n-i 
 
 ^ 
 W 
 
 <\y. 
 
 ^O. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 
 
 SC M^_ 
 
 !.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 
 IM 
 
 22 
 
 IM 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 i.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 PhntnoranViir 
 
 Sdences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBST'-'l, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 .•V 
 
 iV 
 
 ^<b 
 
 V 
 
 4? 
 
 
 C\ 
 
 \ 
 
 > 
 
 tx 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 C> 
 
 > 
 
 % 
 
,<i^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 %^ €l^ 
 
 i^ * 
 
 (/j 
 
 \ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / tnstitut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy oivailable for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 r~7] Coloured covers/ 
 
 I ^\ Couverture de couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e at/ou pelllcul^e 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reiii avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou da la 
 distorsion le long da la marge interieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texta, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas Ati film^es. 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagees 
 
 □ Pdges restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculees 
 
 I — ~V Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 1^ Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piquees 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages detachees 
 
 [""T/Showthrough/ 
 L^ Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 □ Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., cnt 6ti film^es d nouveau de facon a 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 IS been reproduced thanics 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Canadian History Department 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grfice d la 
 g^ndrositd de: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Canadian History Department 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont film^s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par !e second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporto uno empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidra page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ♦- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Un des symboles solvents apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ♦- signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche k droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes solvents 
 illustrent la m6thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
RI 
 
 TB 
 
 TIU 
 
 \r4< 
 
Price 25 Cents. 
 
 ^3:^?5^3r5— 
 
 THE \^^lOtH 
 
 RELATIVE THEORY; 
 
 IS OR IS NOT 
 
 THE BIBLE IJNFALLIBLE? 
 
 AJfD 
 
 THK CRITIC cmTicisicr) 
 
 OOZkA JBXIM xixi 
 
 OR, 
 
 TRUTH VINDICATED & ERROR (XiNFOUiNDED. 
 
 "Yt thalllcntm the truth, and the truth shall viakr you free." 
 
 '<^<iS>^:^ 
 
 TOKONTO, 186§. 
 
 
 
 I i 
 
K ■. 
 
 x 
 
 \ 
 
 rsiS"T^ 
 
 1- Jb4.i.«.hvSC*L>i.i.4i& - • ■^J)^S>Uvtn,,"U' 
 
 ?ff 
 
'mmmmmmr'^ifm 
 
 V. 
 
 THE MLATIYE THEORY, 
 
 IS OR IS NOT 
 
 THE BIBLE INFALLIBLE? 
 
 AND 
 
 thh; cbitic cbiticised 
 
 ill 
 
 OR, 
 
 TRUTH VINDICATED & ERROR CONFOUNDED. 
 
 "Touthait know the truth, andthi (ruth ahdt make you fret." 
 
 J V^^^VWV^%^^»^^«^^h^^[^rfS^^^^i^[^»^^^^^^» 
 
 TORONTO, 1859. 
 
 
t*fi*4fej.i«,i««lfcv 
 
 =, 
 
 # ♦ 
 
 '^'0^oo->:> 
 
 JON^^^ ^Q^S 
 
 P. ':■' 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 We have wriUen tho following by piece-mccal, between 
 the hours of our regular vocation, the last piece when we 
 were too much indisposed to attend to it ; the other two, 
 without tho intention of publication, and all in haste. We 
 are not accustomed to writing, and grow better aa we 
 proceed. l3ut, we think, we Lave left it worthy the 
 careful, candid, and serious perusal, and consideration of 
 all, and made it such as to benefit every honest enquirer 
 after truth. In each article we have striven to be as clear 
 and plain, as brevity, and good and strong reasoning 
 would permit of. We have sacrificed meter in the attempt 
 at poetry, and the use of a higher class of words and phrases 
 throughout, for this purpose. 
 
 We want thu unlearned of the schools, to understand as 
 well as the learned — we wish to reach the mass. Nor dc> 
 we believe in the use of eloquence in c »ntroversial writing 
 or speaking. Eloquence addresses itself to, and moves 
 the passions, which becloud the reason, and incapacitate 
 the mind to draw logical conclusions. Hence, we should 
 not strive to be eloquent when reasoning, if our object is 
 anything higher than to induce people to fall in with oiii' 
 Tiew. Banting may make converts and bigots, but it does 
 not enlighten the intellect. Witness its fruits everywhere ! 
 
 Let truth be the great high mark, 
 
 At which we all shall aim ; 
 To the voice of nature ever hark, 
 
 And learn what is true fame. 
 
 Yours in love and truth, 
 W. M. 
 
 •: 
 
 i 
 
 it 
 I 
 
} 
 
 I • 
 
 i\ 
 
ALL IS BUT ONE ; . 
 
 THE RELATIVE THEORY. 
 
 Whether matter, soul, or }niti4» 
 Spiril» God, or nature blind, 
 AH make but a Unity, 
 Which ttvr WM, will ever &f. 
 
 Of which change is a property, eternal too, 
 Which fashions all thingf-^M me and you 
 Who seek the universe too scan, 
 To account for these things by a plan. 
 
 Bot law* of order a» with change, 
 Hare their co-efernoZ range ,♦ 
 Without which no universe could be, 
 
 For each ia an essential prop:rttf. 
 
 So change, law, order, and this unity. 
 Exist each, and together as a necessity } 
 For it is impoasibU for human thought 
 To perceive there evtr was, or will be nought. 
 
 And too, if something, it must have properties. 
 As seen, change, law, order, are some of these : 
 Then why harp so much on the word deaign. 
 Since for it we find no place, no course, n« line - 
 
 These pervade the atupendoua xchoh, 
 And by their power, all things control. 
 And as with the others, so with the one, 
 There neuer was a time when tither begun. 
 
 But you say we are foolish, true, 
 Who differ on this point with you ; 
 
 iJUi W8 aSzL Wno cliu tuS x Conner plain I 
 
 Now where are your wits— good man 1 
 
 !l 
 
 
 I 
 
r,>%««jt»»4%#ifetew«wi*<i»iiw^'HMriliiWtri^^ 
 
 Or, bow tinm oolhlnff couM somelhing be f 
 So now «r« have you— Jon'l you sea f 
 And yott tny without 'leaign all would be ehanee, 
 \V(> h;i V 9 answered, but order was in advance. 
 
 An 1 i« it not as pi'ain to seOf 
 i'hut order is a thing could be 7 
 Aye I would not diforder be more strange 7 
 Now, come— ijive your thoughts a little tange. 
 
 Break loose your fetters— 6e a man— 
 Do your cipn thinkin^» if think you can ; 
 If not, why let your rider still 
 Be to you whip, spur and will. 
 
 By your rider, I mean your priest, 
 Who sprang from shepherds of the east, 
 Aniityh'isknovrledgeoiastrologtff 
 Took advantage of man's credulity. 
 
 And have been since /.to canker worm 
 That eaU out lifers very gtrm : 
 So man has become spuituatly dead, 
 Having no respect for his awn heart or head. 
 
 But where is God? ** God is the soul," 
 As Pope ha) it, of this Om gnat Wholt ; 
 Whilst matUr is its outward part, 
 Head, body, limbs and heart. 
 
 God is the essence that all pervades. 
 But in different degrees, in different shades, 
 God is the i'pintt the tout, the mndf 
 That is a part of dt, as of mankind. 
 
 So part God, part matter, as you see. 
 We are thus, of the great Ontf sn epitome .* 
 And if ourselves we scan, both true and well, 
 We'll have explored all, earth, heaven and hell. 
 
 And as our Itodlet loose their idtaiit^f 
 
 So will our spirits'' in etemitif. 
 
 As our bodies return, to help make more, 
 
 6o will our spirits, to what they were before. 
 
 And no other theory can I defend, 
 Since without this circle, there vrould be Md, 
 And nothing can end, as nothing began : 
 Put, a better theory give if you can. 
 
But If n hfslnning end, tht^rti wouH T^f an otherp 
 An axiom socloar, no sophistry cau smother, 
 For instance, a lino that has one end, must have two, 
 Which provoi your theory of all things, untrue, 
 
 Mit'ftfj then, !3 as tmmorfu/ a« mini], 
 I-'i.r Lij uoither, no end can you cr I hii:l ; 
 But tho circle prores too, as to condiliop, 
 That both are murU^, ia tptte of oppunitiort. 
 
 Subfitance and it's condtttoa must bo kept apart^ 
 If to find truth h the <i«sire of your heart, 
 In 8e«king^» $inatt trutht yon must analyze f 
 Bat then for greol ooea joa may 32/7it/ius^ ztf. 
 
 li 
 
 Jfon is not rwrf— with your permission— 
 The real is the substance and the condition. 
 Man is, but— well, say the txpruston'- 
 Every moment of time changes him in suceessloi. 
 
 There is no ri^ht, no wronjf, when we*re throui^h seeking f 
 Nor mind, nor matter, ahsoluteltf speaking ; 
 They are only €omparatively, nlatively trae. 
 Like different grades-ory say diffeteat lias* 
 
 There is but one g-real a54ofu(e tnil& ; 
 Let it be fixed to the mind of eaoh yoatby 
 The txUttntf of that gnat Unity; 
 That ever was, note is, and m/l ever fte. 
 
 By not nnderstandiag this, the moat ttam^d have gone astia^-^^ 
 And had long spun disputes, about what is clear as day; 
 Some say there's no matter, some no miad, yet, «s you sec, 
 Tltere's both, or net't^r, as yon speak ntative or absolutely. 
 
 Though refotivefy speaking^, we have them all» 
 Falsehood, truth, good, evils, great and «mall| 
 And a heaven to gain^ and a hell to thun. 
 Before our re/olive nue is re2att'vely nw. 
 
 Pope once said, " whatever i», i* right^^ 
 
 He might as well have said there Is no night ; 
 
 And some say there is no darkness, no cold j 
 
 But all light, all heat } they are aU wrong, hut bold. 
 
 Taking these for reai things has led them astray, 
 And because tho relative theory they did not obey; 
 Whilst they are but conditions of thcso things, so too 
 Are wrong, darkness and cold, and are equally true. 
 
n 
 
 It's as trxK, that there's tprotig as that thei. 'i ftghf, 
 That there's cold and darkness, as fteaf and light) 
 All are but relativef and none absolute. 
 These statements, I think, the warW tfon'* refute^ 
 
 Nor were an_y of these, in a untueMol teoM'^ 
 Ever less or more, or will ever be Acnc€, 
 For mark it is <rue, there is no annihilation ; 
 And just as plain and true, too, there i« no creation. 
 
 Pope says, too, **all partial evit it unitenal g^cid ;*' 
 ^'AU discord, harmony misunderstood.'* 
 If by hese, he only means, all is /or the latf 
 He is not so far wrong as are the rest. 
 
 For though there is evil and good, pleasure tad 
 Misery and bliss, not one exists in vaiot 
 Unhappiness or happiness, is such by contrasif 
 For without unhappiness, no happineas, fio bliff at last. 
 
 tmm 
 
 Whatever matter doth demonstrate. 
 The same is trnth in the spiritual stats : 
 And if man would but attend to this, 
 How mcrease his wisdom, happiness, bliss ! 
 
 Instance, physical violation and its effect. 
 The same course in the moral you thpn can detect^ 
 And learn there's no mercy — that law is but just. 
 And no longer in creeds, but in goodness to trust. 
 
 It is our egotism, that makes us desire 
 
 Eternal self-hood to seek, to aspire, 
 
 But when we hare hved till all selfishness is dead. 
 
 It's then we'll blend in with the great fountain-head. 
 
 E'en noiv we are individual, in a very limited degree j 
 I'm not independent of you, nor you of me. 
 And that you are in ni«, and I urn in you, 
 God in us both, is as plain as it's true. 
 
 But there's a point of dispute between the g-oodand the wise, 
 " Does the soul remain separate after the individual dies?" 
 The soul's knowledge of it's own identity, doth long continue 
 Aftpr the body; it's /ess destructible than bons and clneWs 
 
As you awend from gross matters to the more sublimated, 
 The lorces become less, by which they can be separated, 
 And their revolutions less frequent, to whence they emanated, 
 By which duration of body and son! may be illustrated. 
 
 It*3 a natural desire of each human breast, 
 To retain a cunscioua identity, which is a test 
 That he will; for all unvitiated, natural desires, 
 Are possibk of access, to which tho aspirant aspires. 
 
 The propensity that looks beyond man in trouble, 
 Is a proof there is something there, and thatoW is not bubble. 
 Psychology of this consciousness is, too, a great teat, 
 And tho phtnomena of " spiritualism'* set it at rest. 
 
 j» 
 
 This long perplexing question, the free wal of man. 
 May now be understood with, one single scan. 
 For practical convenience, or in comparative degree, 
 Not absolute, he may be said to have it, you see. 
 
 But a$ to having free will, absolutely pure^ 
 
 No more than a horse, toad, or stick, 1 am sure. 
 
 A creature of circumstances, yet to them goes to school 
 
 And learn«, and helps, all other things to rule. 
 
 To each and all things he is dependent ; 
 
 So are these to him, no matter how transcendent, 
 
 The consciousness of his dependant state, 
 
 lb the religious element primary, and second-rate* 
 
 Then religion is, for help a want, and a seeking? 
 Whether by earnest desire, or only just speaking, 
 Whether from higher sources, or Irom his brother man, 
 He ktks it, iknd finds it wherever he can. 
 
 Man may be religious without being good ; 
 
 May worship God, man, fire, stone, or wood ; 
 
 Still rob and murder, as they all have done, 
 
 Since performing ceremonies, rights, or teorship, begun. 
 
 Men perform worship, and follow rights, to incur favour, 
 Which, in time, will be looked upon as foolish behaviour. 
 Nor is love of this religion, the smallest or least part, 
 Love, goodness, faith, are but helps, to get the want o 
 the heart. 
 
 i 
 
 
 • ♦ 
 
 So, too, original tin, and man's regeneration, 
 
 rt 
 
10 
 
 li I 
 
 ll 
 
 f ! 
 KM li 
 
 Are points settled easy, by this theory of relation. 
 To say they are absolutely real, 's only absurd, 
 As are all theological theories, that I have heard. 
 
 Many of the absurdities about fore-ordination, 
 Are founded on ideas of creator and cmation ; 
 But to the first of this article, a little attention 
 Will make all these clear, and settle dissension. 
 
 All things will come in order, though not as designed ; 
 But as undevinting laws and effects will unwind. 
 And some time in eternity, we'll each have our share 
 Of all that is going, but there will be none to spare. 
 
 -•»*■ 
 
 As to miracles, the remarks just made, may apply, 
 But a little farther in their nature, we'll endeavour to pry j 
 Their reality we may either deny or affirm, 
 In accordance with what is meant by the term. 
 
 If you mean law and order were suspended, I deny ; 
 But if only an act by a highe • power than man, 1 comply, 
 But whdt's different from us, is affected differently by laws ; 
 But no more than loe, can they evade effect and cause. 
 
 What would be a miracle on the plane of a horse, 
 fVe would as such, in no wise endorse J 
 And from an oyster, to the highest through man, 
 In what Tcnse a m'^icle, shows the relative plan. 
 
 From the highest Individual power ot mindy 
 Do'vn to the lowest insect or zoophyte kind, 
 There's reciprocal influence upon feeling or thought, 
 Sometimes when sought for, but always unsought. 
 
 ' » I 
 
 That the link that's above man, as that below, 
 
 l5 as itiseperably connected, must then be so. 
 
 Then, that " spiritualism" is true, is a thing that wa ought, 
 
 And the true philosopher will believe, without being taugjit. 
 
 So as philosophers, Mr. Farada, and all of his kind, 
 Have proved themselves to be a long way behind. 
 A magnelrical media doth all planes connect, 
 And the nearer the degree'*, communion the more perfect. 
 
V 
 
 U 
 
 Hamilton says, there is no God as far as you com]}nhtnd. 
 Cousin, there is none but as /ar as a knoivledge of him extend 
 These contradictions of the>e great men, thcucrh glarmg, 
 Ought not to prevent us, their philosophies sharing. 
 
 It'« not their metaphysics that lead them apart, 
 
 It's the want of an understanding in terms in the start ; 
 
 As they use the word God, they're both wrong, cr both right 
 
 But both confused by not keeping the relative theory in sight. 
 
 So all the great questions on which great men disagree, 
 I think may be cleared up by this relative theory. 
 Instead of for belief, persecution, and brother slay brother. 
 Each ought to be asked, and praised for his view by the other. 
 
 This is the great boundary lines, the rock or the frame, 
 Upon which you may construct or fill in that won't be so lame, 
 A theology, which ice desire and do need so much, 
 For, noio, it's contradiction, confusion, anarchy, as iuch. 
 
 Now, though in these matters we may disagree, 
 Still, I hope you will not grow angry with;me ; 
 You wish the liberty to think and to speaks 
 The same liberty is all that I seek. 
 
 If I am wrong, I icish to be right ; 
 
 My soul craves lighten ght—viore light ; 
 
 I cannot rest, I Ciinnot stay, 
 
 Where light's so scarce, so little day. 
 
 I have scanned your system ; found it not, 
 Went on, till, I think, I have it got, 
 And my desire is, when truth Ifndf 
 To give abroad to all human kind. 
 
 But iiyou have the truth, and not I ; 
 
 Oh I give to me, or I pine, I diet 
 
 Since by thus giving, as we believe, 
 
 YouVe not itnpoverislu 1, but the more receive. 
 
 But whatever way the case may stand. 
 Let each extend and lend a brother*s hand: 
 Remembering one thing, that all do know. 
 That our hearts with love should ever glow. 
 
 ToRo«io» December, iS5r». 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 ^imsat^mmmm 
 
 ^p^^ittl^pS^^^<^'^^^@^^%v 
 
/' 
 
 5A%H^ "'^^E^^^?5.'W^S«*^,s>>n>'e^^3!i?>^i^'*s^ .*k'i'VS *< 
 
 !ii 
 
 ^1 
 
Met«te<ilttM^iwi>«y 
 
 IS OR IS NOT 
 
 THE BIBLE INFALLIBLE? 
 
 You say God an iafallible being communicated the Bible 
 to man, a fallible being — to all through a few individuals 
 as instruments. Then as it has passed through these fallible 
 instruments, how can it have reached us infallible? These 
 individuals were made infallible, first, in understanding 
 God, and next as speakers and writers in communicating 
 it to us ; that is in their use of language, (both quite un- 
 Hkly though) but language being imperfect, it would still 
 be fallible to us, God by his holy spirit enables us to un- 
 derstand it — makes us infallible in comprehending its true 
 meaning. Then after all, it is not the Bible that is infalli- 
 ble, but on the contrary, it infallible — imperfect, and it is 
 US who are made infallible to understand ^7, the fallible. 
 
 In this case then, of what avail is the infallibility of tho 
 instruments through which it passed to us, or of what use 
 their services at all. If you were to send a messenger to 
 mo with a message, when circumstances were such as to 
 render it necessary for you to come to me yourself after 
 wards, to tell rae what that message was, what would be 
 thought of your consistency, — do you think such would be 
 believed of you ? 
 
 But is it tifact that we are made infallible to understand 
 tho Bible — is even this true? evidently not, for different 
 individuals have different understandings of it, which of 
 cours* shews there is fallibility on the part of some of them 
 at least, if not all ; and this difference occurs with those 
 who are equally anxious to get at the truth for its own sake, 
 and are equally honest and willing to comply with the 
 
m 
 
 V", 
 
 il 
 
 u 
 
 couditiong of being thus made infallible to understand, (for 
 we suppose you sav this infallibility, or rather the getting 
 of it, is conditional); though here again we would encoun- 
 ter the same difficulty, for without infallibility how are we 
 to be sure we understand the conditions, and so on without 
 
 end. But does any individual understand it to \m perfect 
 satisfaction ? No. then no individual is infallible in un- 
 derstanding it. Does any body of men such, for in- 
 stance as the Pope and the major part of his council, 
 inderstand it to its perfect patisfaction ? No. then even 
 the Pope and his council, or any body of men is faliable 
 in understanding it. Now if this is true of the first copy 
 written by these few infallible individuals, and in relation 
 to those who could read, what was thus written, what may 
 be said of its infallibility in relation to those who could not 
 read it ; or, what may be said of any, or all of our present 
 translation, in relation to all, and of them, in regard to those 
 who cannot read thera. 
 
 When we have discovered an imperfect link in the chain 
 before passing over three of its links, sta»'ting too at its 
 fountain, how many of its countless links would likely be 
 found so, in its dark and mysty coils down to the present 
 time, Yeajis the theme not so rusty and rotten tliat it will not 
 bear handling I So say the theologians of the day, by their 
 actions in refusing to come out and defend it, though chal- 
 lenged from all sides. 
 
 Though we have admitted for argument's sake, the 
 infallibility as writera of the link next to God, what 
 think you of the infallibility of all writers, translators, 
 printers^ mechanics, &c., &c., that have had to do 
 with it down to the present time ? Now even though 
 one were so blind as not to see the imperfections just point- 
 ed out, and so absurd as to claim all these last mentioned 
 to be infjillible ! surely if he has anything of mind, that 
 raises him above the plane of the lower annitnals, when he 
 considers, that for anything to be infallible to us in the 
 sence that it is to be of use to us, it must not be capable of 
 more than one rendering, or of being understood differently 
 by any two or more persons, and wijen he compares with 
 
"'x 
 
 IT 
 
 u 
 
 this the numerous different renderings or meanings that are 
 given it by as many different persons, the hundreds of dif- 
 ferent transhilions, all giving each other the lie ; and when 
 he looks at the innumerable sects that have taken different 
 meanings, and such meanings too, as to have caused them 
 to commit more butchery, and bloodshed, aud crime, since 
 Mcses,tiian any other cause; as well as to have caused the 
 dearest and nearest relations, not only to break the dearest 
 human ties, but to commit deeds that one would think 
 fiends of hell, (if there are such) not fiendish enough to com- 
 mit, namely, to slay and murder one another, with cool and 
 deliberate intent, and that too tor the glory of God ; toge- 
 ther with the proceedings of tbe murderous councils, that 
 have successively contradicted each other from the begin- 
 ning; when, I say, he does this, surely he will no longer — 
 can no lone;er believe in the infallibility of the Bible. 
 Then about it in relation to those, who cannot read it ; but 
 this point is so absurd we have not patience to dwell upon it. 
 
 Ask the Mahometan, the Brahmin, the Buddhist, (or even 
 the Jew,) if it be infallible, and each will tell you no ; for 
 they have each their infallible Bible that tells other tales 
 claimed though, to be infallible on similar grounds. And 
 why not their decisions be as reliable in regard to your 
 Bible, r.s yours in regard to theirs ? (they more than double 
 you in numbers, and perhaps are that much older, or more ;) 
 you have no hesitation in pronouncing theirs not only, not 
 infallible, but spurious— concocted schemes of imposition. 
 IIow much short yours is of this, I leave you to judge. He 
 who will not be guided by reason— by common sense — 
 hath not common honesty. But why contend, for do not 
 all the learned know, not only that it is not infallible, but 
 that, it, contains spurious and forged passages, as many of 
 them have lately been forced to admit ? 
 
 1. John V. 7.-— There are three that bear record in Heaven 
 
 the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three 
 are one, is admitted to be one of this kind by Sir Isaac 
 Kewton, Dr. Tomlin, Br. Marsh, Bishops, Dr. Parson, Dr. 
 Garaner, ur. ryu omitu u;v;.«aC., 
 Now to him who hath common sense and common hones- 
 
 (I 
 
 i< 
 
16 
 
 ty, we submit the following questions, in order to frame 
 and settle the premises of a syllogism, that we may shew 
 incontrovertably and so plain that the most abtuse mind 
 can see, not only that the Bible is not infallible, but that 
 even you do not yourself (or any one who admits the pre- 
 misesj) believe in it's infallibility, for in a true syllogism, if 
 the premises be admitted, the conclusion of course cannot 
 be denied 
 
 If equals be added to equals, will the wholes be equal ? 
 Yes. If unequals be added to equals, will the wholes be un- 
 equal ? Yes. If an unequal number be added to an equal 
 or any number of equals, will the whole be an unequal num- 
 ber? Yes. Well then, if an imperfect or fallible part be 
 added to perfect or infallible parts, ill the whole be falli- 
 ble? Yes. Then we have for our major premises whatever 
 is made up of parts (let those parts be what they may 
 steps, links or agencies,) having one or more of its parts 
 fallible, is itself fallible. 
 
 Again, has it been clearly shewn in the foregoing 
 that, if not all, at least very many, — but if only one 
 it is sufHcient for our purpose — of the steps, links, 
 agencies or parts entering into the producing of the 
 Bible to us, are or is fallible? Yes. This is then the 
 minor premise Of course this minor premise of itself protes 
 all that the syllogism will make clear, for nothing is stron- 
 ger than its weakest part. To illustrate. — If need be you 
 were to cross a precipice or dark abyss, you would not de- 
 pend for your safety upon a chain, even if it could be said 
 of it, that it has strong or maiiy strongs links in it, so long 
 as you were aware that it had weak, rotten ones in it, or if 
 it had but one frail link in it, for it would be no stronger^ 
 and therefore no safer, than if all its links were equally frail. 
 
 THE STLLOQISM. 
 
 Whatever is made up of parts, having one or more of its 
 parts fallible, is itself fallible. 
 
 The Bible is made up of parts (in the sense above explain- 
 ed,) one or more of which is or are fallible. 
 
 Therefore the Bible is fallible. 
 
IT 
 
 But more — Are the conclusions which are drawn fi om and 
 founded upon facts demonstrated by science, truths ? Yes. Do 
 these conclusions clasli with any statements of the Scripture 
 Yes. Then such statements cannot be true. Ifyou cannot deny 
 that two and two make four, you cannot this conclusion* then 
 never again be so false to yourself, as to say you believe the 
 Bible to be infallible. Some of the statements of its dif- 
 ferent writers contradict each other. Truths cannot contra 
 diet each other, therefore some of these statements cannot 
 be true. The Old and New Testaments teach widely different 
 doctrines, therefore they both cannot teach a true doctrine. 
 
 But your quibble may be, that they were given when men 
 wero in different states of development ; (and by this quib- 
 ble, like those who, instead of taking an honest, or strait- 
 forward courae through life, undertake to shuffle through, 
 often got their feet in tlie tn p, so I think you will ; where- 
 as, if you or they had but reflected, you would not have 
 taken tiie course jm have, and would have escaped the 
 ditKciity. But you are the two classes that are guided by 
 the impulse of the moment. The man who gained access 
 to you first, and excited your passions most, gained your 
 consent to, and support of his doctrine, and to it you stick, 
 to the exclusion of more reasonable and advanced ones ; he 
 does not address your reason and you have not reflected. 
 The other is swayed by apparent presentment of present 
 pleasures, and embraces, to the sacrifice of more lasting hap- 
 piness. Reflection would have saved you both. If you 
 had taken only what was reasonable of this doctrine, you 
 could have afforded to do the same with the next ; and 
 if the other had discriminated between those gratifications 
 which do, and those which do not clash with future and great- 
 er happiness, he might have enjoyed the latter.) But 
 how does the state of man to which the revelation 
 is given, effect the truthfulness or untruthfulness, the right 
 or wrong of the revelation ? surely what has been untrue 
 or wroiig since the New Testament days, could not have 
 ever been riijht. Can right ever become wrong in God's 
 
 AVft 
 
 I 
 
 fl 
 
 But then you do not contend that God revealed absolute 
 
 * 
 
18 
 
 truth, or vigbt, but such as the people were prepared to re* 
 ceive. Tliia "s a gre'il concession : just what we have been 
 contending, that the BiWle is not infulliblo. You only say 
 then, that it is true, that it is God's revehitioii, and that it 
 is the revelation of bis will to man. Then since it has 
 come to this, i\\2i.i part of what God has revealed to man ia 
 not true; perhaps none of it is, for who knowt'i, but that when 
 man becomes sufficiently advanced, God will make an 
 Dther new revelation, superseding the present new one, 
 end with the anouncement— ^'behold all thing* have be- 
 come new," make it too an old one* 
 
 We8ay,bv this step j'on have sliped your neck into the hal- 
 ter, that is, got yourself into a worse position than you were 
 before, which is, that God revealed a lie ; and the only way 
 for you to ge( it out, is lo turn around, and yourself -provQ 
 that the Bible is not God's revelat on at^all, for we will not j 
 we will let you hang for a warning to others against 
 shuffling. But for the sake of others who may have been 
 led astray by you, we would suggest an idea, which is, how 
 much more consistent it would be, to allow ones self to see 
 how plain it is, that if a code of laws, or morals, or theories 
 of faith and worship, are ever changing from less perfect to 
 more peifoct, from less consistency to greater consistency, 
 they are man*9 inventvyns^ m.an'» thoughts, theories and 
 plans, and that they become better only as man becomes 
 better, ai*d that man becomes better according to a univer- 
 sal aud immutable law of progression. 
 
 Civilization advances religion. First teach civilization, 
 next religion, I speak of religion as it is commonly accepted. 
 Religion^ correctly defined, is not teachable: it is an inherent 
 propensity of the human mind. 
 
 A few worda more. Each of these Testaments, in and of 
 itself, teaches different, and opposite doctrines, then all, 
 even of either, is not true. Indeed they appear capable of 
 giving forth so many systems or tunes, according to the 
 skill or tact of the pertormer, that it would not be unseemly 
 to liken it unto a musical instrument, which may bo made 
 to give forth any kind of music. 
 
 «<, 
 
 mg.' 
 
I» 
 
 id to re» 
 
 ve been 
 nly Bay 
 1 that it 
 c it iias 
 ) man ii 
 atM'lien 
 ake an 
 w onCf 
 lave b«- 
 
 ► thelial- 
 ou were 
 
 Illy way 
 If prove 
 i^ill not \ 
 
 against 
 ,ve been 
 
 is, how 
 slf to see 
 tlieories 
 erfect to 
 jistency, 
 'ies and 
 becomes 
 \ ufliver- 
 
 ilization, 
 ccepted. 
 inherent 
 
 xi and of 
 then all, 
 ipable uf 
 ig to the 
 iiseemly 
 bo made 
 
 But to shew that some, even of the most learned, 8i)eat 
 of ti.e Bible as being intallible, in the fullest sense ot the 
 word, we quote from Archbinhop Whately, a celebrated 
 Theologian. "For whatever Scripture declares, the chris- 
 tian is bound to receive, implicitly ; however unable to 
 understand it;" 'but to assent to man's framing is wrong.' 
 He speaks of the BiblM as if man had nothing to do with 
 it, but as if God drops it into every man's lap, an.l that each 
 man knows it is God that does it, and as if each can know 
 tohat it "declares," whether he can read it or not. 
 
 How absurd I for without man's "framing," there would 
 be no "Scripture.'* How could there be "Scripture" with- 
 out language, or without being written &c. &c ; and is not 
 language and writing, and all the rest of the instrumental 
 Btep . or links, "mans' framing?'* And even with all its- 
 "mau Vaming," how can the "Scripture declare" anything 
 to those who cannot read without still more of "mans' fram- 
 ing." What gibberish— what prattling for wise men ! Then 
 the idea of receiving any thing "implicitly" (that is without 
 investigation, or without the right of questioning, we may 
 suppose him to mean,) "however unable to understand it,'* 
 is of itsely palpably absurd, and in this connection, is 
 grossly absurd.— By the way, h-w is the blind and deaf, to 
 know what the "Scripture declares ?" 
 
 What has been said, is intended to embrace no other idea 
 of, or about the Bible, than its infallibility. We combat 
 this idea, believing it to be at this age, a blight— a curse 
 to Christian nations and people— it impedes their progress 
 in human virtue, and to human happiness. 
 
 In the foregoing, there are hundreds of ideas embraced 
 which declare the Bible not to be infallible, a few of which 
 only have been dwelt upon seperately, but more than were 
 absolutely necessary for our purpose. But there are bund 
 reds more that can be brought forward to do the same thing, 
 which are as suggestive too, as those we have chosen, but 
 they are for the most part, such as have been shewn up by 
 otiiers, and very frequently,— indeed all that we have 
 touched upon may have been often before, for aught we • 
 
 it 
 
 
 11 
 
 II 
 
( 
 
 know, having read ecftrcely any works of snch a imfnro. 
 
 Tlioso wo luivo used do not confine their forces, to the Cliri»- 
 tian'ti Bible, but show the inijH)ssibility, and ov<':i the ab- 
 surdity of the idea, of any one of the bibles or sacred books, 
 .of any religion or people being intallible. 
 
 But you say, if it happens to be true, see^ what awaits tlie 
 unbeliever. Inipossibilitiea never happen. Nuthing comes 
 by chance. But suppose it to be true. I can't lielp my 
 unbelief; for belief is involuntary, and ;t is as impossible 
 for nie to believe the Bible to bo infallible as it is for mo 
 to believe that God will make it possible for me to hold the 
 Ocean iu the hollow of my hand, or to pluck the Sun ♦Vom 
 his place ; for the evidence to me, is about as strong against 
 the possibility of the one, as against the possibility of the 
 other. My soul thirsts for truth, as the plant craves light 
 ftnd heat, — but ynur theory leaves it yet athirst. But even 
 if belief were a voluntary act of the will or mind, the ])ure 
 and loving mind, would not, or could not, believe your 
 dogmas, they are so absurd, so gross, so obscene. 
 
 Then it seems in the first place, I am to be condemcd 
 for not doing what it is impossible for me to do, and in the 
 next place, for being over good. V«Ti'y, if I be'ievod in 
 such a God as you say you do, and no other, I wunld feel 
 tem])ted to do as poorold Job was advised to, "cui^ie God aiid 
 ■dier 
 
 As the vine seeks and finds the sturdy and reliable oak, 
 and is satisfied, and flourishes, so my spirit seeks, and if it 
 .finds something consistent — the everlasting tree of truth — 
 becomes satisfied, and grows and increases in capacity, for 
 yet more truth, more enjoyments ; but if the vine embraces 
 a bundle of straw, it is not satisfied, and soon coils back 
 upon itself, (as the straw rots,) and droops and dies ; such 
 •would be the fate of the Soul, were it left to depend solely 
 upon your theories ; but it is not permitted so to be, 
 for spirit is ever being drawn upward and onwtjrd, (as it 
 regards this life at leo.5t,) by higher spirits ; so that while 
 you are feeding it on straw, and deceiving, and impeding 
 its progress, an.l lessening its happiiiess, tnere is a power 
 that prevents its utter rain. Many, whilst they think they 
 believe in your dogmas, are comparatively contented and 
 
it 
 
 I nature. 
 
 1)0 Cliri»- 
 1 the ab* 
 ed buoks, 
 
 Lwalts tlio 
 ?ig cornea 
 
 lielp my 
 npossiblo 
 is fur mo 
 >}u>ld the 
 Sun ♦Vom 
 g against 
 ty of the 
 ives light 
 But even 
 
 the ])ure 
 I eve your 
 
 ondemcd 
 nd in tlie 
 'ievod in 
 (TOO Id feel 
 J God uiid 
 
 able oak, 
 
 , and if it 
 
 f truth— 
 
 >aeitj, for 
 
 eni braces 
 
 ioils back 
 
 ies ; such 
 
 5nd solely 
 
 50 to be, 
 
 [jrd, (as it 
 
 hat while 
 
 impeding 
 
 a power 
 
 link they 
 ■nted and 
 
 happy, but tli«ir happiness tlt>'vV!i from causes they are 
 ignorant of; sometiinci frmi their own innate goodness, 
 wliiclt U too pure to bo scarcely tarnished with the grossiusi 
 of their creeds; hut as a general law, people will not bo 
 belter tiiiu their God ; and us the Christian's God is in Ihi'* 
 Bil)Ie, represented to have committed, and encouraged, 
 and cotiateuauced| the blackest deeds, so we find Christians 
 doin({. 
 
 But withall, Christianity has effected much good. When 
 it was less gross, and when it superseded paganism, it was 
 a great good. But those whom it came to bless, it remnins 
 to curse ; and compared to the light wo now demand, it is 
 a dark mountain, casting its shade, and gloom, and dark- 
 ness in onr patliway — hanging to our necks like a inill- 
 etone. It has beeomo a superstition. To illustrate, take 
 for instance the invention and introduction of the common 
 Bpinning wheel, and consider what a very great and posi- 
 tive good it must have ellected; but suppose this niacliinory 
 had remitined with us to the exclusion of the vast and mighty 
 impn)vement3, which have superseded it, would it not in 
 this wise prove a curse to us ? Tlien imagine the manu- 
 facturing and vending of this article to have become a mam- 
 moth speculation, and that the s])eculators had a large 
 amount of capital invested in the same, factories, vending 
 shops, show rooms, skill, and a peculiar training into a nar- 
 row channel, that incapacitated them for other business ttc, 
 and, that they thought it the most respectable and lion' 
 ouraUle business could be; so that in the event of this ar- 
 ticle being superseded, and there be no more demand for 
 it, all these things would become of no value, the company 
 be impoverished, and as a Ijody, die out ; and you will have 
 an illustration of i^//y, a class is so desirous that Christi- 
 anity should not be superseded. Tlien imauine this com- 
 pany, most mighty in its power and influence, by means of 
 its wealth, and brute force, cunning, and ability; and that 
 to succeed they scruple not, if necessary, to lie, deceive, 
 rob, and murder; and you will see why this class suc- 
 ceed ; and see too, that hosts have agreed to accept — agreed 
 to believe— to escape being burned at the stake, cut up on 
 
 
 
 <l 
 
 § 
 
/ 
 
 .l 
 
 1 
 
 *• 22 
 
 the bluclc, tortured by tlie inquisition, robbed of tlieir lands 
 and houses, cheated, belied, and scandalised ; whilst others 
 join tlie company, to share the plunder. Ent in this com- 
 pany, this class, that extends from the Pope down to the 
 commonest ranter, there are, we believe, some who think 
 they are doing for the best, and when they apply their 
 theory to the Heathens, by superseding a still more cramp- 
 ed and- imperfect system, they effect good ; and perhaps 
 there are stales of mind and society, for which it is pecu- 
 liarly adapted, just as we might suppose there are people 
 in such conditions as that the spinning wheel, or the thrash- 
 in" flail, would be more ai)plicablc tor their purposes than 
 the jinny, or threshing machine. 
 
 But while we speak thus of Cluistianity as a whole— as 
 it has manifested itself to u?,— we say that in it are imbod- 
 ied some great living princ'plcs, truths which never can 
 be superseded. But as a whole, it is indigestible to the 
 mind, and when thus taken, impairs its strength, and makes 
 it dispeptic, so that it cannot afterwards digest and be in- 
 vigorated by its natural food, viz : that which is reasonable ; 
 and hence the morbid state of society ; a state in which it 
 appears to be not capable or willing ^o receive anything, 
 but what panders to this morbid taste, or is accompanied 
 by the excitement of passion ; as the dispeptic requires 
 mmatural stimulants mixed with his food, and perhaps the 
 stimulants are all that he has felt the effects of, whilst the 
 portions that would have been food to him in a liealthy state, 
 pass undigested. Then take advice, and sift the wheat from 
 the chaff, and be really benefited, as well as left cai)acita- 
 ted for doing the same on other and all occasions ; and when 
 ^ny one tries to cram you with nonsense, though they do 
 "rap it round, with pomp and darkness till it seems pro- 
 found," be something like, or I would say, take a lesson 
 from a Brahman, who, when a Christian missionary was 
 trying to explain the theory of God dying for man, ex- 
 claimed, "he don't know anything." But I don't say but 
 what tlure is as glaring nonsense in the Brahman's theory 
 as what he diacovered in the Christian's. 
 
 
23 
 
 iir lands 
 5t others 
 his cora- 
 'n to the 
 ho think 
 ►ly their 
 3 crauip- 
 perhaps 
 is pecu. 
 people 
 } thrash- 
 ses than 
 
 liolc — as 
 i inibod- 
 ever can 
 le to the 
 d makes 
 id be in- 
 sonable ; 
 
 vvhicli it 
 nything, 
 nipanied 
 requires 
 baps the 
 hilst the 
 hy state, 
 eat from 
 !a])acita- 
 nd when 
 they do 
 ?m3 pro- 
 a lesson 
 [iry was 
 nan, ex- 
 say but 
 's theory 
 
 *'Cast off the pampered bificot slave 
 
 Who speaks for hire and pelf, 
 And teaches that there is no truth 
 Beyond his creed-bound t-elf." 
 
 Now I can imagine the honest reader asking the question. 
 Since it is so clear as to be almost self evident— if not quite 
 so— that the Bible is not infallible, why so many (including 
 as well the learned as the unlearned, the philosopher a» 
 the simple-minded, the honest and the dishonest) say they 
 believe it to be so? In the foregoing remarks on Chris- 
 tianity, we have in part answered this question, though 
 somewhat indirectly, and have shown why this professed 
 belief is contended for with such astonishing, and other- 
 wise unaccountable efforts. But believing this question 
 often suggests itself to the honest mind, and when not an- 
 fiwered, forms a " stumbling block," to the unpretending, we 
 will endeavour to answer it more fully. The three great 
 causes of this professed belief, in the face of all that is so 
 clear in opposition to it, are speculation, popularity and 
 prejudice or early impression. Some of each class, the lit- 
 terate and the illiterate, the reflecting and the unreflecting, 
 are infected by each of these. Some of all these classes 
 are speculators in Christianity (most of the learned class,) 
 who find the idea ol the infallibility of tho Bible a cardi. 
 nal point to their success ; the fulcrum of the lever power 
 by which they move forwai'd their grand scheme— by 
 which they work their machinery. Then by this an I other 
 means the belief became popular, and some of all these 
 classes— most of the unlcarne I and unreflecting— pi ofesa 
 to believe for the sake of popularity ; and in this idea of 
 popularity are embraced many petty interests and low con- 
 sideration, such as belonging to the church or strongest 
 party, to increase their customers in business, to incur the 
 f ivour and Smiles of greater minds, &c., &c. They 
 float along with the popular professed belief— something 
 on the same principlethat dead flsh float with the cur- 
 rent, or chips on the surtaceof the water,— to save 
 themselves the labour of stemingthis current, or 
 Kliinl'iiur for thr.mselvGS. and from the disagreeablenesa 
 
 •J 
 
 * 
 
■II! ■ 
 
 III 
 
 24 
 
 of being in opposition. Those influeuced by these 
 two causes are the dishonest. Some of all these 
 classes — least of the reflecting — are influenced in this belief 
 by early impression, which is the'most universal of all causes, 
 as well as the most serious and most difficult to overcome ; 
 for " as the bough is bent the tree is inclined.** The fol- 
 lowing quotations will serve to show thid point mur© beatt- 
 if ully than I possibly can. 
 
 *' 'Tis granted; and no plainer thing appears. 
 Our earliest are our most important years ; 
 The mind impressive and soft with ease, 
 Imbibes and copies what she hears and sees ; 
 And through life's labyrinth holds fast theclue^ 
 That education gave her, false or true.'* 
 
 And a Saracen says ; 
 
 *' Our manners, our moral?, our niccd belief, 
 Are consequences of our place of birtii ; 
 Born beyond the Ganges I had been a Pagan, 
 In France a Christian. I am here a Saracen. 
 'Tis custom forms us all : our parent's bands 
 Writes on our hearts the first faint characters. 
 Which time retracing deepens into strength 
 Which nothing can efface but death or Heaven." 
 
 And hence it is, that even many of the learned, and some 
 philosopliers, though houest, may be of this belief, having 
 imbibed it as it were from their mother's breast, so that it 
 appears to have become a })art of their very being. Yet I 
 cannot bring myself to believe, that any one of tiionghf, 
 and who has made this matter a subject of reflection, can 
 believe in the idea, providing he be an earnest lover and 
 seeker of truth, and has made up his mind to be guided ■ 
 by it whithersoever it may lead him. 
 
 But there is another cause — credulity — whicb has much 
 influence on the illiterate and v.'eak :ninded, to whom the 
 languiige of their priests is, pay us for thinking for yon> 
 and we will save you a th-aisanj difticulties, and leave you 
 in p issessioii of the only trutii. A Rev. Professor Mattison 
 of Kcvv York, in his work, attempting to refute spirtualisia 
 
25 
 
 and whilst speaking of the investigation of the pVienomena, 
 says in effect;— turn your eyes from tliem, and oon't 
 think of Uieso thinfjs or anything else, that opposes* what 
 we te.'ichyou, "and it will save you a thousand ditBculties." 
 Then not mnch wonder tliat the unfortunate individual, 
 knowini; and feelino? his own ij^norance and weakness, and 
 believing in the superiority ot his dictator, and that lie ts 
 honest, should believe what he i»told,eveu though it were io 
 opp^wition to hia very senses, as well as hia reason — exam* 
 pies of which you may find everywijere. Wo hope this is 
 a sufficiently detailed and satistactory answer to the 
 question. 
 
 These reflections cause us to think of tho importance of 
 tho subject of youthful educatif»n— of what children ought, 
 and what they ought not to bo tauglit. And we think that 
 if Mr. Brown, and Mr. Ilyersou, were free themselves from 
 the cftocts of a wrong system of education — from this 
 prejudice or early impression— and held views founded on 
 their reason and intuition ; and liad they taken in consider- 
 ation the philosophy of this early impression, they would 
 not have disagreed on t'lC school question; and thus their 
 time and labour would have been saved from those long 
 spun yarns, that end after all so far short of the truth. To 
 let the mind gruw up, free as the breath of Heaven, i'fom 
 all doctrijial points, is the only safe way. Wlien th • ludge- 
 ment is formed or matured, let it settle these according to 
 tlie dictates of its own unperverted perceptions, and inspi- 
 rations : and then there will grow up a free, a good, and a 
 great people; and the ridiculing, slanderitig, belying, per- 
 secuting and murdering of one another for belief — wiiiclj ia 
 as absurd and unjust, as to persecute me for having a longer 
 or siiorter nose than yourself, — will cease, and each will bo 
 2)leased to hear the views of the other. And now ii» con- 
 clusion, I would beg leave to say to you dishonest ones; 
 you who lie and cheat, you leaders, who slick to the people's 
 packets like leeches, and help to grind the poor to death (in 
 some countries;) you preachers, who ravage and seduce young 
 innocent maidens, (not long ago in the United States, there 
 were thirteen preachers, in three weeks, convicted ot seduc* 
 
 A 
 
26 
 
 tton ;) that he who deceives others, is deceiving himself; he 
 who cheats and robs others, is cheating niid robbing liimj^elf 
 most; he who causes to others, however much unhappiuess, is 
 laying up ibr himself still more. Tliat your temporary 
 gratitications in overreaching your neighbours, compared 
 Wjth the consequence of the act to yourselves, may be lik- 
 ened unto one bartering knowledge, whicli wo Id make 
 him happy here and hcreulter, tor gold, though he had 
 sufficient of it before to supply iiim with the necessaries of 
 life: that too, though the absurdities and mooii-sliine of 
 j'our doctiines, have made you atheists — made you believe 
 there is no God, no hereafter, no judgement ; there is a 
 just tribunal bef .re which you will be tried, and Irom 
 which will come forth a preportionate punishment for all 
 your wrongs. But theie will be neither burnning wrath, 
 nor loving mercy to meet you, but simply mild, yet stern 
 justice. Every violation has its correction as insuperably 
 attached to it, as effect is to cause — it is cause and effect 
 itself. You see this in the physical laws, and if you will 
 open your eyes but a little wider, you will see it just as 
 clearly in the moral. And to you honest t-nes, who are 
 yet held faet in your slavish chains of early impression, I 
 Would say to you, learn that this condition is the secret ot 
 your apparent inability to trust toyour senses and reason, and 
 to ascend to freedom; and you will have got over the great- 
 est difficulty in this ascention. 
 
 Learn to unlearn what you have learned amiss, 
 And to try tliat, by the rule you measure this. 
 Then you'll find the way to happiness — to bliss, 
 
 by first becoming consinced that ** knowledge is power to 
 accomplish and to enjoy — that, other things being equal, 
 those who know the most, can accomplish and enjoy the 
 most ; while ignorance, instead of being bliss, is the great 
 cause ol human weakness wickedness and woe :" and 
 that nature has *' placed in our right hands, obedience wi^h 
 its blessings, and in our left disobedience with its curses, 
 and has endowed us with power to choose or refuse eitlier," 
 (in a certain sense;) and then act upon this belie*. "Get 
 wisdom, get understanding," love the truth, learn the truth, 
 
27 
 
 and hold it more sacred that* all beside. It will enlarge 
 your heart — expand your soul, and make you free! It 
 will make room for a loorld of love to flow in and make 
 you happy. If you would be happy ^ you must love ; if 
 you would love^ you must get wisdom^ learn the truth. 
 Let your Trinity henceforth be virtue! tbctii I LoVB ! 
 Your raediater faith ! your Heaven happiness ! 
 
 " If you wish to live the true life, to be a hero in life's 
 battle, live each day up to your highest ideal, for 
 
 Ever there floats before the real, 
 The bright, the beautiful ideal ; 
 And as to guide the sculptor's hand 
 The living forms of beauty stand, 
 Till from the rough-hewn marble starts 
 A thing of grace in all its paits — 
 So, ever stands before the soul, 
 A model, beautiful and whole. 
 Keep this, each day before thy sight, 
 And form the inward man aright. 
 
 Live up to this model today, and to-morrow you will have 
 
 a better, a nobler model ; and so through life each day will 
 find you a better, holier, happier man. As you scale the 
 mountain of manhood the prospect will enlarge around 
 you, the heavens grdw clear above you ; the birds will 
 discourse to you sweet music and the happiness of angels 
 will be no stranger to your heart. And when the ripened 
 spirit shall pant for a wider freedom and a sunnier clime, 
 death* the strong deliverer, shall lead you home." 
 
 But now, 
 
 **Farewe11 ! and if a better sfj.item^s thine, 
 Impart \\. frankly^ or make use of mine." 
 
 Tobjnto, December, 1858. 
 
 'Hi 
 
I 
 
 If 
 
 W I 
 
 i.t 
 
 iHi 
 
THE CRITIC CRITICISED. 
 
 A Mr. Geikia having tlellverecl a lecture on Emerson, and which 
 lecturi} ho and part o( tha audience appeared to thiak a refutation of 
 that gentleman's theories, wliibt others thought otherwise ; wa think 
 •n wxamination into this lecliue, and an impartial investigation of tha 
 merits of these two men and their doctrines, as manifested in their two 
 lectures, woukl tend to settle this difference and effect a goodj and not 
 belonirJng to the school of either, think we are so far a proper party to 
 undertake the task ; and tlie love of consistency and truth press us on- 
 ward to it. Lot it be borne in mmd that Emerson gave a lecturo in the 
 tame place a short time before Geikte. 
 
 Mr. Geikie's criticism may be considered to have commenced on 
 
 the evening of Emerson's lecture, when he addressed, the lecturer, ex- 
 tolling the lecture, but expressing a fear, that « a misapprehension of 
 soma ot the passages might produce a bad effect, by causing pome to 
 think less of the Bible than they ought," which said passages were, ho 
 said, "something like this, the Bible and Homer, and Shakspere, were 
 what the reader made them— that the light streaming from man himself 
 illuminated the page, otherwise it was comparatively dark." What 
 Mr. Geikie meant by misapprehension we fail to discover, as it is clear 
 that he saw — as every one must have who saw at all — that it was not 
 a misapprehension, but the clear meaning of the passages that would 
 lead to the effect he feared so much. But why did he speak at all ? 
 He surely could uot have thought that the lecturer would retract what 
 he had so deliberately said—though it was even Mr. S. C. Geikie who 
 confronted him — but, on the other hand, must have believed that the 
 lecturer would ratify what he had said, (more especially as he knew 
 before, these were Emerson's views,) and make the case which he 
 eonsi'lered bad, worse. And so it was, the lecturer rose with modesty, 
 yet dignity, and in a manner that betokened the same greatness of soul 
 manifested throughout his lecture, and which, therefore, contrasted nobly 
 with Geikie's pompous, yet hectic effort, and said, " I may remark that 
 I am in the habit of regarding the human mind, as the inspired, as 
 OUT only knowledge -of inspiration. The books which we have ro- 
 ceived—and each of the nations has its sacred books — are all the 
 
 I 
 
■3 i. 
 
 
 !•: 
 
 m 
 
 highest utteranceii of the human minil. Im retiginun eentimetit exprea* 
 •es its highest utterance, and that is raluabic only to a reader itt the 
 •ume mood of mind as that in which the book wait written. I think 
 we have almost a proverb in Enghsh, that every scripture 14 to be un» 
 detfitood by the same spirit that gave it forth.'' 
 
 But some of the clearer seeing ones would fain have themselves 
 Snd others believe this a ** mystical" reply ; not liking, we suppose, the 
 idea that their darling superstition— the infallibility of the Bible — should 
 be denied in plain terms, by one whom they consciously felt to be so 
 much better and greater than themselves. The Globe says, *• this ex- 
 planation, somewhat mystical as it was,'* &c. The real object, how- 
 ever, of the m'>re iniiuenlial in crying *' mystical," was to draw a mist 
 over the minds of the ignorant, (wlo, they know, will copy after them,) 
 and that they might catch the sound to use as an explanation, or a soother 
 to their conscience, when the question would aiise in their minds, how is 
 iff it the Bible be God's inspiration, that so good and wise a man as 
 this, should deny it, and that there is such clear evidence against it f 
 and it took, for as soon as the sound went out, we heard it echoed bjr 
 those who were not cunning enough to invent the dodge themselves. 
 The only motive, after all is considered, then, Geikie could have had, 
 as we see it, was to gain popularity; and certainly, an impudent 
 and unwarantable act j and as seen, since we have analyzed his re- 
 marks, without point or foundation. The Grumbler says, an ** in- 
 sane attempt." The Freeman, speaking of the act, says, "the 
 intemperate zeal of some rampant biblical," and adds, *< how ridiculous 
 that any single individual, no matter what his calling or pretensions, to 
 undertake, in a mixed audience, the responsibility of demanding on 
 behalf of that assemblage, an explanation on a point that bis otm 
 dwarfed and narrow intelligence raised ! The individual, whoever he 
 may be, betrayed very bad manners, worse breeding, and an insufTer- 
 able amount of insolence. Dr. McCaul administered, we are happy to 
 add, an indirect but telling and caustic lebuke. We hope the zealot 
 has learned a lesson." 
 
 If it had been a point that he had not already understood, and which 
 la wished explained, it would have borne quite a difl'erent aspect. We 
 voutd not dwell so long on so email a matter, but that it is through 
 mens' small acts, we can best understand their motives ; and in this 
 Vte have a clue to Mr. Geikie's motives in his fiiture lecture. 
 
 That we may the better understand Mr. Geikie and his lecture, we 
 will tirst review Emerson's lecture^ and through it take a look at 
 himself. 
 
 The two greatest elements of goodness, worth, and greatness, are 
 originality and fow. In Emerson's lecture there were manifested 
 many marks of greatness ; but originality and love were its most con- 
 spicuous characteristics, Thesa two equalities neem to be possessed 
 
31 
 
 by this man in a most extraonlitiary ami apparently unaccountable de- 
 gree. We believe there is no one living who possesses more of tliem 
 than he His manner, his gesture, his style, cannot be traced to any 
 one, tlicy are all his own, Uiey are organic ; his very organization and 
 appearance are a sort of original type. But his love is excessive. It 
 is bouiicHe.ss, for it extends to all things animate and inanimate. It is 
 cosmopolitan, no state boundary lines limit its extensition. Is uni- 
 versal, if loves all nations, all people— every one, every thing. It 
 perviuled every woiJ he spoke. It shone througli his couiitenance. 
 it glittered in Ids eye. It is true, no doubt, the lecture was of so high 
 an order, and so spiritual, that the mass— being sunk into the cold ma- 
 terialism of the present state of Christianity— could not fully apprt- 
 ciate it. Yet, there was very much in it that all could appreciate and 
 le aioatly benefitted by. 
 
 The subject of the Wcture being "The Law of Success," many 
 sayings and illustrations were givei, that all m-ist have felt the fome 
 of beneficially; but the main rule for success— attending to the im- 
 pressionability of our nature — we fear ft. any did not appropriate. We 
 were poiate'd to the fact, that every one having a peculiar organization 
 of his own, is, therefore, fitted for some superiority, and may be sue 
 cessful and great in his sphere, in proportion as he depended upon 
 himself — was organic m what he did and thought. 
 
 In short, the advice was, « Man be thyself," and you will be of 
 worth—- you will count— but if yon will be but an imitator, you will be 
 but a cipher, and instead of ennching civilization with a new product 
 of craft of some kind, or of thought, &c., you give nothing, uut weaken 
 what it already possessed. He said, "we impoverish ourselves by 
 giving too much to others— by assuming there are a few great men, 
 and all the rest are little." We ohould know how to value Socrates, 
 or rhito, or Shakspeare, or the Bible ; but not to take any as a perfect 
 "•uide or rule for us, for then our opinions and actions would not be or- 
 ganic - we would be secondary, not primary, " Every man and every 
 wyman is a divine possibility." ^ 
 
 « We have a central life that puts us u\ relation to all ; we should 
 feel this and not be daunteil by thiuirs." We were advised to leave 
 -jff making it our main point to appear — to b.ave others think we are 
 what we ought to be merely, and to m^ike it our^object and our reward, 
 *o become something of worth and value. After speaking of an ex- 
 ternal that learns to read, to trade, to grasp, &c., the lecturer spoke of 
 on inner life, '< that loves truth because it is itself true. Loves right, 
 it knows nothing else, and that is always the same, that lives in the 
 great present, and makes the present great, &c.," and said, "Let a man 
 value his talents is it is a door into nature." Let him valu« the sensi- 
 bility that receives, that believes, tu A Ic ves, that dares, that aitirras ; 
 find the riches of love which possesses that which it adores; the 
 
 
n 
 
 32 
 
 riches of poverty, the height of lowliness, the pursuit of to-Jay, and in 
 ihis hour, the age of ages." But we only impoverish and rob the lec- 
 ture of its greatness by such fragmental quotations. To be appreciated 
 it should be entire. . 
 
 Touching this matter of making others a standard for ourselves, how 
 numerous and serious are the examples to be found of its impoverish- 
 ing and deleterious efTects. When we look back through past ages, 
 we see here and there have arisen men like great shining lights out of 
 midnight darkness — original men, — men who dared to be themselves ; 
 others seeing their nobleness, their goodness, their greatness, thinking 
 they would be so too, if they would copy after, not knowing that the 
 ■ecret of their greatness was in being themselves, and that to be great 
 too, they must be original too ; they try, but in copying, of cours«» 
 they lull to a great extent. Being oi dillerent size or shape, or tem- 
 perament, the garment does not lit ; but they succeed in forming a 
 clan or sect, that perhaps counts by thousands, no two of which are 
 alike inform, yet each must wear tlie same coat or shoes as their leader, 
 and a disfigured mass is the result. For some the shoe is too tiglit in 
 one place, too loose in another, and corns and chafings the result — 
 fisrurative of men with souls callous on one side, and inflamed on the 
 other. For some it is so tight it cripplq.s them ; for others so louse, it 
 comes off and leaves them naked. At ftrst the quality of the garment 
 is kept in view for a while, but soon all idea of quality is disreganled, 
 but the cut — the shape ! He tliat would attempt to alter this is no 
 longer fit to live. He is a heretic, a vile wretch; he co.rupts morals, 
 poisoi.s t^'e souls of men ; he taints the air; society must be freed of 
 the monster ; and that his corpse may not poison the earth he must be 
 burned alive ! 
 
 Thus men become impoverished and wicked by smothering the 
 light within, and looking to tho wrong source for that which cornea 
 from without. This is an illustration of our point, but it is more, it is 
 one of the faces of Christianity. 
 
 In the last idea quoted, the lecturer manifested a growth which, w«i 
 admit ourselves not suihcieiitly advanced to wholly appreciate — he 
 ■oared beyond our reach but not out of sight. We feel there is much 
 tfuth embodied that tve may put to practical use, and others which are 
 of too high a spiritual order, for our yet comparatively unspirituulised 
 natures to enjoy. 
 
 The lecturer's system of reforming society is, not to wait to demolish 
 the mounds of falsehood, butto build temples of truth that will, by their 
 loveliness, attract all men to them, and leave the unsightly masses of 
 error and falsehood to decay and pass away through mere neglect ; not 
 the leveliner but the exaltinii' principle ; not the demonoligicaj — the 
 Bcarhig principle, but by encouragement, and words of kindt.essand 
 love But we differ with the lecturer somewhat on this point. 
 
33 
 
 Our plan is to remove the error to make room for the truth ; prepare 
 the .soil by destroying the weeds, and removing the rubbish ; but the 
 dill'erence may be owing to the diflerence in the degrees of our lore. 
 Mr. Emerson may believe his seeds of love are suflicientiy potent to 
 sraotlier and choke the weeds, and consume the rubbish, and we ar» 
 not much inclined to dittpute him ; yet, we think, both systems have 
 their advantages, but if we could love like Euierson we might see as 
 he does. We are convinced however, that Emerson's system is of the 
 higher order. 
 
 We need not speak of the high moral tendency of this lecture, 
 since the lecturer himself was filled with the essence of morality and 
 virtue— /ouf. 
 
 In proof of the brilliancy of the lecture as a literary, intellectual and 
 eloquent production, we might quote Dr. McCaul's high eulogy upon it 
 Mayor Reed, &c., and tlie press. The Fretman says, " the theories of 
 the lecturer are purely ideal, and we fear will har Uy retain realization 
 before the arrival of the milennium." This is much for its morality. 
 " In listeniug, however, to Mr. Emerson, we lose sight of the vision- 
 ary and follow him captive through the boundless realms of fancy, 
 through the rich parterres of cuhivated taste ami exquisite imagery — 
 whithersoever he chooses to lead us, without allowing a single pause 
 to stop and admire the sublimity, the grandeur, the simplicity of the 
 variegated variety of the intellectual landscapes which he spreads out 
 beJore us in rapid succession." 
 
 But the Ireeman finds fault with Emerson for condemning the urac- 
 tioe of exhibiting paintings of the crucifixion, &c. He says, it caused 
 him " pain and surprise." Poor fellow! how vi^e don't sympathize 
 with him. Pity that so elegant a writer should, too, have a bigoted 
 side to his soul. It was the grating of bigotry on the finer senses of 
 his soul in its struggle with truth, which caused the pain. He says, 
 another thing that caused him " pain and surprise," was the applause 
 with which these sentiments were received, &c. Strange the difference 
 in tastes. TIds caused us pleasure, and was what we would expect 
 from any enlightened audience, for this sentiment was a part 
 of a beautiful idea given bv the lecturer, which required but to be ad- 
 vanced as it v?as, to gain the consent and approbation of the cuUivuted 
 taste. In countries where executions for crimes have been frequent, 
 awd made public exhibitions of, it has been observed that instead ot 
 deterring others, it tended to increase crime, and to lessen the horror 
 of taking life, or loosing it. The idea advanced by the lecturer was, 
 that ghastly and revolting scenes should be kept out of sight, nor should 
 the representations of them be exhibited in rooms, in churches, or any 
 where ; that the unsightly should be covered over — concealed away 
 fiom view; and in this we \vuuld be only imitating nature, &c. When 
 once our attention is directed to this, how evident it becomes, that thii 
 is one of nature's teachings. 
 
 5 I 
 
 1 
 
I 
 
 "I 
 
 'I 
 
 34 
 
 One pleasing picture catching our attention in our retired momentg, 
 may make us better. 
 
 Relative to the point of whicli we have spoken, in connectiou with 
 Ml-. Geikie, the Globe reports Ur, McCaul— tht^ proaiileiit of tlie ineet- 
 ii,fT— to have said, "He regretted there sliould liave l)eea any inustake 
 as to Mr. Emerson's lueaiung m one part of his lecture. He liad not 
 participated in that idea of Mr. Emerson's moaning, otlierwise he 
 wo id certainly have sympathized warmly with tlie gentlunian who 
 raised the question, which he trusted, however, hail now been set at 
 re.-^t." Now, when a lover of consistency, of simple truth, of no 
 shudling, but straightforward dealing, meets with the like of this, what 
 can lie do but expose the shutiler. And thougb trie highest peer in 
 the realm, the monarch on his throne, or our palriarclial fatlifr, we 
 would drag him forth without remorse, believing we were nut in- 
 fringing on his rights, for no one dare claim as a righl to be diahouest, 
 and we have no sympathy with the doctrine, " if you connot speak 
 ■well of one, speak not of him at all ;" but we believe it to be our duty, 
 if we know one to be a thief, a liar, or a shutiler, to show him up, nor 
 should the parly implicated dare to object to it, since it is one of the 
 great duties of every one to let himself be known. 
 
 Though Dr. McCaul belongs to the same school as Geikie, and to 
 that branch of it—preaches or teaches of Divinity as his title implies — 
 which is the cradle of bigotry, superslilio:i and shutiling, yet we look 
 upon him as having a very exalted soul compared to Geikie, and this 
 little shirking or quibbling a much less oll'eiise tlian that conunilted by 
 Geikie in his criticism on Emerson, as we shall show. In this quo- 
 tation there are four points which might be considered ; the Dr's. regret 
 that there had been a wrong meaning taken from Emerson's words j 
 that he did not participate in the mistake ; thai if he had he would 
 have sympathized with the individual who took such a meaning; and 
 that he trusted the question was now set at rest. It is diiiicull to show 
 this up, for in reality it is all about nothing. All about Geikie's mis- 
 take of Emerson's meaning, which was no mistake. The three re- 
 maining points rest on the hist, which is not itself a reality. But who 
 can doubt that the Dr. look the same meaning from the lecturer as 
 Geikie, viz : that the Bible is not an inlallible revelation of (Jod, or to 
 this etfect ; and if so, why did he call it a mistake, or say he had not 
 participated in h, more especially as the lecturer in his reply reiterated 
 the same idea, expressing himself more fully and clearly than at first, 
 as the quotations show. 
 
 But on the supposition he had considered Geikie's idea wrong, how 
 could he say with iruth and honesty, after hearing the said reply, that 
 he "trusted the question was now set at rest;" for this implies that 
 the reply of the lecturer contradicted the iilea Geikie had taken, or, in 
 other words, the idea that he (the lecturer) had before advanced, which 
 
loments, 
 
 Oil with 
 
 10 iiieet- 
 inirttake 
 hud not 
 wise lie 
 nun wlio 
 ijii riut ut 
 h, ut iiu 
 lis, what 
 t peer iu 
 tlifr, we 
 i nut iii- 
 liyhuiie.st, 
 lot speak 
 our duly, 
 n up, nor 
 le ot the 
 
 e, and to 
 
 implies — 
 t we look 
 . and iliis 
 milted by 
 tliis que- 
 l's, reyret 
 's words • 
 he wouid 
 ling ; and 
 It to show 
 :ie's rnis- 
 ihiee re- 
 But who 
 jctuier as 
 (lod, or to 
 a had not 
 reiterated 
 n at first, 
 
 rong, how 
 epiy, that 
 plies that 
 en, or, ia 
 !ed, which 
 
 \\ 
 
 35 
 
 all who heard knows as well as tiie Dr., and the rtadtr may see, wan 
 not the i'uct. As to ihe Dr's. object and aim, the most we can see iu 
 ail this, isa shutllin<retfurt to make the auilience tliink, in opposition to 
 facts already slated, that the lecturer did not say Ruything contradictory 
 to the iUblo being what they were taught it was — an infallible Uivine 
 revelation— and to do this he necessarily tiad to iiiiply that this was his 
 own view, which again involves one of two conclusions; that ho was 
 dishonest, or, that he did not understand the lecturer either in his reply, 
 or in his previous "passages ;" but tliat the latter was not the fact, we 
 have the strongest evideiico to convince us, therelori', &c. So turn 
 this matter as you may, look at it Iroin any point of view you will, it 
 shows a dark siile. Hut there is one consideration that may very nia- 
 terially alter all this : which is, it the Dr. meant that (Jeikie'a mistake 
 consisted in thinking, that if the people thought the same of the Rible 
 as Emerson implied that he did by the wonls ho used, they would think 
 <' les:i of it than they v^iight ;" and tliat by not participating in the mis- 
 take, he meant that if the people did think the same of the Bible a« 
 Emerson, they would not be thinking less of it than they ought — Emer- 
 son's views of the Bible being right. And the more we reflect the 
 more are we convinced that this was leally the Dr's. drift. We really 
 hope it was, for it will show he is a frueman — we mean free from the 
 .superstitious dogmas, the infallibility of the Bible audits concomitants; 
 j.nd that the conclusions we have drawn in the other view of the case 
 are wrong, because founded on wrong premises. We do not like to 
 believe itiat a man of such ability, learning, and position would stoop 
 to 'hutfling. Taking this view of the matter, the rebuke which the 
 Freeman says the Dr. administered to Geitcie — as quoted — will become 
 visible: but if this was the Dr's. meaning; had they had called this 
 mystical, instead of Emerson's reply, it would have been like calling 
 things by their right names. We dwell upon this point, tor it is im 
 poitant that men of such standing should be understood. And many 
 of them appearing not to believe, or to have learned that it is a duty to 
 let one's self be known, we have to look into them the closer. 
 
 Mr. Geikik's Lecture. — We said Mr. Geikie and others appearing 
 to think — we now say professed to think — the lecture a refutation of 
 Emerson's doctrines. Mn Geikie says, (in reference to some remarks 
 immediately preceding,) " lie a sutficient refutation of Pantheism." 
 He uses the word Pantheism and Emerson's doctrine alternately, as 
 implying the same thing. 
 
 Mayor Wilson, who presided, after praising tlie lecture highly, said, 
 " The dooU'ine that God was matter and matter God" (as he understood 
 Geikie to make out Emerson's doctrines to be.'i had been clearly re- 
 futed, as had also what was called the *' development of systerp, oriiie 
 chain of being," doctrines of a " singular" book called the " Veslages 
 of iNature." The lecturer did refer to his, but so slightly, that we 
 
 I 
 
I'll 
 
 were quite unprepared lo hear it claimed, it had been refuted, andthi£> 
 too, appeared to be the case with the Mayor, for he forthwith com- 
 meiiced an attempt to do so himself- and wliat an ntltmpt ! Did you 
 ever listen to the thrilling tones, and look at the livid actions oi some 
 great orator, whose conceptions were so mighty, thoughts and words 
 and actions so sublime, that in hearing and seeing you would seem to 
 almost loose your own identity? Did you ever listen to tlie great ar- 
 tillery of Heaven booming, lou ily, terrialy, as if the God of the Uni- 
 vers;e were speaking, and its lightnings flash as if he were in anger ? 
 Or did you ever lie on the table rook of Niagara Falls, and behold and 
 hear, and begin to feel yourself an atom, a speck, or your .^oul swell 
 to a mountain^ from very fullness ? Well, if you had, it wouhl have 
 been sure death for you to have seen thh attempt immediately alter, 
 for a cuttapse must have ensued. But to the point. A Rev. Dr. Jen- 
 nings said he " hoped that his (Geikie's) exposition and refutation of 
 the doctrines held by Emerson, would be sent forth to the world." A 
 Rev. Dr. Lillie also "expressed a strong desire to see the lecture pub- 
 lished." Mr. Jennings also said, " when he heard that Emerson had 
 been invited to lecture in Toronto, he regretted it exceedingly, and he 
 thoujht the fewer there were of thet»e Boston irapoii .lions, the better it 
 would be for the people. It was unfortunate Mr. Emerson should have 
 expressed such sentiments as he had done, and surprising that he hatl 
 been left so easily." [These are all from the report of the Globe as are 
 most of our quotations.] None will doubt, we presume, Mr. Jeniiing's 
 sincerhy in this expression ot regret, nor that all oi his diss expe- 
 rience a similar feeling. But why ? Jennnings and Lillie, of course, 
 would answer, because false doctrine. But " dear doctors," is it not 
 granted, and is it not clear, that the nearer and oftener you bring false- 
 hood and truth face to face, the belter for truth, and the more falshood 
 will suffer ; and that one truth is more than a match for an army of 
 errors. But according to this regret and this answer, by bringing 
 truth and error to contrast, truth is likely to suffer, and error triumph, 
 and that a whole " city full" of bishops, priests, doctors and 
 deacons— a whole army of generals and officers, as representatives 
 and defenders of the truth, would be Jikely not to be a match for one 
 layman— one common soldier— as a representative and defeiuler ( f 
 error. So, if this be the condition of your Divinity, you better doctor 
 it a little, it must be extremely ill. As for yourselves— first take a 
 large dose of honesty, give it time to circulate through your whole sys- 
 tem, tht-n a dose of general knowledge, this will do for the first course. 
 In our next visit we may extend the prescription. Or in a more clas- 
 sical sense, you teachers of Divinity, if you can't teach a better Di- 
 vinity than one so weak, teach none. In regard to the next idea, 
 which is in reality embodied in this, it may be said [according to what 
 we have just seen,] that it is not the «' being better for the people," 
 that frets them, but the fear that the people might get a taste of some- 
 thing they would relish better than what tkeij feed them on, and there- 
 
5J 
 
 37 
 
 by slacken their custom, and make business dull, and finally destroy 
 it. What has just been paid may apply to the third. '•' It was unfortu- 
 nate" because it loosened their hold on the people's pockets. But the 
 lasA one is a little varied. " Surprising that he had been left so 
 easily." Now, Dr. you surely blushed when you said this, we saw an 
 insincere smile, but through the gas wc could not see the blush. We 
 cannot believe you were surprised at all. Do you think any so short- 
 sighted as not to see that the reason *' he was left so easilij,^^ was that 
 you were all afraid ol him? If you do you deceive yourself. You re- 
 minded us of a number of curs coming out to bark across the path of 
 the generous mastiff which had passed, [but took good care he got out 
 of hearing before doing so,] envious of the admiration bestowed upon 
 him. Mr. Geikie knowing the difference in tastes — that some were 
 dwarfed in mind, and therefore admired dwarfed things, and relying 
 on his success m misrepresenting him, by trying to make it appear hi» 
 quiliiies were not really admirable, but the reverse — made this attempt 
 to gain admiration too, and to lessen what had been gained by the cither. 
 So you see. Dr., you were not even foremost of the barkers — Geikie 
 commenced first and barked the most. 
 
 Bat to Geikie. First, let us .«ee if this refutation talked of and gloried 
 in was real. Let it be understood that we are not undertaking to de- 
 fend all of Emerson's doctrines, or to show that Geikie did not refute 
 OHij of them, [though the latter raigt,t be done, he produced no ( roof 
 agaiust any,] but to confine ourselves more particularly to such as were 
 embodied in his lecture. It is true, in their talk of refutation; they 
 don't speak of Emerson's lecture, but of his opinions and doctrines, on 
 the whole, so those of his lecture must be implied. 
 
 Geikie's show of argument appears to consist chiefly in his contrast- 
 ing what he called Christianity and Pantheism, or Emerson's doctriuus, 
 not being particular about coniining himself to what those words imply; 
 but on the one side to attach what he appeared to, and what he thought 
 his hearers would hate most ; and on the other what he liked, or 
 thought the people liked most, and robbing civilization of its claims to 
 clotne it with, and wh^m he did confine hniiself to its true character, 
 only touched upon some of the least objectionable, and some of its 
 commendable features. This, of course, is no mode of argument, and 
 goes to show he came there, not so much to convince earn^'St seekers 
 of truth, as to paniler to the tastes of those he knew would be there to 
 he I r him, or to make another, but greater and more successful alteinpt 
 at popularity. In reference to wht.t he says is one of Emerson's seiili- 
 rrients, he says, " We recoil from such a shocking thought." Now, is 
 it likely, that Emeison, a man such as we have just seen him to be, 
 would entertain such a " shocking thought/' much less teach it ? That 
 a man so much greater, so much more cultivated, refined, and loving 
 than another, should entertain a thoughl so "shockin;^" to tliat other? 
 He eiuunorates many ideas as Emerson's, without giving a shadow oi" 
 
11 
 
 38 
 
 proof that they are, and such as are proved not to be his by his [Emer- 
 son's] lecture, and by quotations made by Mr. McLachlan, who lec- 
 tared in the same place after Geikie. But apart from this, and even 
 supposing he [Geikie] were not inclined to misrepresentation, since 
 [as he acknowledged] he does not understand Emerson's doctrines, 
 these may be but misunderstandings of his » wn. 
 
 He says " Christianity has clothed the savage, given his language 
 form, exchanged his war-club for a spade, sent his child to school," 
 &c. We have read the Christian's Bible, but saw nothing that tansiht 
 how to make clothes, teach a language, or make a spade, and 
 were under ^the impression that these were the legitimate heire of the 
 arts and sciences: and so far tioni Christianity having a right to claim 
 them, she has been the great opposer of the sciences, and is so to-day^ 
 as well as of all reform. He says " Christianity makes dissnlutiou only 
 a death-like-sleep, a gentle wafting to immortal life." This is one of 
 the good leatures of Christianity he touches upon. He insinuates that 
 Emerson's doctrmes is in opposition to it ; but dares not venture to say 
 it is. 
 
 He says Emerson "has no future to which to invile lis, or 
 by the prospects of which to cheer us," but "absorption, as 
 ' when a rain drop falls on the earth." But if this is his idea, yet it does 
 not say when this absorption lakes place, or that he denies life alter 
 "dissolution," but simply that he does not affirm Uiere is. He says 
 Emerson " preaches fate." He taught just the reverse in his lecture. 
 But the great point at issue between the two, and which was made so 
 conspicuous in Emerson's lecture by the circumstances referred to, and 
 which is not only the point which Geikie and his party are the most 
 anxious about, but is in reality the only serious difference between them 
 — the Divine infallibility of the Bible— he totally evaced (as regards un- 
 dertaking to show Emeison's idea relating thereto, lo be wrong, except 
 when he^refers to a belief which " gives every man a god," and what 
 he calls a " counterpart to every want of the spirit presented in the 
 Revelation of Jehovah," and says in " these lie a sufficient refutation 
 of Pantheism and vindication of the Scriptures ;") although as seen, he 
 himself had taken objection to it. Is this not a most conclusive evi- 
 dence that his greatest motive was not to oppose error, not to vindicate 
 the cause of truth, or what he taought to be error and truth, but some^ 
 tiling much less noble? Then where is the vaunted refutation to be 
 looked for? But he continues his contrast, substituting a little elo- 
 quence and some nice poetry [quot-r "ir evidence, and say«, " I set 
 up a<rainst all philosophers of En... ^-m'^ -^hool, the picture of Cowper's 
 Cottlger, and leave you to say ' :• ac she or they be the bnghier 
 mirro'Iof the highest truth," and f' .. ■ -e picture, which, m the first 
 place, amounts to the idea that s . 01 weaver woman, or any old 
 weaver woman, that knows only o.- ..•>iig, knows what Voltaire did 
 not know, [but that one thing being an error leaves the old woman 
 without knowing one thing, and the Frenchman not deficient in one 
 
[Emer- 
 vho lec- 
 ml even 
 n, since 
 octrines, 
 
 language 
 school," 
 at taiisiht 
 ade, and 
 ire of the 
 tto claim 
 50 to-da-ijf 
 utiou only 
 is one of 
 uates that 
 ire to say 
 
 le lis, or 
 ption, as 
 yet it does 
 
 life alter 
 
 He says 
 is lecture. 
 » made so 
 ed to, and 
 
 the most 
 A'eenthem 
 egards un- 
 rig, except 
 
 and what 
 
 • 
 
 led in the 
 refutation 
 IS seen, he 
 usive evi- 
 » vindicate 
 , but some- 
 ition to be 
 little elo* 
 ys, <' I set 
 f Cowper's 
 le brighter 
 in tlie first 
 or any old 
 oltaiie did 
 )ld Woman 
 ieut in one 
 
 thing ;} and, secondly, that the or o bard, and who is likely to be 
 pr.iised for ages to come, and who has what he prefers, is miserably 
 unhappy; whilst this, or any old weaver woman is exceedingly hai py > 
 he receives no reward, she a rich one ; he lost, and she safe, [see origi- 
 nal] And now reader we ** will leave you to say" whether this when 
 stripped ot its poetry, has any bearing on the question. 
 
 So after all, we don't see much in the shap# of refutation, of even 
 any of Emerson's opinions, or much to be depended upon as an expo- 
 sition of them., Bui if Geikie's lecture deserves any title beside a vague, 
 or, as the Giumbltr might again call it, an insane attempt at popularity, 
 it is simply a denunciation of <♦ Kmerson, his woiks and opinions." 
 
 He commenced his lecture, touching Emerson's history, and saying 
 that after many shiftings he had wandered far, far away from tlie only 
 truth into outer darkness. Yet Emerson spoke, perhaps as man never 
 fip'jke. of an inner light—" a central life that puts us in relation to all." 
 
 He said Emerson had embraced the extreme of mysticism, vague 
 absurdities and falsehood, "to spread which is the object (-f his lile." 
 Yet Emerson taught in his lecture, the highest morality and virtue, it is 
 possible to conceive of. We should do that respecting the excelltnct 
 of the work and not its acceplublenets, «to coniide in one's self anil be 
 somelhinj" of worth and value." 
 
 What i^ it to us, or the world, what a man believes, providing 
 he is of <' worth and value," and if he is not what of his belkj ? Geikie 
 denounces Emerson because his belief is not as his own, though he is 
 of a thousand times more worth than himself, and not only that, but his 
 belief is greatly superior. He says, " from Boston, the headquarters of 
 this system, [Panleeism.] Emerson and Theodore Parker, &c., seek to 
 influence the public in,any way that offers, "and have so far succeeded 
 for a ine, tha: the Pantheistic tendencies of the age have become a to. 
 nic," &c.; and in another plaie he says, " he[EmersonJ is known as the 
 representative of ultra-Pantheistic opinions." Yet he told us Kmerson 
 was but a faint rellection, the merest imitator of the German school of 
 Pantheists, &c. Such is the manner in which those who do not make 
 truth tlieir greatest aim and object, are apt to confound tkeinselvcs. Nor 
 does this assertion that Emerson is an imitator agree with the fict that 
 he is exceedingly original. 'J'his Mr. Parker, whom, he of course, 
 condemns too, as a teacher of what " our instinctive sense recoils from," 
 is another example of the best, most virtuous, and useful men of our 
 earth— he, too, manifests a degree of love beyond ordinary appreciation 
 or cunoeplion. 
 
 He says, theij " have so far suceeedeil for a time," &c. Vain is your 
 hope, Mr. Goikie, if you expect them to recede before your doctrines 
 after " a time." He decries and condemns many of what he denomi- 
 nates the doctrines of the Gerinan philosophers, and Carlyle, the 
 Scotchman, too, though admiithig they were loo mystical for him to 
 
I 
 
 ;] I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 III 
 
 understand, and heaps Ihem, as he traces them <?o\vn, iipori Emerson 
 as a copyist, because he fintls instances where Emerson's ideas have 
 been similar to the Germans. On tliese grounds he might condemn 
 hundreils unjuslly — might say we had copied after Emerson or the 
 Germans i;i our Relative Theory, because he would find some ideas 
 there similar to theirs. But we take this opportunity of stating that 
 such is not the fact. We were aware at the time we wrote, that one 
 or two of the ideas had been given by others, and have learned since 
 of more, but those that entitle it lo the name of the Relative Tlieory, or 
 the most of them, we are not even now aware of any one else enter- 
 taining. Wiiere there is similarity of ideas arrived by men 
 of thought, such as Emerson, Carlyie, &c., tliere is proof of truth. 
 
 He spoke of Emerson contemptuously as a scholar and as a speaker. 
 Speaking ot what he called his transcendentalism, and his idea oi per- 
 fec. ion, or of perfect happiness, ecstasy, which he [Geikie] says was 
 Bomoihing about a Hindo without thought," looking at the point of his 
 nose ;" and a knowledge of which he [Emerson] got by referring to 
 some translation from the Hindoo language ; all of which is said appar- 
 ently for the sake of an opportunity to insinuate that whatever ideas 
 Emerson got from other languages, were got only through translations} 
 and in reference to this deficiency, he ends by bringing in the words, 
 the "American scholar," in such a rranner as to try to show that the 
 world which called him the " Lcholar," was under a mistake. [Wa 
 have to go a roundabout way sometimes for his idea, having but the 
 report of the Globe to help our memory.] True, Emerson in his lecture 
 did not — to show he understood thern — mix in any inelegant quo'ations 
 of Latin or French, as did the^scholai" Geikie, but instead of this 
 shewing the want of a knowledge of them, or of the scholar, it would 
 rather lead us to the opposite conclusion, since we have been taught 
 that to stick ih a word, or petty phrase of Latin, or any othor foreign 
 language, where the English will do as well or better, is inelegant. 
 And after ^•ornething that he had thought compared favourably with 
 Emerson — perhaps his oivn eloquence, heightened by his Latin and 
 French — says, "slow speaking Emerson." Ho appeared to be em- 
 bned with an " any wav, any where" sort of a spirit, but to lower Em- 
 erson in the estimation of the people. 
 
 He continues contrasting Emerson's doctrines with Christianity, 
 appearing to think his bare mentioning of Emerson's ideas as objec- 
 tionable or '' horrible," a sufficient proof that they are so. " • 
 
 He says, "culture with him is to bring about the reign of the good 
 and the true. It is to quicken the sensibilities, and fit for that intu- 
 itive insight which perceives the highest truths," &c. And is this 
 not culture ? Is it not even the best, the purest, the liiirhest spiritual 
 
 culture ? Yet he quotes it as being objectionable, and what ho contrasts 
 
t I 
 
 with it of Christianity, to throw it in the shade, is something about its 
 ♦'claiming acceptance by the stronizth of its proofs." The strength of 
 the proofs'of Christianity ! We think we can partly understand Emer- 
 son when he tells us to find the '• riches of poverty, the height of low- 
 liness," but when str ngth of rottenness is. spoken of, we wholly iail 
 ia understanding what is meant. We have tried this proof you call 
 strong, and find it very weakness. It cannot bear up investigation. 
 It wont bear thought. Bring a little general information and reason 
 before it, and it vanishes into smoke, ceases to be a reality. "Plu- 
 losophy, he says, " never raised eithe; a nation or a tribe." We sups 
 pose ha embodies, of course, civilization in philosophy— philosophy 
 being the highest step in, or highest result of civilization. What was 
 it raised the Assyrians, the Persians, raised Babylon, the Egyptians, 
 the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, &c.? Or what has raised any 
 of even the Christian nations? We deny its being Christianity. 
 Christianity only helps where civilization precedes, or goes with it, and 
 <Ioes most. The most that can be claimed for it is that it has helped ; 
 hut we ha* 6 undeniable proofs that nations do rise without it, and 
 may remain j in barbarism with it, witness the Abyssinians in Africa, 
 who have been much longer in possession of it than the Anglo-Saxons. 
 
 About the time Chrisliinity got a full ascendency in Rome, s' e fell, 
 and the world was engulfed in darkness under the sway of Christianity 
 until printing was invented and ancient philosophy revived. [Bnt Mr. 
 Geikie don't let these astounding facts kill you quite, there is more hope 
 of you yet than of a dozen dead men, keep breathing, and you may yet 
 loo:sethe scale-s from your eyes, though they have been so shamefully 
 plastered over in your youth, and so as to be likebj to prevent your 
 clear-seeing all your life in this state] So that his statement that 
 « Christianity leads the savage from ferocity and degradation, to a life of 
 gent'euess, hopor and love," is not quite true. He may tell long 
 yarns at their missionary meetings, to this effect, when they are after 
 the dimes, and be believed by those who never look for facts for 
 themselves, or who shut their eyes against tliem when they stare them 
 in the face, such as tlie example of the aborigines of this country 
 affords. We liaveseen them^the Indians) in their villages, in their houses, 
 in their churches, [or at least those built for them,] where their missionary 
 is supported in idleness, and have found tliera in the grossest "degrada- 
 tion ;" seen them changed from manly independence and freedom, to a 
 state ot whining Jepeiulency and alavish beggary Yes, beggary, that 
 corrovling disgrace to any naion or people, is one of Christianity's hand- 
 maid -ns. We know lliere are isolated instances, where our Indians 
 have become quite different from this, but it has been owing to their 
 being surrounded by civilization, and kept constantly in contact with it, 
 and having become wealthy from the sale of lands. 
 
 Christianity ha. persecuted and murdered its millions. Behold ! the 
 wars between the Unitarians and Trinitarians ; the massacre of Protes- 
 
42 
 
 tanls by the Roman Catholics in France, where the streets were flooded 
 with the blood of a brother, a sister, or mother, sh^d by the hand ol a 
 brother, a son. Behold the murdering and awful persecutions of the poor 
 Jews .'-until civilization checked the rage-a persecution more dread- 
 iul, more fier.dlike, more unrelenting, pertiaps, than any other tu be iound 
 in the annals of history. Behold the innocent thousands who have bet-n 
 burned for witch-craft ! in short, the continuous hne of intriirues, cruelty, 
 and bloodshed, kept up by the sects and parties among its devotees; kept 
 up from the commencement of the dark ages, down, down, mournfully, 
 awlully, to the present time. And now h is like a mammoth rotten 
 carnon ; but, thank God, like it mouldering away, and will shortly, as 
 8uch, be seen no more ; but its elements will be utilized, and, instead 
 o! its material grossness, we will have something refined and spiritual, 
 which the good and pure of earth are deniandin^i. 
 
 He says Emerson's God is such as has "no bond of sympathy with 
 his creatures, so as to attract their love, &c." But what have we seen 
 in regard to Emerson's love ? and we are informed that in his contem- 
 plation of God in nature— and which he showed in his lectures— he 
 enjoys the most rapturous delight, and that the " bond of sympathy" is 
 so strong that he feels they are a part and parcel of each other, and his 
 doctrine of the adaptation of one thing to the other, as shown in his 
 lecture, but particularly as quoted by McLachlin, is most beautiful. 
 He says, Emerson "never thinks of directing us to his conception of 
 God for hope," &c., but says, '' Christianity tells us that Jehovah is the 
 Father of mercies." Well, which is the superior doctrine ? Emerson's. 
 It tells us our hope, and only hope, is in goodness, righteousness, in 
 doing no wrong. Geikie's Christianity, that we may commit sins of all 
 hues and degrees [except one they call « sinning against the Holy 
 Ghost," but which they cannot explain,] and continue them all our 
 lives- except a few of the last moments— anil yet have them all lor- 
 given in a moment, « and remembered against us no more." Emer- 
 son's tells us, that for every wrong we do we will receive a pro- 
 portional punishment. Geikie's, we may commit the wrong but have 
 it immediately forgiven, commit anot her and with the same result, 
 and so on. Which, we ask, will have the greater tendency to cause 
 people to cease sinning. The one is justice, the other injustice. The 
 one is taught on every page of the great book of Nature, so clearly 
 thatth.e most ignorant—the Bushmen, the cannibal— aye, even the 
 dumb brute lias a conception of it. The other by a cunning and de- 
 signing priesthood— consistingoi the most stupendous company of spec- 
 ulators known in the history of the world, and believed in by the most 
 wicked, and who allow themselves to be so far duped as to pay in 
 sums of gold to these very priests, for this wierc^, who, of courst- pre- 
 tend to I e in league with Geikie's ''Father of mercies,"— rather a 
 respectable firm with such a head. He says, this Jehovah is the God 
 of all consolation, but did not point us to any one who appears to have 
 
greater consolation than Emerson. Emerson's admiration of the liny 
 flower, the majestic forest, the sin^nnij bird, the adaptation of all things; 
 P.nd his love oi everything, show his consolation to be perfect. The con- 
 viction that Justice reigns is wliat gives consolation. Oeikie's theory 
 after enconra^ing [indirectly] in sin, may give a hope to tlie wretch- 
 ed sinner, that he will not have justice dealt out to him. Tlie man who 
 believes all will be right: all is law, order, justice ; of all men he must 
 be tiie most consolate, for whether he believes in one God, or that three 
 is one and one is three, or in no God, or in many gods and devils, he 
 has a trust that saijs, ivhatev r may befall you at "dessolution," will be 
 for the best. If he should feel a desire to live on, cr feel confident it 
 would be best that he should retain his individuality after the change, 
 he will be consoled in his belief that he will. Well doing gives con- 
 .solation. He says, "in the craving in all countries after a personal 
 God, lies a refutation of Pantheism." This assertion amounts to no- 
 thing, for t!,e real origin of a belief in a god or gods lies in the deifica- 
 tion of causes; the result of the workings of the intellect, as 
 is Pantheism. The former, a conclusion arrived at by the human 
 mind in its infant state of barbarism, the latter by it, in its most culti- 
 vateil and advanced stages. It may be remarked the one personal 
 God belief is the result of a middle state. How this changes the 
 picture. To see these are facts, behold the men who believe and 
 teach the latter; and look at history, or through your own knowledge 
 of human nature, for the origin of the other. Man's thought, man's 
 attention was first attracted by, and first given to the consideration of 
 ttio phenomena of nature, which he saw evtrijiukere ; and his first sub- 
 lime thought and question— which stamped humanity upon his brow, 
 and which was echoed afid re-echoed by the vaults of Heaven, until 
 it resounded through the vast realms of the universe— was, why 7 
 Wlial's the cause ? Yet from all tliis boundless domain no answer re- 
 turned, nor will there ever, absolutely speaking; but man has since 
 discovered the relative case. Man never will discover or learn even 
 one, or but one absolute truth. But it was a law of his mental consti- 
 tution to refer them to causes; these causes 'hey clothed with per- 
 sonality, and conscious existentence, that willed and acted for them- 
 selves, and produced these phenomena. They deified them, and 
 filled the world with demigods and gods. 
 
 Geikie manifests, in some of his statements, glaring ignorance, and 
 in his conclusions a great lack of logic, or honesty, or both. But he 
 says in connection with the foregoing; "and in the perfect counterpart 
 to every want of the spirit presented in the Revelation of Jehovah, lies 
 a snfficie.it vindication of the Scriptures." If this be true, why do 
 men ot thouirht— the best men, the greatest men, the most advanced 
 spirits, say they cannot find the want of the " spirit" there, and seek 
 e[.;,.,.vhi:.ie for it, and say they find it ? Even we. feel and know this 
 statement not to be correct. His Revelation and his Scriptures must be 
 the same thing with him, and, if so, makes his argument stand like 
 
 J 
 
 '-niiiiHiM 
 
 r,CSM«<i« 
 
u 
 
 this: the Bible is divine, because the Bible says so; [which is the 
 almost universal mode of ar^iunent used by its defenders as such ; yet 
 the Bible donH say so;] but in the formation of his sentence he places 
 them sothat the one appears distinct from the other; perliaps this is 
 to give tiie appearance of argument. If ho had reverseil his siate- 
 meni thus '< to the want of amj spirit" he would have expressed much 
 truth; the muhifarious forms of belief and creeds, the virtues and 
 the vices, that this so-called Revelation of J<;hovah countenances, tes- 
 iify to its capability of doing so. The good spirit that loves, may quote 
 its authority, but so do the bad ; tlie spirit that wouKl rob his fellow- 
 man of his liberty— his ail— goes there too for its " want :" and fires 
 have been kiudletl in a thousand piles, by this use mai'e of it, in which 
 human ^ouls have been cast, and tlie quivering flesh bunied nom their 
 bones, and their bones to ashes. 
 
 He says that Emerson's theology is, that "man is to himself, law, 
 savour, &c.;" and why should it not be a part of it ? it is truth. What 
 is law to man, if he is not law to himself ; is it the law of Angels? 
 No; for in as much as they are not the same as we are ; tlitir laws 
 are uot appropriate for us, on the same piinciple that the law of a 
 sheep is not the law of a lion, and in presuming the law of sheep to 
 be the law of lions, we notice the result thus : first, the nature of the 
 lion would be gone, annihilated, the result of this, that he wouid no 
 longer exist, be, ior he could no longer devour his prey, nor even kill 
 It, or catch it, nor could he eat grass, or ruminate ; but, in as much as 
 Ihey are both alike, as both require air to breathe, and food to eat, &c., 
 the law of tlie one is the law of the ottier, so in the other case. This 
 cleiirly demonstrates that man must be a law to himself, or cease to 
 be man, [ui course, the higher the being the higher the law.] Then .f 
 the law of angels is a ihtle too high, on the whole, for man, how 
 stupidly absurd it ts to say that the law of Cod is that of man, or to 
 man. So only in as much as the one is like the oti.er, are the laws of 
 the oneihe laws of the other. MAN CAN ONLY BE INFLUENCED 
 OR GUIDED BY WHAT MAN CAN CONCEIVE TO BE THE 
 HIGHEST GOOD, and it is a law of his being to seek it. But all 
 being.-, aJl species of existances, on any particular plane, or degree of 
 development, may be influenced— inspired, by those, on the plane above, 
 and w, ever has been, and ever will be. It is on the same principh.^ 
 that the better class ol society imbies the other with a helping influence 
 or that one individual may another, but unless the communication be 
 such as that the lower can appreciate— except that it be only so far in 
 advance of his own views, or conception, as to link in with them, as 
 it were, or strike him as if he had almost arrived ai it himself before, or 
 be in some degree apparent to him— it will be as useless to him as 
 Geikie's latin to a goose. This helps us to see better the beauty and 
 truthluliiess of Emerson's saying: '< The good reader makes the good 
 book," &c. Reader, this is the great developing principle. Ihe 
 
45 
 
 higher> uiiiversally tln'oughout Nature, is ever attracling iho lower, 
 onwar I and iipa'.uil, luiiil tlij itiilmduut is purfecteil. Then, that spiri- 
 tnalisin is trua [if tlieie are spirits,] tliero is no table-rappiii,^, liorn 
 blowing, or music playing, required to convince tliose who understand 
 this faw, but,to many, thijy are highly necessary. Man is progressive, 
 he inevitably grows from barbarism to civilization. He is a law to 
 hirnseil ; he has a conception of the principle of right in his most bar- 
 baious state, which becomes more and more developed ami refined, 
 until to him virtue becomes its own reward, — until he rises above the 
 plane of approbativene^s, where Emerson directs, or leads, when he 
 says: " We should do that with respect to ttie exctV/ence of the work 
 and not its acceptance ;" or ascends, till, to him, to give is t;i receive, 
 than which we can appreciate nothing higher, as yet. This appears 
 the liighest poir.t of human perfection. And so it may be said, he is 
 his own saviour, if, indeed, tlie word can be used willi any meaning, or 
 it may be, applied in reference to that gentle hinting — gentle inspi- 
 ration, or drawing upwards, by the spheres above us, if it must be 
 used. 
 
 This inspiration — gentle teaching, or wafting u.-, away to brighter 
 climes or clearer day, is influencing all, but the worst least, and the 
 best most. T!ie wider we open our heaits the more we will receive, 
 and it may be, if we add to our willingness a desire [which is tiie only 
 kind of prayer but what is absurd] it will still be increased, as it re- 
 spects Irom spiritual spheres or plains, but not as it respects the great 
 Posative miiul— the fountain of all spirit — God ; for this is the life and 
 the liglit of ail things alike, and to receive more and more is but to 
 open wider and wuler our hearts ; open our souls for the reception of 
 love, and it will come in and sup with us." This is the lountain from 
 which Emerson has drunk so copiously, that — as Geikie would make 
 out — he has almost mistaken himself for the fountain itself. But Emer- 
 6on, trom what we know of him — .we have not read his works — ap- 
 pears to be ignorant of the other source, and does not believe in the 
 existance of the spirits, or at least does not teach it. Yet, in our belief 
 he is greatly influenced by them. 
 
 Speaking of prayer carries us to Gelkie's comparison in the last end 
 of his hunt — hunt, we say, because it reminds us of a hound with his 
 rudder cut ofl", so that he runs against the trees, &c., at:d, after sonie- 
 thin'^f he thinks, but does not kuow what, — tliis comparison is between 
 the publican's prayer and some conception of his own, of man in a 
 ''diiiuified," or the loftiest position, declaring the prayer the grander 
 and the nobler; and, as it is, it is simply ridicu'uus. But if he had 
 compared the publican in the act of prayer, to ihese, we would say 
 there appears a slight shade of contradiction in 'erms, when we con- 
 sider his idea, or, hir4 school's idea of prayer, f t wsi have often heard 
 them talk of -^ hu.nhimg themselves in prayer," and, in their prayer, 
 tell their God that they " now humble themselves before" him, &c. 
 
if 
 
 46 
 
 But, according to Gtikie's comparison, when they pray they ought to 
 say, "we" now dignify ourselves before tliee." 
 
 He says Erneryon " preaches fiite," « Christianity whispers provi- 
 dence." If he would liuve detiued what he meant by providence, 
 &.C., lliere would have been more substance and Ies» of mere shadow 
 in his lecture, lie proceeds, like a school boy at play, with a hop, 
 skip, and u jump, and we will not pretend lo follow him thmugh all his 
 ramblings. The reader will notice that many of his slatemenls im- 
 body ttie same meaning as others, and that the refutation ol one 
 sometimes, in effect, refutes others, so that we will not dwell upon all 
 ot these separately. Fate, in a sense, is preached by everybody. It 
 is the fate of this earth to be, and to be inhabited by living beings, or 
 it is the fate of the Universe to be, and though Geikie's school — v/ho 
 always have the scape-goat word '♦ incomprehensible" to ride olf on, 
 when they have nothing to support their theory with — may deny this, 
 by saying, God made ii and could have left it unmade, [trusting their 
 satety to this scape-goat mode of deliverance, when — as the argument 
 is pursued — it is hinted to them that the universe must have always 
 existed, by asking them, how can something be made from nothing (] 
 they must acknowlt^ilge, at least, that its God's fate to be. But we 
 don't like the word, it is not necessary to use it, it is not applicable. 
 If he means by it tlie immutability of the laws of Nature and their 
 results, well may Emerson thunder fate — because he has everything to 
 support him — whilst Geikie may well only whisper providence. By- 
 Providence we take iiirn to mean, a special interference of some Om- 
 nipotent power. This belief originated with, and is the counter part 
 of the God-belief, having its rise and changes exactly corresponding to 
 what we have noticed of the other, thereloie already, virtually, scat- 
 tered to the winds; but we may be more explicit. From time im- 
 memorial, and by legions perpetrated, people have fancied such an 
 interference a reality. But, sometimes, as seen they had many gods 
 p.nd godeses : god of the winil, god ot the seas, god of love, and a 
 god of hell ; godes ol pleasure, of wisdom, of fire, of mirth, &c., 
 &;c., which were omnipotent each in their sphere, and whom they be- 
 lieved to be " providences," that is, they were special to favorites, and 
 could be liattered. They believed their favor could be incurred by 
 prayei, &c., and " by tire on ten thousand alters," consuming human 
 beings as sacrifices. This is Geikie's "Providence,-' only in a little 
 grosser form. The Jew had advanced to less extravagance in gods, and 
 to a milder sacrifice, or mode of incurring favor. The Christian tinc- 
 tures this again witti Hindo mythology, imported direct. The three 
 Gods in one God, is clearly traceable to the Brahman's trinity : Brah" 
 man, Vishnu, and Siva, who are separate, yet one god; and to some 
 legend about a godess laying three eggs, which, when hatched, pro- 
 duced three gods,— the primary origin of both the Brah mans' and 
 Christians' trinity. The Christian has one most "shocking" and 
 " revolting" idea in his system of favoritism, even the sacrificing of 
 
 si->">i4fe'. .i,.'hvi4i<^^'*i 
 
 ».i^^rM8a<-i£taiyift.^'-f*fei.- 
 
 te7f^.»t»g^J*igW&i>^"": 
 
47 
 
 God himself, or a part of him, whose blood is to avail for the sinner. 
 
 "lie breuka tlic power of cancelled siu, 
 
 lie seta the pri.-ioiicr free; 
 His blood ciiii make the foulest clean. 
 
 Ills blood aualU for me." 
 
 "Aride, my soul, uHse ; shake off thy guilty feurs, 
 A blced'uit) mcrijicc in your behalf uppears." 
 
 And, "except ye drink of my blood, and eat my flesh," &e. 0, 
 reason ! thou light divine! assert tiiy right, and hurl this monster 
 belad', thiit stalks thus at noon-day, out of civilization, and back to the 
 realms of darkness from whence it came. liut, on the vvliole, the 
 Christian's mode of incurring favor i^ much more refined still than the 
 Jews', and which, in fact, has a tincture of philosophy in part of it, but 
 this is not understood by its practitioners. This tiixture. however, 
 does not consist m trying to persuade an Omnipotent power to suspend 
 law and order, and perform some special act, but in so far as it in- 
 fluences finiie beings like ourselves, hut on higlier speres, and in open- 
 ing our souls, when the spirit that isnmnipotent will ilow inasnutmal- 
 ly as air tills a vaccum. So Geikie's <* Providence," when placed in 
 contact with an ounce or two of co.nmen sense and reason, or philoso- 
 phy, becomes elL-rvescent. And what a blessing it M-uuld be to 
 society, if it were rid of it. The individual groaning with aches, and 
 pains, and sickness, instead of impiously imputing— instead ot be- 
 lieving " Providence" the cause, would soon discover the cause to be 
 a violation of fixed laws, and would learn to violate tliem no more, and 
 that tliese laws and effects must be immutable, or else there would be 
 no order, ind if no order, no happiness, no oxistanee; and that, there- 
 fore, these penaltie* or corrections attached to violations, are in reality, 
 for our good, and when he sees this truth and beauty in physical " law 
 and order" he will soon discover the same in the mental or moral. The 
 loving mother, too, would no longer believe a jealous " Providence" 
 murderedherlittlecherub— her little pet— her little darling— because 
 Bhe loved it too much— because it made her too happy, or bT'cause she 
 loved it more than Him, but would learn the cause, and apply the re- 
 medy, if she should be blessed with such another care. And the 
 adoring wile, the worshiping husband, would continue to be the sprin" 
 of each other's joy-ttie soul of each oliier's bliss- the life of each 
 other's life ; without the fear of exciting the jealousy and an-er of a 
 « Providence," who would rob the one ot the other, because'he was 
 jealous 0/ their loves, but would, on the oilier hand, believe that the 
 deeiier, the higker, the greater their love, the more meritorious. 
 
 He says, Emerson '< dismisses all responsibility from human acts." 
 What we have just been showing negatives Geikie's " Providencej" 
 which he opposes to this idea ot Emerson's, therefore, tliis showi„.r 'is 
 Emerson's view, and is so according to Geikie ; but does it do what 
 Geikiohas just said ? No; but it does the very reverse: it ma/ces 
 humm ads responsible ; then tliis statement is not correct. He says, 
 
 ••m*-^p<i^f>*^'^iit^iisi 
 
 mamiMmtmm 
 
 wmtm 
 
48 
 
 
 he L^nierson] "obliterates the pliiaseology of rijiht and wrotifr, obo- 
 iheiico and fiiii." He does not ; but llie ilillfrenco between the two is, 
 one gives tliem their true rneiiniiig, whilst the other's view of iheni ii* 
 a buiidk! of jargon— like tliis : Once, upon a time, there was a lebellion 
 in heaven; the leailer of the lebellion and his brother rebels met the 
 God of Heaven and tlie loyalists in battle, but was defeated, and east 
 into litiil, "/<rf/>are(/ for the devil and his angels" This Devil— llie 
 Teneral-in-chief ol tha rebellion— had got to bo pioud in his luait, 
 M'hieh pride appears to be the lir.^t appnarance of ilisobedienceauil sm, 
 but which subsequently bocatno so doiniaaiit that coniiiless n^illions 
 have been, and are continuing to be " conceived in iniquity and 
 born in sin," and that now a//-" «//, are by nature, as prone to sin 
 as sparks are to fly upwards." [But these '« shocking" absurdhies are 
 so innumerable, we do not undertake to give anything like a logical 
 arrangement of them.] The spirit of right and obedience we have 
 nothing of, and can obtain none of it, except we believe a certain 
 theory— which is impossible for many to believe— and it we do not 
 believe, what ia our doom.? Behold! Oh behold! ••••••• 
 
 But since we are wholly <' chilldren of the Devil," wliy should we not 
 be "heirs of Hell '?" Tl e Devil, who was once an angel of light, is 
 the source and h-untain of evil. God the source and fountain of 
 ■good. Yet God is the origin of all tlihvjs, and yet the Devil, or his 
 essence-evil, pervades all things out of heaven. So Geikie has a Pan- 
 theism too, but verily it "hatha devil." Let the reader reflect upon 
 the many questions which suggest themselves to the mind, in looking 
 at these tilings, which we have not time or space to notice. But Emer- 
 son's idea of right and wro. g is that they aro relative terms, the eaine 
 as heat and cold, light and darkness, none of whicdi are ubsolu'e reali- 
 ties, but are rdative realities, that is, without cold there would be no 
 heat— without heat no cold. Compared whh this, that is cold, com- 
 pared with that, this is hot. Just so with right and wiong. Tlien, 
 in the sense that we are tree ag(iuts,-and we are free .igeiits only m 
 a relative sense,— we may do either right or wrong. The "Relative 
 T^'.eory" explains this more fully. Nor is there either reward or pun- 
 ishment, in a proper light, but simply if we obey the laws we will be 
 happy, if not we cannot be. There is chastisement attached to the 
 violation of law, that we may learn the law— learn what we should do, 
 and what we should not do. The higher the law by -..hich any bc-ing 
 is governed, thj greater that being's chance of happiness— and, Wy 
 mightsay,of unhappiness,— and the more we obey the higher laws, the 
 mo% we are preparing ourselves for still higher— the more we are b.3- 
 coming capacitated for happiness. 
 
 After Vjeins up iwto th»se regions of loveliness it is painful to descend 
 to Geikie's cramped theory, for when one is dealing with a ridiculous 
 thing and ridiculous actions, he has to descend to ridicule, more or 
 lefis ; and when one is dealing with error and dishonesty, the more he 
 
 fcJ^fc^'?S--;'i'ilfe*S/;T.'w^*S>5^aa^^M&*^S^.-: 
 
 r^-.AM&'i.ji^^utii'mm^^iC^ 
 
3tifr> obo- 
 le two is, 
 f iIkmii ii* 
 . it'bfilion 
 i met the 
 , and I'Urtt 
 evil — the 
 ns luui't, 
 J ami sin, 
 I iiiilliuii.s 
 [uity and 
 ne to feiii 
 rdilies are 
 a logical 
 vv(* liavo 
 a certain 
 re do not 
 • • • 
 
 i!d we not 
 
 f light, is 
 )untain of 
 vii, or liis 
 as a Pan- 
 lect upon 
 1 looking 
 lut Emer- 
 ttie fame 
 u'e reali- 
 uld be no 
 old, com- 
 ;. 'I'lien, 
 .s only in 
 ' Relative 
 .1 or pun- 
 e will be 
 .1 to the 
 hould do, 
 ny being 
 -and, W(3 
 laws, Iht' 
 e are b?- 
 
 ) descend 
 idiculons 
 , more or 
 I more he 
 
 hates uii.honesty the more likely ho is to become sarcastic and severe ; 
 then let these considerations— and perhaps a little drjsirj to be mirth- 
 ful — be our excuse for manifesting or using these occasionlly as wo do. 
 If we had had honesty and error to do with, and had descended to 
 ridicule or severiiy, we would have been unpardonable. Bat to our 
 task. He say:*, " In life wo may dream our theori^B, but death is the 
 experiment that proves their worth." This is a grand mistake — or a 
 stupid on — or else Paganism ' as been proved light by a million deaths i 
 human sacrifices by a million devotees, and the hundred forms of •'C - 
 ligion — from the darkest Paganism to tiie " Harmonial Philosophy"— 
 all right, by the deaths of countless millions. He quotes from a 
 dying Pantheist these words: ''ceitainly he hadnone, and has nothing 
 for it, but to keep shut the lid of those secrets." Well, this says but 
 liltle, surely, but we may gather from it that the man doubtel some- 
 thing, but whethei|it was what he.had believed, or something his system 
 had not extended to or pretendeil to, settle, we cannot discover. In 
 saying, all he had for "certainly" was to Jo something, is certainly 
 childish talk. The quoting, "to keep shut the lid of these secrets," 
 appears to be intended to show an article of their faith. We don't 
 know what the belief of Pantheists is about after death, but there 
 don't appear to be much sense in what is quoted, and less in the 
 qaoting of it. And then he talks about "poor human bravery, that tiiea 
 to keep down 'the lid of the future." Who ever heard of any one 
 doing this ? Why, all are anxious to try to raise the lid. Man has 
 ever had a desire to look into the future. But there are wise and good 
 men, who do not believe there is a future, and of course they don't 
 try to keep down the lid of what is not. No one, then, will wish the 
 lid of the future kept down, except he dreads it, and no one dreads it 
 except he believes in a false doctrine, and such an one as requires a 
 compliance witr. rules, &c., and which rules he has not complied with; 
 but to apply the word bravery to this act looks like something unna- 
 tural — like a language monster. He says, "compare its [Pantheism's] 
 darkness and unspeakable sadness with the Christian'sivision of the fu- 
 ture, ; which vision he then quotes from Bunyan's novel. But what 
 has he quoted or said, that warrants him in applying such epithets to 
 Emerson's doctrines ? — we say nothing. But to make assertions and to 
 not prove, or even to try to substanciate them,WLre prominent charac- 
 teristics of his lecture, though, a contravertial lecture. Evidently, these 
 phrases are used on the same principle, as all his school apply the 
 words Infidel &c., to those whose arguments they cannot answer. The 
 picture of immortality in Giekie's theory is one thing we like better 
 :ti>an what appears to be Emerson's view on that point. He says "the 
 best and the worst in his [Emerson's] eyes are the same." Not so, 
 for no one exercising his senses would say itoo things are the same 
 thing, he might say the two are parts of a same one ^ but if he msant 
 that in Emerson's eyes, they are equally respectable and lovely j by 
 considering Emerson's own statements in his lecture, we will see it 
 
 D 
 
Wi 
 
 k 
 
 50 
 
 contradicted: tor after enumerating a list of noble arts and useful feats 
 he says, "these are arts'to be thankful for, and we could not chose but 
 respect them." This certainly implies that if they were arts, worth- 
 less or bad, he could chose to not respect them. And why should he 
 labour to teach us to change from worse to better, and how to become 
 good, and great, or successful, and condemn the practice of making 
 ourselves appear great by "exclusion," by "egotism," by hurrah and 
 bragg." [one might think he had been acqut inted with Geikie hearing 
 him refer to these.] He told us "Nature ufilises misers, fanatics, &c., 
 but that we must not think the better of them for that." Giekie says, 
 ^'Christianity has the response of our bosoms in hanjjing up a deathless 
 crown before him who seeks after righteousness." This may have the 
 "response" of Giekie's heart no doubt, but compared to what Emerson 
 taught — "We should do that with respect to the ea:ce//ewce of the work 
 and not its acceptableness," — it is low, mean, it is like holding out a 
 lump of sugar to a spoiled child. 
 
 What cultivated mind does not at once see the greatness, and agree 
 to Emerson's rule, yet in reality it condemns what Geikie's heart re- 
 spodds to, and what he says Christianity does. He an ., "Pantheism 
 scoffs at the idea of mediation" ; and well it might, fo t is absurd in 
 the sense that Christians use it. The only sense in which it is possible, 
 is between us and other finite beings — angels and men, and between 
 man and man &o., But he says, "humanity by the fire or ten thou- 
 alters craves it, and Christianity offers it." These fires and alters — 
 though we may not have used these words — we have shewn to be a 
 * mode of worship, oreflorts to gain favour direct from the gods, or God, 
 and has no telerence to mediation. He says Emerson "offers no code, 
 f jio rule for our guidance towards God and our neighbour." We only 
 ,7i9ed to quote still again, that great principle and rule, to prove this 
 statement wrong, and defy Giekie to offer a "code, or rules of action" 
 , either "towards God or ourneighbour," superior to it. Though he im- 
 : bodies with the thirty and nine articles, all the creeds, and codes, and 
 rules of all the sects, we think he will come short of it — To think and 
 act, "with the respect to the excellence" of the thought or deed, &c. 
 But the idea of a code of rules for our guidance towards God, is redicul- 
 oas in the extreme. There is a code of perfect laws, [and therefore 
 ought to be, and are immutable,] for our guidance to happyness, and if 
 we violate t)* m, it is our own business, we alone are responsable. God 
 nftither rewards or condemns us. But these matters — mediation &c.— 
 are of not much consequence to these men, [Emerson &c.] as touching 
 themselves, because they are happy with or without the belief— being 
 reconciled— being convinced, to be good is \o live well — is to live aright 
 — to live aright is to be happy. 
 
 They are abov^ the place of reward, which looks to them like being 
 hired to live well. To tliera "virture is its own reward." He says, "It 
 
51 
 
 iseful feats 
 chose but 
 rts, worth- 
 should he 
 become 
 )f making 
 lurrah and 
 :ie hearing 
 atics, &c., 
 iekie says, 
 a deathless 
 y have the 
 it Emerson 
 »f the work 
 Iding out a 
 
 and agree 
 s heart re- 
 'Pautheism 
 ; absurd in 
 is possible, 
 d between 
 r ten thou- 
 nd alters — 
 wn to be a 
 Js, or God, 
 srs no code, 
 ' We only 
 
 prove this 
 
 of action" 
 ugh he im- 
 
 codes, and 
 think and 
 ■ deed, &c. 
 , is redicuU 
 J therefore 
 [less, and if 
 isable. God 
 ation &c. — 
 IS touching 
 ilief— being 
 ) live aright 
 
 a like being 
 ie says, "|t 
 
 is a striking enforcement of humility, to find modern philosophy, to fail 
 so utterly in its efforts, to make a religion for itself." <'So utterly !'' 
 Now this eloquent sentance is a mere bubble — "sounding brass or 
 tinkling symbol," for we can speak for ourselves and say, — takirrg the 
 word to mean a system of belief which satisfies ones self, and attracts 
 people to it — it has uot failed ; and according to what we have seen and 
 heard, there are millions who can say the same : and the increase 
 has been — in the last few years — more rapid than that of any sectarian- 
 ism under the Heavens, and is now increasing more rapidly than be- 
 fore. And accordiug to this assertion "modern philosophy" has failed 
 to do what all degrees and shades of knowledge and intelligences, 
 down to the darkest state of Heathemism, have succeeding in doing,— 
 for all these "have made a religion for themselves^' — and humbled 
 itselt beneath all these. But having^ a religion merely, is no great 
 criterion of merit, or mark of goodness, look at Christianity for instance ; 
 and there are still worse. There are religionists in India who appease 
 their God by robbery and murder ; but you may say, so do christians, in 
 their burning heretics, &c., but we mean these others make a profession 
 of it. 
 
 But to take the word [religion] in one sense, and we need none, end 
 in an other, it is not a thing to be ma ie at all. 
 
 He says it would be well for Emerson to believe "that human wis- 
 dom is worth liiile or nothing." Ah, Mr. Emerson stop, where you 
 are ! drop your studies ! take no more delight in feeding the hungry far 
 wisdom, for it is "worth little or nothing" to them ; their desire i« a 
 mock, their love for wisdom a phantom, your efforts a farce.— 
 Thou hast spent thy life unprofitably — foolisL'y all— the joy, til* 
 happiness, that thou hast reaped from wisdoms ways, has been ft 
 shadowy dream. And you savans, philosophers, teachers, student , 
 all, cease to fret your fevered brain, your wisdom will not be worth the 
 oil you burn, it hath never made you happy nor will it ever. Burn your 
 libraries, convert your univers ties into priest's, temples, and invite 
 Geikie to preach to you from "Human wisdom is worth little or noth» 
 ing." But hold ! perhaps he is not honest, he has not burned his owu 
 books yet ! 
 
 And what sort of wisdom does he consider woith something, 
 is it that of a pig, or a sheep ? or is it that of Angels, or God ? 
 it cannot be the latter, for their wisdow can be of no use to us, but as 
 we can appreciate it — Understand it — and in as much as we can un- 
 derstand it, it is human wisdom. 
 
 He says, "better than the &c. "is the trust of the veriest babe or 
 suckling, (he ought to have said nursling before the ladies) in whom 
 God has perfected praise." We hare said there was aii idea given 
 by Emerson we could not fully appreciate ; well, in this one parti- 
 
i 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 59 
 
 culir, thig last quo4e<i of Geikie'a stands llje same. He has gone beyond 
 our comprehension, but the difference is, the tubl'mity of the one, 
 and the rediculousneu of Ihe other. But no doubt he thought he wa» 
 saying something. 
 
 But Mr. Giekie** lecture was eloquent, and bespoke for its 
 author, considerable brilliancy of immagination, and a happy stye 
 of communication. Yet it may be thus characterized. Much, pre- 
 ■umption,— littb sense,— less argument. 
 
 Mr. Giekie^appenra a victim of the cramming system ol education, 
 and hence, though he may possess the learning of the schools, 
 has a broken condtitution, a dwarfed mind, and is without, that 
 which scholastic education is only a means—a help to get. He 
 has the seed grain but not the crop, and is trammeled in the meshes of 
 sectarianism;— whilst Emerson's case is nearly a reversal of this picture. 
 He has "valued his talents as it is a door into nature," and has reaped 
 A harvest— has regaled himself with nature's fragrances;— now, listening 
 with attentive ear and grateful soul to her lessons of wisdom } now, 
 Usking in her genial sunshine ; now, reclining in her shady bowers 
 listening to her songs of melody and gazing with ecstacy upon her 
 chequered beauties, and ever drinkina from her inexhaustible fountains 
 of wisdom and truth. He is bound by no bands of superstition or bigo- 
 try, he is a freeman, and his great soul extends the hand of JeHowj«hip, 
 and love, to all mankind; whilst Giekie donouncts all who do not come 
 within the pale of his narrow creed, — Emerson is original and spiritual, 
 Giekie aa imitator and material. Emerson's doctrines the want of the 
 •ge> Giekie 's, a superstitious relic of the past. Emerson a gieat shining 
 light of himself, like the sun, Giekie like the moon, reflects a borrowed 
 glimmer, which, when Emerson crosses our horizon, is no longer even 
 vtsibie~-sinks tu a nothingness. 
 
 Out o£ the dark ages civilization emerged thus. Germany first, 
 France next, Britain next, America will bo next ; and exactly cor. 
 
 responding to this has been, and are the religious casts. 
 
 The philosophy of Germany long ago superseded her sectarianism, 
 and is now the most profound in the world, and is represented by 
 Goethe. The philosophy of France has done the same for her except 
 perhaps as it regards the women— and is represented socially, and 
 theologically by Furrier. The philosophy of Britain has not done so 
 much for her yet, but is rapidly eiTecting it, and it represented bf 
 Carlyle. America's case is peculiar. Leaving out spiritualism, her 
 case is nearly the same as Britain's. Her philosophy and religious 
 element, represented by Emerson. But Uking spiri'ualism into ac- 
 count, she may even now be considered in advance of the rest ol 
 the world. It has been said that Emerson as a writer on the whole, is 
 perhaps the greatest in th« present age. But there is a man called 
 
le beyond 
 
 the one, 
 
 t ha was 
 
 ) for its 
 ppy stye 
 ich, pre- 
 
 )ducation» 
 echoolsy 
 lout. that 
 get. He 
 meshes of 
 in picture, 
 las reaped 
 , listening 
 )m } now, 
 y bowers 
 upon her 
 fount.ain* 
 )n or bigo- 
 sllowjihip, 
 I not come 
 i spiritual, 
 ^ant of the 
 ;at shining 
 I borrowed 
 inger even 
 
 nany firat, 
 icactly cor. 
 
 Btarianlem, 
 esented by 
 her except 
 icially, and 
 ot done so 
 eeented bf 
 lahsm, her 
 1 rehgioua 
 im into ac- 
 the refit of 
 e whole, is 
 lan called 
 
 68 
 
 Andrew Jackson Davis, who may be said .to be favoured above any 
 other living personage. He appears to belong, to some degree, to both 
 this and the spiritual world. He appears to be suspended between the 
 two. He IS only sometimes Davis, at others he is an mstrument, a 
 medium for the transmission of angelic thought and wisdom to us, at 
 others he appears to ascend into Heaven and bring back showers of 
 briliant gems. But even when he is Davis his soul is unfathomable, 
 for he retains much of these visions. He had no scholastic education, 
 yet his works are volumnious, and perhaps excel all others. He is 
 the phenomenon of the age. 
 
 But "oh my country!" Our dear native Canada what shall we say 
 for thee. Why hast thou not kept pace with thy neighbour. Thou 
 hadst as majestic forests, as beautiful a sky, as sublime scenery to 
 inspire thy sons as any — yet thou art priest riden. No Tell hath arisen 
 for thy liberty. No philosopher to purify thy morals. No lover of 
 Nature to reflect her precepts. No great heart that hath burst into 
 freedom, and spoken from its fulness. The nearest approach to a great 
 free soul, is McLacklan, and theretore to him we must look as your 
 representative at present. But we will hope. Some of thy younger 
 sons may arise to speak for thee. We are preparing to help. We 
 mourn our inability to help thee now. But we hope ! 
 
 There is an unhappy land, far, far away, 
 Where Sepoys and Britains stand, each, to slay ; 
 
 which we must not over-look. India that land of all relegions, 
 surely must have some good ideas. And when it is considered 
 that some of their people can suspend life, be buried for an indefinite 
 length of time» be resurected, and walk forth hale and hearty, it 
 must be granted that they are acquainted with some of the great 
 Jaws of our being, which all the rest of the world is ignorant of, and 
 that she is so far superior to all others. There must be much to be 
 admired in their philosophies. 
 
 The McLacklan just referred to, is the one before spoken of as hav- 
 ing lectured after, and in the same place as Geikie. We refer to this 
 because his subject was partly the same as Geikie's. His lecture was 
 on poets— Hood, Emerson &c. This man shewed a growth, and liber- 
 ality of soul, that tours far above Mr. Geikie's. There is in him, poetry 
 and philosophy, love and truth. He is near/?/ a freeman. You can see 
 his elbows and knees out — bursting through his swadling clothes — the 
 errors of "early impression." He spoke of Emerson like one who 
 could afford to speak well of a great man, and like one disposed to al- 
 low every man his due. But he too must pander a little, to the pre- 
 judices of the people. He said Emerson's works should be read '.ritu 
 caution. This implies there is error ignorantly or willfully propagated, 
 and when he gives us no proof, that there is, he asks us to treat one 
 • with distrust without grounds for so domg, which is a slight insult, It 
 
 y 
 
54 
 
 I 
 
 li 
 i'f ii 
 
 m 
 i 
 
 
 
 too Ijaves us no means of judging for ourselves, which of the two ought 
 to be read with the more caution. It (thews presumption to expect us 
 to believe his mere say so, when he knows we have reason to believe, 
 that if the other party were present to speak for himself, he would 
 reverse, or deny the justice of the statement. It is too much like the 
 dogmatical cant of ranters. — On this occasion, The Hon. J. H. Cameron 
 presided, and made perhaps the most ridiculous and glaring attempt 
 at popularity of any. After expressing his approbation of the lecture's 
 •entiments, relative to the beauty and use of poetry, he referred us to 
 he Bible, as the fountain of poetry, [more poetry than truth then, 
 thought we,3 from the first of Genesis throughout, its pages were lined 
 with poetry, some of which nothing equaled. When he resumed hi» 
 seat, we were much nearer convinced, that he had never read the Bible 
 than before. We felt bad, for we were disappointed. We hcd fancied 
 to our selves a well developed soul, looking at him through the medium 
 of his profession. We came away more confirmed in the belief, that ones 
 •oul may be developed all on one side, like the handle of a jug, or 
 that one may have a hump-backed mind.— a mind highly cultivated on 
 one side and neglected on the other. What poetry could Mr. Cameron 
 •e« in the story of Lot and his Daughters, the allusions of Ezekiel, the 
 genealogies, the petty details of petty things, the rapine, the murder 
 committed by the Jews, Samson's killing thirty men to rob them of 
 their garment, with which to pay a bet he had lost? or in the chocking 
 accounts of falsehood, deception, wrong &c. &c.? even the worst of 
 vhich are «aid to be directed and permitted by God. 
 
 True, in our remarks touching Christianity, we have given it* dark 
 ■ido. It has a bri^t side, with many beautie?, What can be sweeter 
 in expr«Mion» and more pleasing in sentiment than, 
 •«There is a happy land, far, far away. 
 Where «ainl8 in e'ory e^and, bright, bright as day," 
 And eren many of its errors are founded en some degree'of philosophy, 
 lU confession's cf faults and sins to a superior, either in the Methodist 
 claas meeting, or before the priest, has for its foundation the principle 
 and duty of "letting ourselves be known.'* Its merciful God, and 
 malignant Pevil, has for its foundation the fact of the existence of both 
 good and evil, relatively apeaking.— Its Eternal happiness, and Eternal 
 misery, for its foundation, the possibiUty of our partaking of the g.->od» 
 and becoming happy, or of partaking oi the evil, and being miserable. 
 Its idea of God's mercy, the charity we ought to have for one-another. 
 Prayer and mediation, upon the psychological sympathy, or dependancy 
 between all finite beings. Its idea of Gods Eternal existence and 
 omnipresence, upon the fact that-" All is but a Unity, "Which 
 «ver was will ever be " But these last two look to be the same, for 
 whatever is every where, must be itself everything, since two things 
 
 _. • t'U^ .._A nlano «♦ thp S**"* tinflfi. 
 
»» 
 
 r 
 
 55 
 
 We reject Christianity ihen, not because it hath no light, 
 but because it has so much darkness, and because, in our minds it is 
 superseded by a system, that hath more light, and less darkness. And 
 as we have said before^ we speak more particularly of Christianity, 
 such as it has become, not such as Christ taught. But if you Doctors 
 of Divinity — or Mr. Geikie, who is more bold than you— think you ar« 
 right, and we are wrong, vindicate the right, and confound the wrong. 
 Give the people an opportunity of judging. If you are silent it will 
 show you do not yourselves, believe you have truth on your side. This 
 you have often shewn, you have been challenged in this City, to meet 
 face to face, by your opponents, but you were mute'as mice— as silent 
 as the grave. We are but weak — but a school-boy, studying his gram- 
 mar — but truth is strong. And though by presumption and audacity, 
 you may daunt the boy, and by exhausting your vocabulary of hard 
 names upon him, [whi^ h you keep for such purposes,} prejudice ths 
 people against him, you may but dread him the more when he grows 
 up. You ought to wake up to something. You are living on the peo- 
 ple, but don't give them the worth of the salt in your victuals. Your 
 sermons are like musty ruins, no life, no growth. They are bundles of 
 mysticism and jargon. You tell the people they are rotten V/ith iniqui- 
 ty — putrified sores "from the crown of their heads to the soles of their 
 feet," by nature — and that this has condemned them to • • * •— ► 
 and hence their resemblance to it, for people are apt to ba what they 
 think they are. But you flatter them in the meantime, by telling them 
 there is a toay to escape this doom, and that you can le? them into tho 
 secret —that you can teach them the way, and that you are the only 
 ones who teach the ri^ht way, [no wonder, those believing all tnis, 
 should give you a fat living.] You say to them, this way is a belief ia 
 iomthing you tell them about. This belief then is a righteous act, 
 Bince it not only frees them from this condemnation, but as you say 
 too, gains for then, eternal bliss. But at another time you tell them 
 they cannot perform a good act, or think a good thought. And your 
 saying, [when you are asked to explain this,] that God influences them, 
 or [which it amounts to] makes them believe, besides showing your 
 doctrines to be a glaring humbug and farce, it destroys the necessity of 
 your teaching, your plea for office, and reduces the matter to this 
 point — and which we believe some have got to-- "God will have mercy 
 on whom he will have mercy," and that therefore our ccncern and efforts 
 aval i nothing tovyards preventing the one, or securing the other-- but some 
 how or other even then you stick to office. Your doctrines are absurd and 
 self-destroying— your interference between your fellow-man and God, ft 
 glaring speculation, and your systematized, and organized bodies from 
 the Pope down to your Methodist class-leader, a concocted scheme to 
 carry it out. You have always opposed all reform. You have been 
 deadly enemies to the progress of the sciences. You would now blast 
 he prospects— -shut up in dungeons — and burn at the stake (if. the civil 
 law did not prevent you) those who would but speak their honest con- 
 
 ■1 
 
 :^^±f/f 
 
56 
 
 yictionsthatyourdoctrinesare wrong, and pretend to teach, that to be 
 come good and wise, is to do right and become happy-pretend to 
 teach the people that all wrong doing inevitably brings unhappmess. 
 and well rfoing alone happiness, and that they [the people] need no 
 hired priest to tell them this, for the most ignorant, yea the most bar 
 barous have a conception of it ; that Nature teaches it to all her child 
 ren ; and her doctrines never clash ; and though her voice never ceases 
 night nor day, there is no discord, hers is a Harmonious Philosophy, 
 and can teach allthat man will ever know, either in Heavm or ftm- 
 heloic, 
 
 " What conscience dictates to be done, 
 
 Or warns me not to do, 
 This teach me more than hell to shun, 
 
 That more than heaven pursue." 
 
 TOMMTO, January, 1859.