Chapter III: Part 3

_Bystander_. I think, has not correctly apprehended the materialistic position here, and hence the argument for a "something before both matter and force which produced them," being built upon a postulated premiss which we cannot accept, has no weight in establishing the existence of a God behind matter and force. His error lies in the assumption of the possibility of matter and force existing separately and independently. He asks, "Which of the two is the First Principle?" Our answer is, there can be no _first_ as between matter and force, for there can be no matter without force, and _vice versa_. The two are inseparable, even in conception, and the existence of one is absolutely essential to the existence of the other. Hence the argument proceeding from the assumption of their divisibility and possible independence fails. The Theist has no right whatever, logically speaking, to assume that there "must have been something before matter and force which produced them." So long as matter and force are amply adequate (as far as we can discern) to the production of all cognizable phenomena, we are not warranted in assuming the existence of any being or thing behind them. As soon as the Theist does this, we have the logical right to carry his reasoning further, and at once assume something else behind it again, and thus not only one but a thousand gods could be postulated without the shadow of real proof of one of them.

There is an ultimate ground, however, upon which the Theist and Materialist may meet in common, and, so far as I can see, the only ultimate position they can occupy in perfect corelation. The universe exists; man as a part of the universe--a mode of existence--is here; in this we agree. Man, then, being himself the highest intelligence he knows of, continually seeks an explanation of the universe and of himself as a part of it. This is the common ground upon which we all stand--Rationalist, Theist, Agnostic, Atheist--barbarous and civilized--the weakest and the mightiest intellect.

All seek to explain the great mystery of the universe--some one way, some another--from the rude thaumaturgic fancies of the primitive barbarian up to the abstruse speculations and subtle reasonings of the cultured Pantheist, intellectual Agnostic, and logical Materialist. It is true one may be more reasonable and logical than the rest (as I undoubtedly think is the case), yet they all occupy the common ground of uncertainty. Not one can _demonstrate_ his position, and in this we are all alike. (One, however, among all the rest thinks he _knows_ he is _right_ and can prove it, viz., the dogmatic Christian Theist.) We may all, therefore, stand together in the presence of Nature and acknowledge our ignorance. Though each school has its theory, its hypothesis, its solution, yet the mystery of the mighty universe is still an unsolved problem.

REPLY TO "A RATIONALIST"

We have another reply to Ingersoll in a pamphlet of twenty pages, issued in Toronto, with the following modest title:--"A Refutation of Col. R. G. Ingersoll's Lectures, by 'A Rationalist.'" This proemial announcement is certainly calculated to excite high expectations; but it is only necessary to look into the rational (?) "refutation" (?) to see that the names the writer has given himself and pamphlet are both misnomers. How such an irrational jumble of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, obsolete philosophy, and moribund metaphysics could by any possibility pass for rationalism, even in the eyes of its author, is one of those profound mysteries which "no fellah can understand." Is it not a little singular that all these "replies" and "refutations" from the orthodox side come from theological nondescripts--from men who are but half orthodox (the other half not being recognizable), and not one reply from a thoroughly orthodox champion? A correlative fact, not without much significance, is that, though no argument comes from the orthodox side, the denunciations all come from that source. On the other hand in proportion as the opposing champion is unorthodox, in that ratio is he tolerant, courteous, and in favor of free speech and equal rights. "A Rationalist's" essay is pervaded by the kindliest spirit personally towards his opponent, and this, in a measure, redeems its literary and logical defects.

Though "Rationalist" zealously defends the Bible, and argues for a God, it is impossible to tell how much of the Bible he accepts, or what God he believes in. He says, "every jot and tittle of the Bible is inspired," yet in another place tells us, "The Apostle Paul is not one of the inspired writers," as "His words will not bear a spiritual interpretation." It would, therefore, seem that no part of the Bible is inspired except that which will stand this method of "spiritual interpretation." To get rid of the numerous errors, absurdities, and immoralities contained in the Bible, "Rationalist" spiritualizes them. He has a first-class recondite and spiritual meaning for every one of them, which seems to be entirely satisfactory--to himself. With the utmost facility everything is explained away; and armed with his occult style of Bible exegesis he can laugh at the infidel scientist. He says we must "rub off the literal meaning" in order to get at the spiritual, and by this convenient method every difficulty between the two sacred lids vanishes into thin air. This "rubbing off" business he also applies to the God of the Bible, whose characteristic _anthropomorphism_ "Rationalist," of course, rubs all off, even his _intelligence_. So that there would seem to be little more left of the Jewish Jehovah, under modern scriptural exegesis, than what Beecher describes as a "dim and shadowy influence." "Rationalist" divests Deity of intelligence to escape the effects of the following argument:--

Intelligence presupposes a greater intelligence,

God has intelligence,

Therefore, there must be an intelligence greater than God.

Seeing the logical force of this, he quibbles thus: "We do not say that God _has_ intelligence, but that God _is_ wisdom in form and love in essence, and therefore the infinite source of all intelligence." This will not do, Mr. "Rationalist!" It is entirely too vague. You must either contend for a personal or an impersonal God. Give us either Deism or Pantheism, and not an incongruous mixture, and then we will know on what ground to meet you. If you mean that God is simply the aggregate, or even the essence, of all intelligence, all love, all good, why this is a mere abstraction, and even an Atheist might accept it; but if you are contending for anything like the Christian's God, as set forth in the Bible, you will have to alter your definitions very materially.

As a specimen illustration of "Rationalist's" spiritual method of resolving Scriptural difficulties I give below his version of the story of Elisha, the children, and the bears, under the "rubbing off" process. We, Freethinkers, he says, will not "object to the bears" when we understand what the story means, and here is his elucidation, _verbatim et literatim_:--

"Elisha represents the external or literal words of Holy Writ on which the mantle of spiritual truth still rests. Children represent affections--don't fond mothers even yet call them 'little loves?'--They also correspond to the opposite, and so evil loves which destroy obedience to the external life of goodness, taught in, at least, some of the literal words of Scripture, naturally mock at the baldness of Elisha. Baldness, since it refers to the head, and the head corresponds to that union of will and intellect in man which rules, and is, the life, and ultimates in the very extreme of its very minute external, corresponds to the most external of the will and thought of Elisha, who represents the literal meaning of Scripture. So this incident means that evil loves could see no ultimate good to _themselves_ in the doing of any good in a practical every-day way even where that was clearly enjoined, and rendered as beautiful externally as hair is, and therefore mocked at it, or rather at what seemed to them the lack of it. Then the bears, which correspond to the animal passions of the animal man, came out of the woods--woods correspond to the natural perceptions of natural truth in man--and utterly destroyed these evil loves out of the life. Again you see we find the same truth; that the Lord implants remains of goodness and truth in every degree of man's life, even in the natural man, fitted to cope with and conquer his evils, if man himself will but permit it."

There's a sample of "spiritual interpretation" for you! And what _clearness_ is there, dear reader! Just return to the fourth sentence of the above extract, commencing with "Baldness," and re-read it, and see if you can make anything out of it. What the sentence does really mean is to me as profound a mystery as the incantations of a Gypsy thaumaturgist. It would be interesting to get "Rationalist" to try his hand at spiritualizing some of the following passages of Holy Writ:--

"In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired," &c. "And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him" (Moses) "and sought to kill him." "I have seen God face to face." _Per Contra_: "No man hath seen God at any time." "I am the Lord, I change not, I will not go back, neither will I repent." _Per Contra_: "And God repented of the evil that he said he would do unto them, and he did it not." "There is no respect of persons with God." _Per Contra_: "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated." "I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children." _Per Contra_: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." "It is impossible for God to lie." _Per Contra_: "If the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet." "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." _Per Contra_: "And after these things Jesus would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, 'Go number Israel.'" _Per Contra_: "And Satan provoked David to number Israel." "I bear witness of myself, yet my record is true." _Per Contra_: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." "A man is not justified by the works of the law." _Per Contra_: "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified." "There shall no evil happen to the just." _Per Contra_: "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." "Wisdom's ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace." _Per Contra_: "In much wisdom is much grief and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." "It shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days." _Per Contra_: "Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power." "Thou shalt not: commit adultery." _Per Contra_: "Then said the Lord unto me, 'Go get, love a woman, an adulteress.'"

Here, certainly, is ample scope for exegetical ingenuity. The passages quoted, besides scores of others, many of them too indecent for these pages, would seem to require the touch of "Rationalist's" spiritual interpretation wand. When the literal meaning is "rubbed off," the occult, spiritual meaning will appear.

As a sample of "Rationalist's" metaphysical philosophy I give the following:--

"Will and love are identical... Will or love is life. A man cannot think unless he wills to think; and he can only think that which he wills--only that and nothing more. He can only do what he wills and thinks. There is no action which is not the effect of will and its thought. A man wills in order to think," etc. He also tells us that God gave man a will "as _free_ as His own." Matter is spoken of as "mere dead inert matter."

Is more evidence than this needed that "Rationalist" is living in the past, and has utterly failed to grasp modern thought? His philosophy is bad, but his metaphysics is worse. Any man who at this day attempts to "refute" Materialists should at least be somewhat acquainted with the results of modern thought and scientific research; but "Rationalist" has apparently advanced no further than the occult Swedenborgian mysticism of the last century. Further, to talk to-day of "dead inert matter," is to talk the language of an obsolete philosophy of the past; for modern science and philosophy alike agree that matter is not "that mere empty _capacity_ which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the universal mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb." As Pope says:--

"See thro' this air, this ocean, and this earth, All matter quick and bursting into birth."

Equally absurd is this talk about "Free Will" and "Free Moral Agency." These metaphysico-theological dogmas have melted in the light of mental science, and are now as "dead as a door nail," of which fact "Rationalist" will be convinced if he will take the trouble to look into Hamilton, Combe, Mill, Buckle, Lewes, Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall, and he will then, probably, write no more such nonsense as quoted above. It is not necessary, however, for any observant and thoughtful man to go to any authorities outside his own mind to be convinced of the fallacy of the "Free Will" dogma, for his own observation and reflection will do it. And "Rationalist" can have the same conviction without the aid of science or philosophy,--without even observation or reflection. Let him turn to his Bible, which he champions, and read it, and he will find abundant proof (such as it is) that man's will is not free. Let him read the 8th, 9th and 11th Chapters of Romans. Let him then read Phil. 2, 13, "For it is God which worketh in you _both to will and to do_ of His good _pleasure_." Then read Isaiah, 46, 910, "I am God and there is none like me, _declaring the end from the beginnings_ and from ancient times _the things_ that are not _yet_ done, saying, my council shall stand, and I will do all my _pleasure_."

Now, I submit that if an omnipotent and omniscient God has "declared the end from the beginning," and ordered all "the things that are not yet done" (and you have his word for it here) how is it possible for mortal and finite man to do any thing contrary to the thing ordered, or accomplish any "end" but the one "declared from the beginning?" Here you, who believe in God and the Bible, have his word for it that he has declared all things "from the beginning." Man then _must_ do and think as God has declared, and can do nothing else, hence he is _not free_.

The idea that "a man cannot think unless he wills to think" is too preposterous (laying the Bible aside) for any reasonable man to accept who is not a slave to creeds and dogmas. Let "Rationalist," after reading this sentence, stop reading, and assume a quiescent state (for of course _his free will_ will enable him to do this)--a state of mental passivity, as it were,--let him _will nothing_ for the time being,--and then see if thoughts of some kind do not spontaneously arise in his mind. And then let him _will_ to have _no thoughts_ for the space of five minutes, and see if the thoughts do not steal into his brain (providing of course he has one) unbidden, and in spite of him--in spite of all his boasted freewill power. Let any reader put this impossible and absurd dictum of "Rationalist" to the test, and he will have a living demonstration in his own brain, which will render any further argument on this point entirely superfluous.

"Rationalist" worries himself into inextricable confusion over causes and effects, first causes, first causes and last effects, etc., etc. Because Ingersoll has said "a first cause is just as impossible as a last effect," Rationalist well nigh swamps himself in a most ludicrous "muss-of-a muddle-of-a-jerry-cum-tumble" of bad diction and worse logic to prove that by such reasoning as Ingersoll's we come to "chaos" and to "nothing," (hasn't the gentleman himself come to chaos if not to nothing?) We reason everything out of existence, he says, and just now we will have left "no nature, no God, no man, no matter" (it would be _no matter_ if some _bipids_ were gone) "no force," no "nothing"-- "literally nothing." Shades of Bacon! let us take breath; for this would certainly be a very bad state of things, from which "good Lord deliver us!" It would be nearly as bad as before the "creation," when nothing existed throughout the infinite realms of space save Jehovah himself.

I will endeavor to make what materialists mean by the impossibility of a first cause or last effect clear to "Rationalist." We believe in one existence, and only one--the universe--which, though never itself having been created or brought into existence (being eternal), is the primal (or "first" if you like) cause of all phenomena Rationalist will thus see that in one sense there is no _first came_ as the universe is eternal, yet in another sense there _is_ a first cause, viz.: the universe, as it is the primal cause of all phenomena. As to a "last effect," it should be obvious to every _rational_ mind that as matter and force are indestructible, and hence eternal in duration, there can be no last effect; for as long as matter and force exist effects must of necessity ensue.

REPLY TO REV. A. J. BRAY

It is a great relief to a Freethinker to find a man among the clergy like Mr. Bray, in point of religious liberality. It is like coming upon an oasis in the waste desert of orthodox bigotry and intolerance.

Mr. Bray is the able editor of the _Canadian Spectator_, of Montreal; and also preaches, I believe, every Sunday in Zion Church in that city. Unlike his clerical brethren generally, when Mr. Ingersoll lectured in Montreal, in April last, Mr. Bray went to hear him, and answered him from his pulpit the two following Sundays. These "Discourses" were published in the succeeding numbers of his paper, the _Spectator_. Hear him on free speech:--

"In a free country all kinds of freedom must be allowed, and Mr. Ingersoll had just as much right to come here and say his say in his own manner, and according to his own discretion, as Mr. Hammond has to come and preach and teach in his way. If men are free to agree with us, they are also free to differ with us; to differ a little, to differ much, to differ altogether. If the Mayor had found a law by which he could prohibit Ingersoll from lecturing against our religious beliefs, I would have started an agitation at once for the repeal of that absurd and antiquated law. If hearing arguments against our faith is likely to unsettle us, then we had better be unsettled. We are badly off with all our religious literature and preaching, if we cannot endure any kind of criticism, and witticism, and argument."

These are brave words, and every fair-minded man in this Dominion will agree with Mr. Bray in his liberal and courageous utterances. They are timely words to go forth in that city where the war of sects has waxed so hot and virulent of late. Montreal needs more men like Bray in her churches, to mollify the bigotry, and stamp out the bitter feuds, and fierce antagonism of Christian against Christian.

As this pamphlet has already reached a much greater length than originally intended, I have but little space to devote to Mr. Bray's Reply to Ingersoll. One or two points, however, must be noticed.

Mr. Bray falls into the same error as "Bystander" in accusing

Ingersoll of attacking a theology which, he tells us, is "opposed to all reason," and now "well nigh obsolete." I would simply say if it is "obsolete," it is the stock in trade of the Christian Church today. Take away from it this obsolete theology (which is "opposed to all reason,") and there is nothing left of Christianity worth speaking of; for the morality Christianity contains does not of right belong to it It is Pagan. It has been _appropriated_ by Christianity, and is not original with it. There is not a single moral precept in the Bible, but was taught before that book was written. (For proof of this, see Sir Wm. Jones, Max Muller, Lord Amberly, and "Supernatural Religion.") Therefore, when you take away the dogmas of Christianity--its "obsolete theology"--you take away Christianity itself to all intents and purposes. And hence the utter inconsistency and absurdity of our opponents in taxing us with merely attacking a dead theology, when that dead theology is all there is of a religion which they defend and wish to perpetuate. Seeing, then, that the theology of Christianity is admittedly dead, why not give it up and come over to us? for all you have left--the brotherhood of man--belongs to us: it is our RELIGION OF HUMANITY.

As the only salient point, to my mind, in Mr. Bray's reply to Ingersoll is dealt with in the following letter, which I addressed to the _Spectator_, and which appeared in its columns, I have only space here to reproduce that letter:--

To the Editor of the Canadian Spectator:

Sir,--In your issue of the 10th instant, in a discourse in reply to Col. Ingersoll, I find the following:--

"The lecturer, who seemed to imagine that he understood everything else, was compelled to acknowledge that he did not understand why there should be so much hunger and pain and misery. Why, the world over, life should live upon life. When he has cast Jehovah out of the Universe, he is pained and puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow. With God he cannot account for it; without God he cannot account for it. If Col. Ingersoll, or any other of that school, can give me an intelligent theory of life, and satisfactory solution of the problem of the presence of evil and pain without God, I am prepared to consider it."

Now, Sir, having the honor (or dishonor, as the case may be,) to belong to that school, I venture to take up the gauntlet thus thrown down. From our stand-point we are able, we think, to give an intelligent theory of these things; and although it may not be wholly devoid of mystery, we claim it is less mysterious than the Christian theory. We claim that the Materialistic explanation of the Universe and its phenomena is more reasonable and less mysterious than the Theistic; and this is why we find ourselves compelled to adopt it and become Atheists. On the Materialistic hypothesis of development and evolution we are certainly _not_ "puzzled to account for the presence of wrong and sorrow," however much we may be pained at their fearful prevalence. It is only on the hypothesis of being under the governance of an omnipotent and infinitely _benevolent_ Being that we are utterly unable to account for such-a state of things. Although the ultimate tendency of the forces of the-Universe seems to be towards a higher, and higher, and more perfect condition, not only for man, but all animals, and even plants, yet these-forces are, as Science abundantly proves, utterly without mercy--without pity for man or any other animal. Therefore, on the evolution philosophy of things, we can reasonably predicate pain, sorrow, and wrong; and are not puzzled at their existence. It is only on the theory of a _good_ God controlling the Universe that we stand dumb with confusion and wonderment in the presence of all this woe, pain, misery, and wrong-with which the world is filled--this terrible "struggle for life," where the-strong prey upon the weak, where animal eats animal, and man eats-man!

The theologians have had upwards of two thousand years to reduce the Materialistic paradoxes of Epicurus on the existence of evil, but have they done so? If there be a God, and He is all-powerful, He _could_ remove the _surplus_ evil and pain from the world, and if He is all-good He _would_ remove it, is an argument which has never yet been answered by a Paley, a Butler, a Dawson, or any other Christian Theist or Bible apologist. I use the phrase "_surplus_ evil and pain" for this reason: As a sort of apology for the rank malevolence abroad in the world, and as an argument for the existence of a beneficent God, Christian Theists tell us that pain is necessary as an antecedent to the proper enjoyment of pleasure; that it is necessary to the growth and development of character; that the storm of the ocean is an essential pre-requisite to the adequate enjoyment of the subsequent calm; that all smooth sailing would be monotonous and insipid. Now, we will admit this for the sake of the argument; but there yet remains the mass of _surplus_ evil to be accounted for, which is wholly unnecessary for such corrective and distributive purposes. It may, perhaps, be necessary that the tempest toss the ship about on the bosom of the ocean in order that the living freight may have a keener appreciation of the succeeding calm, and also to develop awe and sublimity in their breasts; but to accomplish this it is scarcely to the purpose to send all to the bottom of the ocean! That we may have a proper relish for our food and a due appreciation of the blessings of a good appetite, it may be necessary that we feel the pangs of hunger and starvation occasionally; but to give us this wholesome discipline it would seem hardly necessary that millions of human beings should actually be starved to death!

Now, on the theory of _inexorable law_* instead of a _beneficent Providence_, we are not surprised that a ship which is not strong enough to ride the storm should go to the bottom, even though five hundred bishops and clergymen be aboard supplicating an unknown God for succor. On the theory of inexorable and merciless law in which we are fast bound, we are not "puzzled" that millions of human beings should starve to death when these laws or conditions of Nature are violated in over-population and a false political and social economy. Or when a Tay bridge goes down with its living freight under the pressure of train and tempest, the Atheist is neither surprised nor puzzled: but the Christian, who worships a benevolent (?) God and believes that not a hair falls from his head without His notice, can only look at such a malevolent horror in dumb silence and amazement--he has no explanation. Our theory of the presence of evil in the world is, therefore, at least rational; but, is the Christian theory rational? Is it rational to-suppose that all the pain, sorrow, and evil in the world have been caused by the puerile circumstance of a woman eating an apple? This would be as monstrously unjust as it is irrational and absurd.

As to the origin and maintenance of life "without God," it is quite as comprehensible and rational without God as with one with the Christian conditions and qualifications. An universe of matter containing the "promise and potency of all forms and qualities of life" is as intelligible and comprehensible as a God _outside_ the Universe embodying the potency of all life. From the time that Lucretius declared that "Nature is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the Gods," and Bruno that matter is the "universal mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb," down to Prof. Tyndall, who discerns in matter "the promise and potency of every form and quality of life," scientists have never been able to discover the least intrusion of any creative power into the operations of

* Materialists, in using the phrase "law of Nature," use a
popular expression, but not in the popular sense as
presupposing a law-giver. By "law of Nature" we simply mean
natural sequence--the uniformity of Nature's operations.

Nature and the affairs of this world, or the least trace of interference by any God or gods. In the primeval ages of ignorance and barbarism the gods were supposed to do everything, from the production of wind, rain, tempest, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, &c, down to dyspepsia and potato-bugs. Science now explains all these things and a thousand others. Indeed, in modern philosophy there is no room for the gods in the Universe, and nothing left for them to do. And there cannot be any room _beyond_ it for them, for "above Nature we cannot rise."

The Materialistic theory (and to it we subscribe) is that there is but _one existence_, the _Universe_, and that it is eternal--without beginning or end--that the matter of the Universe never could have been created, for _ex nihilo nihil fit_, (from nothing nothing can come,) and that it contains within itself the potency adequate to the production of all phenomena. This we think to be more conceivable and intelligent than the Christian theory that there are two existences--God and the Universe--and that there was a time when there was but one existence, God, and that after an indefinite period of quiescence and "masterly inactivity" He finally created a Universe either out of Himself or out of nothing--either one of which propositions is philosophically absurd. And in either case, to say that God would be infinite would be equally absurd.

Respectfully,

ALLEN PRINGLE.

Napanee, Ont., April 23, 1880.

THE OATH QUESTION

(TO CANADIAN FREETHINKERS.)

As this Pamphlet will be widely circulated throughout Canada (especially Ontario), it will come into the hands of most Canadian Freethinkers, and I have therefore thought this an opportune time to bring this question, in which we are all so deeply interested, before the Freethinkers of Canada, and urge upon them the necessity of agitation for reform. The time has come, I think, for action in petitioning Parliament to remove the serious and most unjust disabilities under which we, as a class, are now placed, and thus have equal rights extended to all citizens. As the law now stands we are deprived of our rights in the courts, and the ends of justice are often defeated, not only to our detriment but that of Christians themselves. If the presiding judge choose to adhere to the strict letter of the law the testimony of Atheists is refused. It is very easy to see how the gravest injustice could be inflicted upon Freethinkers and Christians alike under this unjust law. A Freethinker may be the only witness to a case involving the interests of a Christian, or he may be the only witness for himself as against a Christian; and by his not being eligible as a witness the ends of justice are defeated. Or an unscrupulous believer may claim that he is a Freethinker to get rid of giving evidence altogether. It is true there seems to rest with the Judges a large amount of discretionary power as to whom they will or will not accept to give evidence; and the majority, perhaps, of our Canadian Judges exhibit a commendable spirit of liberality in the matter of accepting the testimony of Freethinkers. But occasionally one is to be met with, too full of religion and bigotry to recognize our rights or extend any discretion in our favor. In the city of Toronto, a few months ago, the testimony of two respectable and intelligent witnesses was refused because they did not believe the dogmas of the popular religion.* As an offset to this, however, an Ottawa-Judge recently showed his fairness and liberality by allowing a Juryman Freethinker, who declined to take the oath, to make an affirmation. The Grand Juror referred to, Mr. John Law, of Ottawa, is described as-a gentleman of "unimpeachable honor and probity," and hence his simple affirmation being, as he stated, fully binding on his conscience, would, or certainly ought to, have more weight than the oaths of many witnesses (believers) who are taken into the witness box. The presiding Judge, doubtless, so regarded the matter, and therefore, in his discretion, magnanimously allowed Mr. Law to affirm.

In England, under "The Evidence Amendment Act" of 1869,32* and 33 Vic, c. 68, s. 4, Atheists can make the following affirmation instead of taking the Christian oath, and the Court must allow all Freethinkers to do so who demand it:

"I solemnly promise and declare that the evidence given by me to the Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

We want a similar Act in Canada, and then Counsel will not be able as now to badger witnesses about "infidel belief," and turn the court into an inquisition; nor will a bigoted judge have it in his discretion to order Atheists down from the witness-box as not fit to give evidence. At almost every sitting of our courts it is demonstrated beyond a doubt. that believers in the Bible, who take the oath on that Book, do not all tell the truth under oath. Every judge and lawyer in the land knows this, and all know it who have much to do in courts of law. The simple word or affirmation of an honest man, whether Christian or Infidel, is better than a thousand oaths of many believers in the Bible, who are without hesitation taken into the witness-box. Moreover, the Atheist in making the above affirmation under the Act referred to, is subject to the same penalties for perjury as the Christian is in taking, the usual oath. There is, therefore, no good reason why we should! not have a similar Act here, and it behooves us to begin to move towards its consummation. Freethinkers are getting numerous in Canada, and they are, to say the least, as exemplary citizens, socially and morally, as their Christian neighbors? Why then should they be longer denied equal rights with their Christian neighbors?

* Since writing this I have been informed by one of the
witnesses alluded to, that no blame can be fairly imputed to
the presiding Judge in this case, as he felt compelled,
against his sympathies, to carry out the unjust law.

In England they still have a State Religion, yet the rights of Rationalists in this respect are conceded to them. Here we have no state religion, and yet we suffer under religious disabilities which are utterly out of keeping with the spirit of the age, and which are fast being swept away in every civilized country. The Bradlaugh imbroglio recently in the English House of Commons has had the effect of opening some people's eyes, especially those conservative Christians who are still afflicted with lingerings of that bigoted, intolerant, and persecuting spirit which formerly lighted the fires of Smithfleld, hung quakers, imprisoned so-called "blasphemers," and violated civil contracts in the name of God. In the last election in England, a few months ago, Charles Bradlaugh, the eminent Atheist and Republican, was elected to the English House of Commons for the borough of Northampton, and in entering the House he claimed his right, instead of taking the Parliamentary oath, to affirm under the Act referred to above. The House at first refused, vacillated, appointed Committees, and vigorously debated the matter; while the bigoted members at once proceeded to unbudget themselves in true Christian style against the "vermin" Atheist. Meanwhile the levelheaded Atheist knew what he was about, and, as the sequel showed, proved himself more than a match for the English House of Commons. Meanwhile also, the people of England--the working classes--were-watching the whole business, and finally when Bradlaugh was refused both oath and affirmation, and the intention to keep the Atheist out of Parliament became manifest, they (the people) promptly came to the front. Just then it began to dawn on "the powers that be" that _vox populi, vox Dei_ had more truth than poetry in it. The people of England--the producers--(called "lower classes" by the "upper" _non_-producers) assembled in scores of thousands in indignation mass-meetings all over England, demanding the admission of Charles Bradlaugh (their best friend) to his rightful seat in the English House of Commons. The aforesaid "powers that be" took the alarm. Seeing that the "voice of the people" was even more potent than the "voice of God," they prudently bowed to its mandate. They perceived that no Clock Tower, or other tower in England would hold the workingman's friend even for the space of seven days. Bradlaugh must be released or the House of Brunswick might peradventure soon be in mourning--not, probably, for spilled blood, but for a crown, aye, a crown! No wonder the English Government feared to see Charles Bradlaugh enter the House of Commons. He had impeached the House of Brunswick. And it was no "soft impeachment." No, but a terribly hard indictment! Was it ever answered? No, it was too true to answer. The only answer was from Lord Randolph Churchill in the House of Commons, and it was characteristic. This rabid monarchist, with much more Christian zeal than knowledge or discretion, took Bradlaugh's "Impeachment of the House of Brunswick" and cast it viciously under his feet on the floor of the House of Commons. That was the way the "Impeachment" was answered! Well, as Shakspeare says, "let the galled jades wince!" But the Atheist had his revenge! They had put him in the Tower, but they very soon let him out. He had been somewhat accustomed to fighting the English Government, having beaten them twice, and he feared not. He was imprisoned one day, but released the next. An Act was speedily passed giving more even than Bradlaugh at first demanded--giving every member who wishes in future, the right to affirm instead of taking the Christian Oath. Bradlaugh has accordingly made his affirmation as he at first demanded, and has taken his seat in the English House of Commons as M. P. for Northampton,* And now let every Freethinker throughout the civilized world rejoice, for this is a great victory for our cause! The eloquent champion of our dearest rights has achieved a glorious victory on the very threshold of the English Parliament before he enters it! Let us take courage! The indomitable and invincible Iconoclast has now attained a position where his voice will be heard in behalf of liberty and the rights of man the world over! He is called "coarse" by some over-cultured people, but his coarseness is of the kind the world needs, and therefore _we_ do not object to it. The superstitions, and errors, and wrongs, and oppressions still weighing down our fellow-men need bare-handed ("coarse") handling, without gloves, and Bradlaugh wears none of these, but fearlessly throws down the gauntlet to falsehood and oppression whenever and wherever found. But I fear I am getting a little off the Oath Question here in my enthusiasm for Charles Bradlaugh, Member of Parliament for Northampton.

* The press of Canada, with very few exceptions, have done
Mr. Bradlaugh a great injustice in connection with the oath
question, as they have (perhaps unintentionally) utterly
misrepresented him. They have charged that he "flaunted his
Atheism before the House of Commons," that he at first
_refused_ to take the oath on conscientious grounds and
subsequently "swallowed his scruples" and offered to take
the oath; and that, therefore, the Atheist is without
conscience and without principle, sacrificing all for place.
Now, this is all utterly untrue. He did not flaunt his
Atheism before the House. He did not _refuse_ to take the
oath, but simply claimed to be allowed to affirm. The
Speaker having intimated to Mr. Bradlaugh that if he desired
to address the House in explanation of his claim he would be
permitted to do so, Mr. Bradlaugh said, "I have repeatedly,
for nine years past, made an affirmation in the highest
courts of jurisdiction in this realm: I am ready to make
such a declaration or affirmation." And subsequently when
Mr. Bradlaugh offered to take the oath, it was after he had
made an explanation that although a portion of it to him was
a meaningless form, yet that the oath as a whole, if he took
it would be binding on his conscience substantially the same
as an affirmation. These are the facts, all taken from
authentic official sources, and not from what bigoted and
prejudiced correspondents have sent us across the ocean. My
authority is the record of the proceedings of the
Parliamentary Committees on the Bradlaugh case, where the
facts I have stated were distinctly brought out in evidence,
to which source I beg to refer the newspapers of this
country and call upon them to make the _amende honorable_ by
setting this matter right before their readers.

In conclusion, I beg to again urge upon my fellow Freethinkers throughout Canada the necessity of taking such action as will secure for us our legal rights in the Courts of this country. I trust that the petitions to Parliament for an Evidence Amendment Act, which we design ere long to put in circulation, may be numerously signed and diligently circulated by the liberal friends in the various places to which they will be sent.

Selby, Lennox Co., Ont., July, 1880

"It can do truth no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary Acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion, of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith."--J. S. Mill.

"The history of Christ is contained in records which exhibit contradictions that cannot be reconciled, imperfections that would greatly detract from even admitted human compositions, and erroneous principles of morality that would hardly have found a place in the most incomplete system of the philosophers of Greece and Rome."--Rev. Dr. Giles.

"That any human creature, be he peer or peasant, man or woman, pauper or millionaire, should be visited with pains and penalties because of his or her speculative opinion on a subject whereon but few even of professing Christians are agreed, is a bitter satire on our vaunted liberty. My Lords, it is the spirit which lighted the martyr-fires of Smithfield, and led to the stake gallant and noble souls such as Bruno. It is a noble; company you are placing me in, my Lords, and I shall thank you for it."--_Ibid_.

"Who shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now, whose lives have been embittered, and their good name blasted, by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolators? Who shall count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to harmonize impossibilities--whose life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new wine of Science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same strong party." _Prof. Huxley_.

"Thou shalt not kill, even the smallest creature.

"Thou shalt not appropriate to thyself what belongs to another.

"Thou shah not infringe the laws of chastity.

"Thou shalt not lie.

"Thou Shalt not calumniate.

"Thou shalt not speak of injuries.

"Thou shalt not excite quarrels, by repeating the words of others.

"Thou shalt not hate."

--_Moral Precepts from Buddhistic Sacred Books._

"I discern in matter * * the promise and potency of all forms and qualities of life."--_Tyndall_

"A poor man, in our day, has many gods foisted on him; and big voices bid him 'Worship or be --------' in a menacing and confusing manner. What shall he do? By far the greater part of said gods, current in the public, whether canonized by Pope or Populas, are mere dumb asses and beautiful prize-oxen--nay, some of them, who have articulate faculty, are devils instead of Gods. A poor man that would save his soul alive is reduced to the sad necessity of _sharply trying his gods_ whether they are divine or not, which is a terrible pass for mankind, and lays an awful problem upon each man."--_Tomas Carlyle_

"These Gospels, so important to the Church, have not come to us in one undisputed form. We have no authorised copy of them in their original language, so that we may know in what precise words they were originally written. The authorities from which we derive their sacred text are various ancient copies, written by hand on parchment. Of the Gospels there are more than five hundred of these manuscripts of various ages, from the fourth century after Christ to the fifteenth, when printing superseded manual writing for publication of books. Of these five hundred and more, _no two_ are in all points alike: probably in no two of the more ancient can _even a few consecutive verses_ be found in which all the words agree."--_Dean Alford, "How to Study the New Testament_." "I find Armenian Christians who say that it is a sin to eat a hare; Greeks who affirm that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; Nestorians who deny that Mary is the mother of God: Latins who boast that in the extreme West the Christians of Europe think quite contrary to those of Asia and Africa. I know that ten or twelve sects in Europe anathematise each other; the Musselmen disdain the Christians, whom they nevertheless tolerate; the Jews hold in equal execration the Christians and Muselmen; the Fire-worshippers despise them all; the remnant of the Sabeans will not eat with either of the Other sects; and the Brahmin cannot suffer either Salbeans, or Fire-Worshippers, or Christians, or Musselmen, or Jews. I have a hundred times wished that Jesus Christ, in coming to be incarnated in Judea, had united all the sects under his laws. I have asked myself why, being God, he did not use the rights of his divinity; why, in coming to deliver us from sin, he has left us in sin; why, in coming to enlighten all men, he has left almost all men in darkness. I know I am nothing; I know that from the depth of my nothingness I have no right to interrogate the Being of Beings; but I may, like Job, raise a voice of respectful sorrow from the bosom of my misery."--_Voltaire_.