworkmen can obtain high wages if the number of workers is too great.\nIt is not by a mere struggle of class against class that the poor\nman's ills can be cured. The working classes can alleviate their own\nsufferings. They can, by co-operative schemes, which have the advantage\nof being educational in their operation, temporarily and partially\nremedy some of the evils, if not by increasing the means of subsistence,\nat any rate by securing a larger portion of the result of labor to the\nproper sustenance of the laborer. Systems of associated industry are of\nimmense benefit to the working classes, not alone or so much from the\npecuniary improvement they result in, but because they develop in each\nindividual a sense of dignity and independence which he lacks as a mere\nhired laborer. They can permanently improve their condition by taking\nsuch steps as shall prevent too rapid an increase of their numbers, and,\nby thus checking the supply of laborers, they will, as capital augments,\nincrease the rate of wages paid to the laborer. The steady object\nof each working man should be to impress on his fellow-worker the\nimportance of this subject. Let each point out to his neighbor not only\nthe frightful struggle in which a poor man must engage who brings up a\nlarge family, but also that the result is to place in the labor market\nmore claimants tor a share of the fund which has hitherto been found\ninsufficient to keep the working classes from death by starvation.\n\nThe object of this pamphlet will be amply attained if it serve as the\nmeans of inducing some of the working classes to examine for themselves\nthe teachings of Political Economy. All that is at present needed is\nthat laboring men and women should be accustomed, both publicly and at\nhome, to the consideration and discussion of the views and principles\nfirst openly propounded by Mr. Malthus, and since elaborated by Mr. Mill\nand other writers. The mere investigation of the subject will of itself\nserve to bring to the notice of the masses many facts hitherto entirely\nignored by them. All must acknowledge the terrible ills resulting from\npoverty, and all therefore are bound to use their faculties to discover\nif possible its cause and cure. It is more than folly for the working\nman to permit himself to be turned away from the subject by the cry\nthat the Political Economists have no sympathy with the poor. If\nthe allegation were true, which it is not, it would only afford an\nadditional reason why this important science should find students among\nthose who most need aid from its teachings.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LAND QUESTION.\n\nLARGE ESTATES INIMICAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE\n\nProperty in land differs from ordinary property. Wealth, which is the\naccumulated result of labor, is sometimes, but not often, accumulated\nin the hands of the laborer, and is more frequently accumulated in the\nhands of some person who has purchased the result of the laborers\ntoil. Such personal wealth is capable of indefinite increase; and\nthe exclusive right to its disposal is protected in the hands of its\npossessor, so long as he does not avail himself of this legal protection\nto use the wealth mischievously to his fellows. There would be no\nincentive in the laborer to economy, or to increased exertion, unless\nthe State gave him reasonable protection in the enjoyment of his\nsavings. Unfortunately, to obtain the protection of the authorities,\nhe has in this country to give up an unreasonably large portion of his\nearnings to defray the cost of local and imperial Government. During the\nreign of her present Majesty, imperial taxation alone has increased from\nabout \u00a348,000,000 to \u00a373,833,000. The State has no right to interfere\nwith a man's daily disposition of his personal wealth, merely on the\nground that he might have used it more advantageously for his fellows.\nWith land it is quite different; it is limited in extent, and the\nportions of it capable of producing food with ease to the cultivator are\nstill more limited. Every individual member of the commonwealth has an\nindefeasible interest in the totality of the land, and no man ought\nto assert an absolute freehold in land hostile to the interest of his\nfellow. The land is part of the general soil of the State, and should be\nheld subject to the general welfare of the citizens. No man has a right\nso to hold land that his tenure is detrimental to the happiness of the\ndwellers upon it or around it. This principle is already recognized in\nmuch of our legislation. A man can not say to a railway company--which\nhas obtained the usual compulsory powers of taking land--\"You shall not\ncross my private estate;\" the law would answer, if he did, by saying,\n\"The railway is for the good of the State; you as an individual must\ngive way to the general good, and must lose your land, receiving a fair\nand reasonable money value for it.\" This principle should be applied\nmore widely: and if it be for the good of the commonwealth that some\nof the enormous land monopolies of this country should be broken up, no\nstatesman ought to be deterred by the mere dread of interfering with the\nso-called rights of private property.\n\nMr. Mill says: \"When the 'sacredness of property' is talked of, it\nshould always be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong\nin the same degree to landed property. No man made the land. It is the\noriginal inheritance of the whole species. Its appropriation is wholly\na question of general expediency. When private property in land is not\nexpedient it is unjust.\" The possession of land involves and carries\nwith it the duty of cultivating that land, and, in fact, individual\nproprietorship of soil is only defensible so long as the possessor can\nshow improvement and cultivation of the land he holds. To quote again\nfrom Mr. John Stuart Mill: \"The essential principle of property being\nto assure to all persons what they have produced by their labor, and\naccumulated by their abstinence, this principle can not apply to that\nwhich is not the produce of labor, the raw material of the earth.\"\nMr. Mill urges that property in land \"is only valid in so far as the\nproprietor of the land is its improver.\" \"In no sound theory of private\nproperty was it ever contemplated that the proprietor of land should be\nmerely a sinecurist quartered upon it.\" Yet, in England and Wales alone,\nthe landlords who received for rent, in the year 1800, \u00a322,500,000, now\nreceive about \u00a367,000,000, and for this have no obligation on them to\ncultivate. The holding cultivable land in an uncultivated condition in\nthis overcrowded country ought to be made a statutory misdemeanor, the\npenalty for which should be the forfeiture to the State of the land\nso left uncultivated, at, say, a twenty years' purchase of its annual\nreturn in the neglected or misapplied state in which it was found at the\ntime of conviction. The true theory of landholding should be that the\nState should be the only freeholder, all other tenures being limited\nin character; and cultivation ought to be a special condition of\ntenancy.... The holder of land should either cultivate it with his own\nhands, or, as would be most frequently the case, by the hands of others;\nbut in the latter case, the landed proprietor is bound to allow the\nagricultural laborer to live by his labor. By living I mean that the\nlaborer should have healthy food, shelter, and clothing, and sufficient\nleisure in which to educate himself and his family, besides the\nnecessary leisure for rest from his labors. At present agricultural\nlaborers do not live; they only drag wearily through a career but little\nhigher in any respect than--and often not half so comfortable as--that\nof many of the other animals on the estate....\n\nLittle boys and girls, in the Midland, Eastern, Southern, and\nSouthwestern counties of England, go into the fields to work, in some\ninstances, soon after six years of age; in very many cases before they\nare seven years old, and in nearly all cases before they have attained\neight. It is true, that the work at first may be the comparatively idle\nwork of scaring birds or tending sheep, but it involves exposure of the\nchild's yet delicate frame in the cold and damp of spring, and then to\nthe heat of the summer sun, from day-dawn to evening. This too often\nresults in the stunted growth and diseased frame found so frequently\namong the English poor. I say nothing of the demoralization of children\nconsequent on their employment, without regard to sex, in the\nfield gangs. I pass by the fact that work at this early age utterly\nincapacitates them, as a body, for mental effort. It is enough to\ndeclare that no child ought to have to work on the land until he is ten\nyears of age, and if I am told that the fathers--only earning, in the\nmajority of instances, from nine to thirteen shillings per week--need\nthe additional petty wage these wretched babes may bring home, then\nagain I answer, that it is to the landholder's enormous income that the\nState ought to look for the means of educating the too often worse than\nsavages who are reared on his estate, and who by their labors swell his\nrent-roll.\n\nThat a few landed proprietors should have gigantic incomes, while the\nmass of the people are so poor--that in Gloucester, the Rev. Mr. Frazer\ndescribes \"type after type of social life almost degraded to the level\nof barbarism\"--that near Lavenham, \"the cottages are unfit for human\nhabitation\"--that in Norfolk the Parliamentary returns speak of their\ndwellings in one as \"miserable,\" in a second as \"deplorable,\" in a third\nas \"detestable,\" in a fourth as \"a disgrace to a Christian community;\"\nwhile near Docking, we are told, in consequence of the overcrowding of\nthe wretched poor, \"the whole atmosphere is sensual, and human nature is\ndegraded into something below the level of the swine.\" This is a state\nof things that if the landholders will not redress willingly they must\nbe made to remedy before it is too late.\n\nA few men have vast estates and excessive incomes; the millions\nhave seldom an inch of land until they inherit the grave, and have a\nstarvation wage out of which a proportion is taken back for rent.\nTake the vast property of the Marquis of Westminster, whose income is\ncredibly stated at something near a million a year; or that of the Duke\nof Devonshire, amounting to 96,000 acres in the county of Derby alone,\nwithout regarding his Irish or other estates; or that of the Duke of\nNorfolk, whose Sussex estate is fifteen miles in circuit; or that of\nthe Duke of Sutherland, which stretches across and contains the whole\nof Sutherlandshire from sea to sea; or that of the Marquis of Bute,\non which \u00a32,000,-000 sterling were spent by his trustees during his\nminority; or that of the Marquis of Breadalbane, who is said to be able\nto ride from his own door one hundred miles straight to the sea on his\nown freehold land; or those of the Duke of Richmond and Lord Leconfield,\nwho between them own nearly the whole of the eastern portion of the\ncounty of Sussex, containing nearly 800 square miles. And such estates\nhave a tendency to increase rather than to diminish. In Northumberland,\nthe Ducal proprietor, whose titular rank is derived from the county, is\na constant purchaser of any lands put up for sale. Mr. Bright, in 1864,\nspoke of one nobleman who devoted \u00a380,000 a year of his income to the\npurchase of additional land.\n\nThese large properties must all be broken up; they paralyze the people,\nand they corrupt their possessors. We prefer that the breaking up shall\nbe voluntary and gradual, but it must begin at once, for hungry bellies\nare multiplying daily.\n\nThe State ought to put the peasantry in possession of the land, and this\nmight be done in several ways at the same time.\n\n1. There is the Prussian Land System, a modification of which might be\nmade to work well here, and which since 1850 has enabled the smallest\noccupiers of peasants' land to acquire the proprietorship at twenty\nyears' purchase; the amount of which is paid to the landlord, not in\nmoney, but in rent debentures issued by authority of the State, and\nbearing four per cent, interest, and gradually redeemable by means of\nthe one per cent, difference, which at compound interest extinguishes\nthe principal in a little over forty-one years. The Prussian peasant\nhas, however, two other options: he may pay less by one-tenth to the\nState bank than the rent he formerly paid to his landlord, in which case\nthe purchase debentures take fifty-six years to redeem; or he may, if\nhe can raise the cash, compel his landlord to accept eighteen years'\npurchase money of the annual rent. By this means nearly 100,000 peasant\nproprietors have been created in Prussia. Kent debentures to the extent\nof many millions have been issued to the landholders, and in less than\nnineteen years more than one-eighth of the debentures issued have been\nentirely redeemed and extinguished.\n\n2. The Legislature should declare that leaving cultivable land\nuncultivated gave the Government the right to take possession of such\nland, assessing it by its actual return for the last live years, and\nnot by its real value, and handing to the proprietor the amount of, say,\ntwenty years' purchase in Consolidated Stock, redeemable in a limited\nterm of years. The land so taken should not be sold at all, but should\nbe let out to persons willing to become cultivators, on sufficiently\nlong terms of tenancy to fairly recoup his labor and capital to the\ncultivator, who should yearly pay into the National Treasury, in lieu\nof all other imperial taxes, a certain proportion of the value of the\nannual produce.\n\n3. The game laws should be abolished. Game preserving in England is not\nonly injurious, in that it diverts land capable of corn-bearing from the\npurpose it should fulfill, of growing corn to feed the starving, but\nit is injurious in that it prevents proper cultivation of surrounding\nfarms, and demoralizes and makes criminals of the neighboring\nagriculturial laborers, creating for them a kind and degree of crime\nwhich would be otherwise unknown. Poaching, which is so severely\npunished, is actually fostered and encouraged by the very landholders\nwho punish it. Pheasants and partridges' eggs are bought to stock\npreserves; the gamekeepers who buy these eggs shut their eyes to the\nmode in which they have been procured. The lad who was encouraged to\nprocure the eggs finds himself in jail when he learns that shooting or\ntrapping pheasants gains a higher pecuniary reward than leading the plow\nhorse, or trimming the hedge, or grubbing the plantation. Poaching is\nthe natural consequence of rearing a large number of rabbits, hares,\npartridges, and pheasants, in the midst of an underpaid, underfed,\nbadly-housed, and deplorably ignorant body of people. The brutal\noutrages of gamekeepers of which we read so much are the regretable but\neasily-traceable measure of retaliation for a system which takes a baby\nchild to work in the fields soon after six years of age, which\ntrains all his worst propensities and deadens and degrades his better\nfaculties, which keeps him in constant wretchedness, and tantalizes\nhim with the sight of hundreds of acres on which game runs and flies\nwell-fed, under his very nose, while he limps ill-fed along the muddy\nlane which skirts the preserve--game, which is at liberty to come out of\nits covert and eat and destroy the farmer's crop, but which is even then\nmade sacred by the law, and fenced round by covenants, as in a Leitrim\nlease. The game laws must go; they starve our population by using land\nwhich might be golden to the autumn sun with the waving crop of wheat,\nbarley, and rye; they feed our prisons, and rear a criminal class in\nour midst, who have to be prosecuted and guarded at great cost, and\nall because hares and pheasants are higher in the landowners' eyes than\nhuman beings.\n\n5. Any person holding more than, say, 5,000 acres of land, should be\ntaxed at a far heavier rate than those having smaller holdings. That\nis, presuming, in order to take a figure as basis, the land-tax on 5,000\nacres to be at the rate of 1s. per acre, then on every acre above that\nquantity it should be 2s. per acre up to 10,000 acres, and from thence\n5s. per acre up to 15,000 acres, and from thence 10s. per acre up to\n20,000 acres, so as to discourage all extravagantly large holdings.\n\n6. The law of primogeniture should be repealed; the settlement of\nproperty, except for a widow and her children, be entirely prohibited\nand some limitation should be put on the power of devise, so as to\nprevent, say, the Marquis of Westminster from leaving the bulk of his\nproperty to his eldest son, while the younger ones are left as noble\npaupers, to be provided with places and pensions by the nation. Land\nshould be made as easily and as cheaply transferable as any personal\nchattel.\n\nThe present land monopoly must be broken by legislation, or it will be\ndestroyed by revolution.\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Few Words About the Devil, and Other Biographical Sketches and Essays","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":77961}