L\' 
 
 THE "MA IS' THEOLOGY: '^^ 
 
 r, • i 
 
 A. 
 
 3 3? I-, 'X" 
 
 Sa i u i'{\ ) \ S<^ rill oils 
 
 Tdh'O.X /'(J ■■ MM!.. 
 
 I -.1 I . I ' 1 1 \ ( , 
 
 i > 1^ l>l( V MON <»l 
 
 riiAs. !;i{Ai)L.u^(;il. )i.r.. 
 
 N'nt iMi, ma;! s ,\si'i:ii'^i 'N 
 
 \i.i.i:\ i'i;iN(;i.i:. 
 
 l:-<'dh ,.,, II, . I'lU'mtu S, , ilil'- *ifni fi). M.irrh '(,''1. 'iill/ 
 
 \t 
 
 ' ^ ■.' ' ■in A .1' tv 
 
 \ > i' \\ I !.. ' IN I \ !: In 
 
 ' i ' M • |. \ I ; III -I v\|. ,|ch K.i..|» ■, M. '■!« rxiv MM. , n j, , 
 
 G\L. 
 
P28^- 04 
 
 T=)3k 
 
 rvw 
 
 ERRATUM. 
 
 On Page 31, in fourth line from top, read " Compunction," 
 instead of " Compensation." 
 
The " Mail's " Theology : 
 
 UKim; 
 
 TO THE 
 
 SATURDAY SERMONS 
 
 OP THE 
 
 TORONTO "MAIL," 
 
 INCLUDINfJ 
 
 A VINMCATIOIV OF 
 
 CHAS. BRADLAUGH, M. P., 
 
 AGAINST THE "MAIL'S" ASPERSIONS. 
 
 -iiY- 
 
 ALLEN PRINGLE. 
 
 Read before tJhe Toronto Secular Hocietu, March 2(itlt, an<l 
 
 April 2d, 1882. 
 
 • • • • « 
 ... , 
 • . • ♦ . . . 
 
 • • t , . .""i r-» # — * '■ » * 
 
 • • ■ • • . 
 
 ^* *. , . . . 
 
 ■ • 
 
 • • • • • t 
 • • • I 
 
 NAPANKE: 
 PRIWTBD AT THE BTANDARl) HOOK AND JOB PRINTING OKFIGE. 
 
 1863. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The lollowing reply to the " Mail," with some revision and 
 amplification, was read before the Toronto Secular Society ; the 
 first part on Sunday, March ''.Gth ult., and the second part on 
 Sunday, April 2d inst., 1882, by the President, A. Piddington, 
 Esq. It has been deemed advis'^ble to have a large edition of 
 upwards of two thousand copies issued in this form, chiefty ior 
 gratuitous distribution. And as this pamphlet will be sent to 
 most, if not all, ot the newspapers in this Province, I would 
 respectfully ask the careful attention of Editors and Publishers 
 to the vindication of Chas. Bradlaugh herein contained, espec- 
 ially as many Canadian papers, besides the "Mail," have 
 mis-represented or mis-stated Mr. Bradlaugh's position t:» re the 
 Oath — unintentionally, no doubt, and without being in posses- 
 sion of the true facts of the case. In this pamphlet the tnte 
 facts are given ; and I. here propose to back up this assertion 
 by making the following offer to the '* Mail " or any other of 
 Bradlaugh's maligners in this country : — For every statement 
 1 have made in this vindication of Mr. Bradlaugh, which 
 can be proved untrue ; and for every line I have quoted from 
 the English Press and Parliamentary Reports touching the 
 matter, which can be shown to be unauthentic, I will pay to the 
 party so proving the sum of ten dollars per statement and t«Q 
 dollars per line. This is a style of controversy I do not like, 
 yet it is the only way to silence unscrupulous adversaries. 
 
 , ALI^EN PRINGLE. 
 Selby, Lennox ^o., Ont;Aric,\ * . : ;!.;•,.. 
 Aprijr iS&b: :• . :] . •.:••••/• •• 
 
 ^^ • •. .' ; . • '::."•. ••• 
 
REPLY TO THE " MAIL," 
 
 A l*aper read before the Toronto Secular Society. 
 
 Dear Friends : — 
 
 Having been honoured by a request to give an address 
 before the Toronto Sacular liiociety, or (that being impracticable) 
 to contribute a paper to be read by proxy, I cheerlViUy comply 
 by making this contribution. 
 
 My only hesitation arises Irom the feeling that I may not be 
 able to present to you anything very interesting or novel, the 
 whole field having been, I should judge from your programme 
 of lectures, pretty fully occupied already by yourselves. How- 
 ever, I shall endeavour to merit, in some slight degree, the 
 honour conferred by your kind invitation. • 
 
 In casting about for some subject lor this paper, which 
 would be, if possible, practical and useful, as well as interest- 
 ing, three or lour presented themselves to my mind, one or two 
 of which, besides the one selected, I will take the liberty of 
 mentioning here, with the hope that they will, on account of 
 their practical importance, be taken up and dealt with by the 
 speakers of the Secular Societi/, The three topics, then, which 
 forcibly presented themselves to me in my search for a subject 
 were these : — ■ 
 
 ist. " What a Freethinker ought to be and ought to do; or 
 The Practical Philosophy of Liberalism.' 
 
 2d. " The Social Evil — a Rational Jview of its Causes and 
 Remedies." 
 
 3d. " A Reply to the Theology, assumptions, and personal 
 aspersions of the Toronto Mail." 
 
 The second named of these questions was suggested to me 
 in consequence of the great attention it has been receiving of 
 late in the Toronto press and from the Toronto clergy ; and 
 also in consequence of the unconscionable amount of nonsense 
 which is being written and said on the subject. After taking 
 official counsel in the matter, however, I have selected the latter 
 subject as being the one which would be perhaps at present 
 
 I 
 
 tli\A QO 
 
4 REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 most suitable, interesting, and acceptable to the Society, thougjk 
 the other topics arc of great practical importance, and would 
 afford opportunity for constructive rather than iconoclastic work. 
 
 But these lay sermons of the Mail are so widely read, &• 
 superficially plausible, and, withal, written with so much liter- 
 ary ability and skill, that in attempting to prick the grand- 
 iloquent theological bubble, and in exposing the Mail's calum- 
 nies, I may not altogether fail in doing a little service to tkc 
 cause of honest Truth. 
 
 Without inflicting upon you further preliminary explanatioB 
 I beg now to address myself to the work in hand, and make my 
 agnostic bow to the Christian agnostic of the Toronto Mail and 
 his nondescript Saturday Sermons. 
 
 For many months past the Toronto Mail — no doubt with the 
 commendable desire of being at least a skirmisher in the great 
 theological warfare of the times — has served up, weekly, to its 
 readers, theological disquisitions, moral homilies, agnostic im- 
 peachments, materialistic indictments, pseudo-scientific elucida- 
 tions, atheistic arraignments, and sundry alleged weaknesses, 
 absurdities, ^tc, too numerous to mention, with which we poor 
 Rationalists are supposed to be laden and encompassed, till one 
 would think we must needs at once sink to our Mother Earth to 
 rise no more under such a hypothetical weight. Having, for 
 some time past, carefully treasured up these precious Saturday 
 Sermons for future grace and edification, (the same as a good 
 Christian brother would treasure up " Baxter's Saints' Rest " 
 or the •• Pilgrim's Progress,") I have taken them down from 
 their resting place, dusted them, and gone through them, in 
 order to bring my man into position — to bring him into full 
 front view for the attack. But somehow — and sorry I am to 
 say it — I find the extremest difficulty in fixing this slippery, 
 politico-religious High Priest in any one position. For no 
 sooner have I fixed him here, than, like the Irishman's flea, he 
 is there or somewhere else. Finally, after wading through all 
 the confusion-worse-confounded sermons — after a careful re- 
 view of the whole field — the supposed real man becomes multi- 
 plied before me into a phantasmagoria of flitting phantoms with 
 no locm in quo or permanent locale, and none of which are suf 
 ficiently *• materialized " to form the object of a good square 
 attack. 
 
 " And be thc3P jugtfling fiends no more belicTod, 
 That palter witii us in a double sense ; 
 That koop the word of promise to our ear, 
 And break it to our hope." 
 
 In such a dilemma the only alternative a warrior has is to 
 
 
 
RBPLY TO THE MAIL. 5 
 
 save his ammunition ; or else sweep the whole field both of 
 entity and non entity, real and spurious, tangible and intangible. 
 Simile aside, it is really very difficult to determine from the 
 MaiVa sermons just what Christian positions the oracle thereof 
 would stand by ; so that one hardly knows what to attack in 
 •ne who '• Draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than 
 the staple of his argument." He certainly does not stand on 
 •rthodoxy,'or, if he does this week, he gives it away next week, 
 and the next gives himself away. One gets the impression on 
 heading this temporizer's lucubrations that he simply comes to 
 time every week in a mechanical sort of way — to fill in so much 
 space — and purely as a matter of business, without believing 
 a tithe of what lie writes. This may seem a little uncharitable; 
 but it is the impression tha^ inevitably fixes itself upon my 
 mind in wading through his learned lingo ot weak theology and 
 weaker logic. Shakespeare again describes the gentleman : — 
 
 "Like one 
 Wtio havinp, unto truth, hy" ' ' (lyinjc frequcntljl, 
 ■' Made riUfh u eiuner of his nit'iiiory, 
 Tf» credit his own lie." 
 
 A man who is honestly in earnest in his work, and sacredly 
 believes what he writes or preaches, will not be apt to contra- 
 dict himself here, and stultifj himself there, and give himself 
 away somewhere else. Not only do liars, according to 
 the proverb, require good memories, but temporisers and liter- 
 ary time-servers are equally in need of such a convenience. 
 That the disquisitions under consideration have literary merit, 
 and evince extensive, though not deep, reading, is at once 
 admitted ; hut they lack, equally, profundity, coherence and 
 logical consistency. The courage displayed is, however, of a 
 perfectly safe description. No rallying, raw recruit could 
 flourish his sabre behind his entrenchment, and transfix his 
 man at forty rods, more cavalierly than this subsidised advo- 
 cate behind his Mail entrenchment disposes of all and sundry. 
 Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Tyndall, Arnold, the Agnostics, the 
 Positivists, 'he Materialists, are all extinguished and extermin- 
 ated with literary fluff and smoke in the most summary fashion. 
 Why not, indeed ? Sir Oracle is as safe from attack or reply 
 behind his coat (or column) of J/a<7as the pulpit polemic behind 
 , his "coward's castle. " Each can afford to be valorous. Each 
 can don the vestments of dogmatic ex cathedra. Each can 
 denounce, and fulminate, and dogmatize to his heart's content. 
 An open field, however, would teach both a little more modesty 
 a«d courtesy —wculd strip them of the 
 
 "L'ou's hide! doff it for shame. 
 And hiing h calfs skin on those recreant limbs." 
 
 \ 
 
9 REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 A lew months ago, on reading one of those brilliant Saturday 
 sermons, which was especially dogmatic and ofTensivc in tone, 
 I felt inspired to address a note to the theological editor, asking 
 bim to give mc a column in the Mail, or even half a column, 
 every week, to reply to his attacks upon us. I reminded hira 
 ^.hat, being safely in possession of the floor, he was using it for 
 -dogmatism, assumption and misrepresentation — pointing out 
 examples of tho latter. 1 suggested that I might show the 
 untenableness of his positions, and make short work of many 
 of his arguments, if he would only give me an opportunity. I 
 reminded him that truth could not suffer by discussion ; and 
 that if he believed his positions true, he need not fear to hare 
 them examined — that if his facts u;erc facts they could not be 
 shown to be false. I asked this privilege on behalf of Canadian 
 Agnostics, and in dorcncc of the Agnosticism and Materialism 
 which he was so grossly misrepresenting. This was a just and 
 reasonable request which could not be honorably refused ; 
 but 
 
 " Ho thai stands upon n slippery pl*rr 
 MakcH nice of no vile hold to stay him up." 
 
 Not only arc our doctrines misstated, perverted and traves- 
 tied, but tlie exponents of them are personally slandered and 
 misrepresented, and their best motives impugned. At first I 
 supposed that this was not infcntional on the part of the ^faiL, — 
 tliat it arose from lack o\ correct information, — btit I have been 
 reluctantly compelled to change my mind and put it clown as 
 intentional, deliberate misrepresentation. Tins is a grave impeach- 
 ment, and I do not make it without being able to show that it 
 is just. To prove the justness of this charge generally, I need 
 only refer to the Mail's treatment of Charles Bradlaugh, whom 
 it has persistently misrepresented and vilified since his first 
 return to the English House of Commons, notwithstanding 
 that it has been repeatedly corrected and refuted. These cor- 
 rections, however, have never been given to the public througl^ 
 its columns. 
 
 The M'lif has charge.! Charles Bradlaugli with writing and 
 publishing a " vile and obscene" book, " The L^ruits of Phil- 
 osophy ; " with being immoral and even "beastly" in his life; 
 with "flaunting his atheism before the House ot Commons;" 
 with refusing to take the oath because it would have no bind- 
 ing effect on liim. and afterwards "swallowing his scruples" 
 and offering to take it; with being without honor and devoid of 
 conscience, and so on to the end of the chapter of false indict- 
 ments. They are all utterly false, and the Mail — though, per- 
 haps, at first making them in ignoranceof the facts— knows of late 
 
 / 
 
IBPLY TO THE MAIL. J, 
 
 perfectly well that they are untrue ; but on the principle that 
 " a lie well stuck to is as good as the truth " the Mail has 
 
 {persistently and consistently stuck to its lies against Brad- 
 augh. 
 
 First, as to the " vile and obscene" book which, according 
 to the " Mail," Bradlaugh and an " immoral woman " got up 
 and published between them. This book — " The Fruits of 
 Philosophy" — was written and published by Doctor Charles 
 Knowlton — a noted physician of Massachusetts — in 1831 ; and 
 has been since published and sold by Christian publishers and 
 orthodox booksellers for nearly fifty years. And mark you ! 
 This book was never suspected of being ot«c<^< until an Atheist 
 published it; and, then, forsooth, it at once became " vile !" 
 Besides that, Bradlaugh and his co- publisher — Mrs. Besant — 
 published the work not because they fully approved of it, but 
 purely in vindication of the liberty of the press. One of their co- 
 workers had been prosecuted lor selling it, and tamely submit- 
 ting to what Bradlaugh considered an arbitrary infringement of . 
 the liberties of the press and the rights of publication lie (Brad- 
 laugh) declared that in defence and vindication of such rights 
 he would himself publish the book and sell it. and then fight 
 the matter out. He accordingly notified the authorities of his 
 intention to begin the sale on a certain day at a certain place, 
 which he did ; and proceedings were then commenced against 
 him. Sir Alex. Cockburn— the late Chief Justice — who pre- 
 sided at the trial, declared in his charge to the jury, after care- 
 iully reading the book, that it was rwt obscene, but a " dry phy- 
 siological treatise." This unbiased judgment of *he Chief 
 Justice as to the character of the book is of infinitely more im- 
 portance and carries much greater weight than the biased opin- 
 ions of a Christian jury who may have been more or less pre- 
 judiced against the atheistic defendants. But even they, in 
 their adverse verdict, " entirely exonerate the defendants from 
 any corrupt motive in publishing it." As this prosecution (or 
 persecution) of Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant for publishing and 
 gelling Dr. Knowlton's '• Fruits of Philosophy," has been made 
 the grounds of the vilest calumnies and falsehoods against 
 Bradlaugh's moral character, I will here ask your patience a 
 little further on this point while I quote from the report of the 
 trial the language used by the Lord Chief Justice. He said : 
 
 " I iniiy state that the view.< cxpresactl in the book forthe r.'pubUciition of which 
 Mr. Bradlaugh was indicted, arc reKtirdcd aa cssenti'vl to the Malthusian theory of 
 population. The hook was written forty years ago by an A niorican Doctor, and ite cir- 
 culation was unchecked till a few years ago, when a bookseller was threatened wi»h 
 proiiccution for BcUinK it Ho pleaded guilty and thus escaped punishment. Mr. 
 Bradlaugh felt that this would hamper nil position as a Maltnusian. and so printed * 
 
y 
 
 REPLY TO THE MAIU 
 
 ab4 published a fresh edition, RiTingr formal notice to the polio*, that b« and Mvg, 
 Besant would at a ctirlain place, day and hour, attend to sell a copy to any person 
 tber miffht depute. A cH)py was acrordingly sold and the proaecution ioBtltute^ 
 ta this ihrre vxut no vUcor immoral nwtixyc, but a pure love of trvtU, and a desiflV 
 to further the nprcod of opiniono, >rhich may, or may not, be indiapensable to tlHi 
 future advance of public nealth and happineiui.'' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice, in his summing up, also said, — "A 
 More ill-advised and a more injudicious proceeding in the way 
 •fa prosecution, was probably never brought into a court of 
 justice." Ultimately, the authorities were compelled to return 
 fco Bradlaugh the seized edition of the work, amounting t* 
 several hundred copies. 
 
 The Sifcorei count in the above "Mail" indictment against th« 
 member for Northampton, as to the •' beastly" immorality ol 
 his Hfe, being the natural corollary of the false charge just dealt 
 with, may be briefly put down as equally hypothetical. H 
 Bradlaugh were really the " vile and beastly materialist" which 
 the Puritan organ scurrilously designates him, his Christian op- 
 ponents (the honorable ones) who have known him his whole 
 iiie, woujd scarcely bear such testimony as the following : — 
 
 The Rev. William Sharman, of Plymouth, England, in a pub- 
 lic address, given in the Mechanics' Institute ot that place, on 
 the 8th of August, ol last year, reported in the Plymouth papers 
 Dr. Merrifield in the chair, in referring in the course ot his 
 address to the illegal exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh from the 
 House of Commons, said, he (Bradlaugh ' •- barred, ' ' 
 
 " Not because of any crime, but solely on the a'' ' speculatiye error: 
 
 Stalely bccauBC of speculative error, for there wot iian in all EnglanA 
 
 who dared accuse Charles Bradlaugh of dishonest act \A ■ tngful deed. For flT» 
 and twenty years the man who was now the member for Northampton hud been thv 
 shining mark at which bigotry, envy, malice, hatred, and all unclmritableness had 
 thrown their poisoned darts, but he had never been wounded. It was true shame- 
 ful charges hatl been made, but again and again the liar had been forced to confcai 
 his Ue and pay damages ; and those damages Charles Bradlaugh had not put into 
 his own pocket, but he had given them to the poor. Through all those years he 
 ha<l bei'n the friend of all who where poor and oppressed. The slave in the rio» 
 Jiwamp, Iht" exile umid Siberian snows, tlie English ogricu tural serf, the hunted 
 Zulu, the invaded Afghan, luul the Maori prisoner hod all received his help anA 
 •'ailed him blessed, lie had helped the right always, and persistently denoimceii 
 al' wrong. He had received no title, had obUiined no decoration, been thankeA 
 by no king ; but the men whose praise would shine as the light of stars for ever— 
 the true kings of our times— Victor Hugo, Castelar, and Garibaldi- they bad thankt# 
 him aii(l called him friend. 
 
 "A king may make a belted knight, ' r; 
 
 A marquis, duke, and a' that. ' : , ^ . 
 
 An honest man's fthoon his might, . ^ 
 
 Quid faith he canna fa' that." . , 
 
 Aj&d it. was because Charles Bradlaugh was such an honest man, and not becaua« 
 •f his speculative errors, that the bigota, and the place hunters, and the poo- 
 )»€?'»r8 of perpetual pensions feared him and eject«ia him. They kmew that their 
 «rf>ft was in danger, and sought by trick, fraud and illegal force to delay the day cf 
 t^oir Just doom." 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. ^ 
 
 fhis, my friends, is what a Christian minister — an honorable 
 •pponent — says of Charles Bradlaugh. 
 
 Then we are also told by the '• Mail" that Bradlaugh " came 
 fc© the table of the House originally and protfisted that he did 
 aot believe in the existence of a God "; that he refused to take 
 the oath because it would have no binding effect upon him ; 
 and that he " flaunted his atheism before the House of Com- 
 mons." There is not a word of truth in this, as the official 
 records incontrovertibly show ; and, not long since, I wrote to 
 the editor of the " Mail" offering him five hundred dollars if he 
 would furnish us with one tittle of proof of the truth of his 
 assertion. In the same diatribe the " Mail" also charged that 
 Bradlaugh recently, at the Bar of the House, *' knew perfectly 
 well that he was lying" in his vindication of himself against an 
 unjust attack with reference to bis" Impeachment of the House 
 of Brunswick." I offered the " Mail" other five hundred dol- 
 lars if it would adduce any proof that Bradlaugh's statements 
 9n this occasion were not true. But the only answer vouch- 
 safed to this has been mendacious reiteration. As can be 
 proved from Hansard, when Mr. Bradl^-ugh first appeared at 
 the Table to comply with the law and take his seat, he did not 
 rtftese to take the oath ; nor did he say one word about the 
 oath, or about God, or about his religious or irreligious opinions. 
 Having previously notified the Speaker or Clerkof his intention 
 to claim his right to affirm, when he appeared at the Table the 
 Speaker intimated to him that if he wished to address the House 
 rn explanation of his claim he could do so ; whereupon Mr. 
 Bradlaugh said, " I have repeatedly, for nine years past, made 
 an affirmation in the highest courts of jurisdiction in this realm : 
 I am ready to make such a declaration or affirmation." 
 
 In proof of this, and in absolute disproof of the •' Mail's" 
 charges on this point, I will here quote from the report of the 
 Select Parliamentary Committee — a Committee composed of 
 twenty three members, including the Attorney-General, the 
 Solicitor General, Sir John Holker, the late Conservative 
 Attorney-General, Lord Henry Lennox, John Bright and 
 eighteen other prominent members of Parliament. This Com- 
 mittee had power to send for Persons, Papers and Records, and 
 its duty was to 
 
 "inquire into and consider the facta and oircunistanoeB under which Mr. Brad- 
 laugh claims to have the Oath prescribed by the 2t» & 30 Vict. c. 19, and 31 A Sii Vict. 
 «. 72, adminiHtored to him in this Hotiso, and also as to the Law applicable to such 
 •laim under such circumstances, and as to the right and jurindirtion of thif* House 
 tm refuse to allow the said form of the Oath to be administered to him. and to 
 report thereon to tho llouift, together \Tith their opinion thereon." 
 
 The facts of the CAse are set forth by the Committee as follow : 
 
10 HBfLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 " III. The fact« and circumBlancos under which Mr. Bradlaugh elalmed to 
 make and Bubscribe the oath are as follow : Os Monday, the 3rd of May, Hr. 
 Bradlaugh came to the Table of the Houbc and claimed to be allowed to affirm, aA a 
 person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn attlrmation instead 
 of taking an oath ; and on being asked by the clerk upon what gronnds he claimed 
 to make an afflnnation, he said he did so by virtue of The Kvldenoo Amendment 
 Acta, 1869 and 1870. Whereupon Mr. Speaker informed Mr. Bradlaugh 'that if he 
 desired to address the House in explanation of his claim, he might be permitted 16 
 do so.' In accordance with Mr. Swiaker's intimation, Mr. Bradlaugh stated shortly 
 that he relied on the Evidence PHirther Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence 
 Amendment Act, 1870, adding, 'I have rcpeatetlly, for nine years past, made an 
 affirmation in the liighest courts of jurisdiction in this realm ; I au ready to mtX* 
 such declaration or affirmation." «"»»#•• 
 
 " VIII. It issaid that there are two alternative methods for enabling members to 
 take their seats, the one, by oath.the other, by afBrmation; that Mr. Bradlaugh him- 
 self would have preferred the latter ; that he claimed to allinn, believing that he 
 had the right to do ho; that he was absolutely silent as to the Oath when he made 
 that claim ; that ho aid not then nor at any tmio since refuse to take the Oath pro- 
 vided for members, nor has he expressed any mental reservation or stated that the 
 appointed Oath of Allegiance was not binding upon him. That, on the contrary, he 
 ;«»ys and has said, that the essential part of tne Oath is in the fullest and most com- 
 plete sentc binding on his honor and conscience) and that it having been decided 
 not to he competent for him to make the atHrm.ition, he then proposed to take the 
 Oath in the form given by the I'romisBory Oaths Act of 18C8; that if he was per- 
 mitted to take the Oath, he intended the Committee to understand and believe it 
 would be binding on his conscience, and in tlie most Kompleto degree ; but beyond 
 that he considered that th« Committee had neither the rignt nor the duty further 
 to investigate hi^i conscience." 
 
 Ah to the Uight and .Jukibdiction ov tuk Hoube. 
 
 " No preccient has been shown for the IIoukc rcfusinc to allow a member to take 
 the Oath in th(^ form prescribed by law on account of nis views on the subject of 
 religion ; and your Committee have come to the conclusion that the House of Com- 
 mons cannot constitutionally refuse pcrmiision to take the oath on such account." 
 
 Touching the jurisdiction of the House in preventieg a duly 
 
 elected member iroin taking the oath, Mr. Gladstone, the Prime 
 
 Ministv^.r, said on the floor of the House : 
 
 " First of all, if the House has any jurisdiction in this matter beyond providing 
 t-huta certnin formal duty be performed, it is a jurisdiction which lias never been 
 exercised, jind which, I believe, it would bo most impolitic on the part of the House 
 to exercise, fciecondly,the more I look at the case the stronger appear to me to be the 
 argumcntc* which go to prove that, in the essence of the law and the constitution, 
 the House has no jurisdiction at all. If wc undertake to interfere with a gentle- 
 man who proposes to fultil at the table of this House what he thinks is his statutory 
 duty, we may lind ourselves engaged in two conflcts, into neither of which do I feel 
 either bound or di.sposed to enter- a conflict with the courts of law and a couHict 
 with the constituency of Northampton. (Hear, hear)' 
 
 In the same debate on the Bradlaugh question, Hon. Joha 
 Bright said :-.- 
 
 "Mr. Bradlaugh did not come to the House and refuse to take the oath. Hf. 
 inadr no such i-cfunal. Probably if he had any suspicion that the affirmation would 
 J>ercfuwd to him, he woiild have taken the oath as other members take it — very 
 much. I um afraid, as a matter of form. (Loud cries of " No," and Hear, hear.) It 
 any pcrMon thinks it ncccs.sary to deny that, I will not contest it. I must say my- 
 self I know nothing more irreverent tlian the manner in which numbera of mem- 
 bers take the oath on this floor. (Hear, hear.) Well, Mr. Bradlauph comes here; 
 he does not refuse to take the oath-that is nt)t the question ; but he Says he would 
 prefer to make atlh-mation, as he has been allowed to make affirmations on the most 
 important questions in many of the high courts of justice in this country. And ae 
 ho knows a considerable number of persons make an affirmation, he very naturallf 
 supposes he may do the same, and, preferring the affirmation to the oath, he oom- 
 municate.'j his views to the clerk at the table or to Mr. Speaker, and proposes to 
 raako an nfflnnation. Bear in mind that he did not refuse to swear ; that was H 
 the question put to him : he proposed to make the affirmation." 
 
 J have thus shown by the most unquestionable proofs that 
 
EBPL7 TO THE MAIL. SI 
 
 tkese charges against Bradlaugh made by the "Mail" and re- 
 ^i^ted 07er and oTer again are utterly false. 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh's course in reference to the Oath and Affirma- 
 tion has been perfectly co.isistent and straightforward through- 
 out. And if he was mistaken in supposing that he had a legal 
 right to affirm instead of taking the Oath, he was in good cora- 
 pajny in making such a mistake, for the Attorney-General and 
 other eminent legal authorities were of the same opinion. 
 When, however, the high courts decided to the contrary — that 
 he could not take his seat by affirming, but must take the oath 
 — and when he was re-elected by Northampton, he had no 
 alternative in order to take his seat but to take the Oath. And 
 h© could do this without any inconsistency, for he had always 
 declared, both before the Parliamentary "ommittees and in 
 his published utterances outside, that though the form of Oath 
 contained a few words (the jurat) which to him were unmean- 
 ing, yet, should he take it, as a whole it would be iuUy binding 
 upon his honor and conscience. He has constantly kept within 
 the law, both inside the House and out, while the chance fac- 
 tional majority in the House have been trampling upon the law 
 in illegally excluding him. Messrs. Gladstone and Bright both 
 have on the floor of the House borne testimony to the fact that 
 Mj. Bradlaugh, during the several months he sat there, con- 
 ducted himself with great prudence and moderation, and dis- 
 played uncommon ability. Indeed, Mr. Bradlaugh has, dur- 
 ing his whole life, shown an amount of energy and ability which 
 marks him as a most extraordinary man. By his own exer- 
 tions he has risen from an. humble and obscure station to hia 
 present position as one of the foremost Liberal leaders and 
 arators of the age, having fought his wa}' inch by inch 
 through the most unscrupulous opposition and bigoted perse- 
 cution. Standring, an English biographer, says: — 
 
 ■'Subjoctcd throughout the wholp of his career to tbn yirulent hatred of laym«a 
 and the fanatirnl on^^laui^hts of clericals, ho has durinjf hi3 life been consistently 
 misrepresented and lieartily denounced and abused by thoHe whose ifvnorance of th« 
 man and his opinions waa only equallod by their zeal in condemnation. L)cspit» 
 the ditllculties and dan>?ers that womd have cowed the spiritH and broken tha 
 hearts of ten ordinary men. Hradlaugh has Buccceded in attuiiiinK the position which 
 his preat ability and imdoubtcd earnestness have all alouK marked for him. * ^ » 
 The education of Charles was considered as complete when he ha<l reached therip* 
 ago of twelve years, and the struKffle of life began for him at that period. He wai 
 installed as errand boy in the .Solicitors oiilcc where his father had passed his lif« 
 in drudpery. After two years' experience in thiw capacity, ho became wharf clerk 
 and cashier to a Arm of coal merchant**. We note at this time the first awakcninjr 
 •f his mind to .social problems, and hia earliest impressions were of a political 
 nature. The Chartist movement was at that time agitating English society, and 
 yotmg Bra<llaugh waa induced, probably, at flrat, by motives of mere curiositv. to 
 fcttcnd some open-air meetings on the Question. Hia feelings were excited and hia 
 sympathies aroitscd by tho claimi made on behalf of tho people. He was led t« 
 reflect upon his own condition, and experienced an earnest drsise to become lit t« 
 take )>art la public affairs. This state of mind resulted in a steady (and scrioua al- 
 
S« * REPLY TO THE MAII.. 
 
 Umpt to attain for himself that ^bich his mehgrciDBtrnctieii hadlAiied topr«TJuie; 
 and oe becamo an ardent student both in nociul luul religioiis rabjMita. A meiaber 
 •f the Church of England, he >vnB one of the most earnest and euccceaful teacben 
 at the Sunday School at St. Peter's, Hackney Road. A careful etudy of th* ThlTta'- 
 aine Articles and the Four GoBpels resulted in eome doubts, concerning irhieb fi« 
 asked the assistance of bis pastor, the Rev. Graham Packer : the rcT. gcntleuiftn.. 
 kov^ever, had moie biK*otry than sense, and, instead of rocetiny the young inqniMv 
 in a spirit of friendliness and help, he adopted nicusurt h t^ hich resultctT in Rrud- 
 laugh giving up his home and situation, rather tban suppress the doubts "rrhich had 
 Ikeen so ingenuously put forward, so foolishly and disastrously met. 
 
 The position of a youth of sixteen, homeless, ncnnylesii, and almost friendlMi^, 
 ices not augur well for future distinction. But the boy IJradlaugh accepted braTt- 
 1t the decrees of fate, and set himself resolutely to the task of obtaining for biuaMlt 
 tnat subsistence and shelter of which intolerence had deprived him. IlecommcJiL*- 
 •d business as a coal merchant : but, being obliged to obtain the mOney from hi* 
 •ustouiers before he could execute their orders, his trade was necessarily very lim- 
 ited. Even in nis small operations the hand of the enemy was laid heavily \i\tm\ hiwi 
 A baker's wife was his best customer, the proUt on her orders amounting to the buhb 
 —an important one to him — of ten shillings weekly. Some kind friend explaiiud t« 
 the woman that her young coal merchant was an " infidel," and the immcdiat« m- 
 sult of this intimation was the refusal of any further orders from that source. Ai 
 this time Bradlaugh's heresy was of the mildest kind, and he had net exactly ap- 
 j^rais'^d bis position .r'th regard to the church and freethought : but the taint of 
 mfldelity implied in his theological inquiries was sutticient to turn against him tb« 
 woman of dough, who indignantly told the young cool merchant that she " sho\t]il 
 lie afraid her bread would smell of brimstoue" if she used fuel obtained under suek 
 etcrdox auspices. The brimstone scent does not appear to have been prcviouily 
 aoticeable.but bigotry hates to chop logic, and Brad laugh's best customer piously fer- 
 swore him and his coals. Amidst such circumstances— petty and trivial, pernapii. 
 to a well-fed reader, but full of sorest trial and trouble to a poor outcast— were ui» 
 early years of Charles Bradlaugh passed. .Some humble friends did, indeed, aesift 
 him to the best of their capacity ; but Bradlaugh, though sensible of their kindncfBS 
 ajid grateful for it, was as proud as poor, and by his own exertions preferred to win 
 his bread." 
 
 And he has not only honestly won his bread ever since, but 
 the needy have often participated in his kind benefactions. H« 
 is of the people and ./or the people in every way and in the truest 
 sense He has fought determinedly to secure to them justice and 
 right ; and this is why the workingmen of England, irrespective 
 •f creed, love and honor Chas. Bradlaugh. His whole life has 
 been a self-sacrificing and magnanimous strufrgle for liberty, 
 and for the rights of the people as against the .^'o-called " vested 
 rights and privileges " of the aristocracy. And this is why the 
 Northcotes and Churchills are striving with might and main to 
 keep him out of Parliament. With Bradlaugh in the House of 
 Commons, the " perpetual pensions '' and " vested rights" of 
 that description would be in jeopardy. Hence the desperate 
 efforts, even to personal violence and trampling upon Law and 
 Constitution, to keep him out. The pretext and pretence that 
 it is because of his atheism and because he would " profane the 
 oath " that he ought to be kept out, is perfectly transparent 
 hypocrisy. 
 
 These reactionists know full well that Bradlaugh in the House 
 would b^ the same indefatigable worker in the interests of his 
 constituents, the working men of England, as Bradlaugh outside 
 the House. And they know what his record is. They do BOt 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. 1} 
 
 fMget Hyde Park and his vindication of the peoples' right t* 
 Meet there. For liberty of thought and conscience ; for free- 
 dom of speech and the pret-s ; for the rights of publication ; for 
 equal rights in giving evidence in all courts, Charles Bradlaugk 
 kas fought nobly and with gratifying success. Through all the 
 caurts he has been his own lawyer, and has proved that in his 
 case at least he had not " a fool for his client." He has con- 
 ducted his ca'^es in the High Courts with so much ability and 
 legal acumen, and pleaded his cause so eloquently as to elicit 
 the eulogy and testimony of the Superior Court Judges. It is 
 aot many years since that persons of Rationalistic belief in 
 England could not give evidence in the courts, and they 'vtie 
 mat infrequently subjected to insult, and their testimony rejected 
 because of their unbelief in the popular religion. ** Being 
 •bjected to as a witness in a case in which he was the plaintiff 
 Bradlaugh determined to fight the matter through every possi- 
 ble court. He personally argued the case before Lord Chief 
 Justice Bovill and a full Bench.' The consequence was that 
 after a long course of expensive litigation (which almost 
 reduced him to penury), with a great deal of agitating and 
 petitioning, Bradlaugh was the means of getting the Imperial 
 Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1871 passed, under 
 wtiich Agnostics may make an affirmation in the English Courts 
 in lieu of taking the oath. In 1868 Bradlaugh waged a deter- 
 mined war with the Conservative Government, and in the suc- 
 ceeding year with the Gladstone Government, against a tyranni- 
 cal statute under which every newspaper was required to give 
 ,^800 securities against certain forms of impersonal libel. In 
 this long and expensive struggle Bradlaugh was again victori- 
 ous. The Disraeli Government had ordered him to comply 
 . with the aforesaid statute, as publisher of the National Reformer, 
 which he refused to do. The Government then ordered him to 
 stop the paper, but he did not stop the paper. And '* after a 
 long struggle in which he worsted the trained lawyers by super- 
 ior skill and knowledge of legal procedure. Government was 
 tired out, and repealed the statute under which the prosecution 
 had been instituted."' As an orator, his biographer (Standring) 
 says : — 
 
 " Bradlaugh may fairly claim to stand in the front rank of popular leaders, 
 and it is to his uudoubtcd eloquence that ha owes the greater part of his 
 power and inflneuce. As a propagandist and political lecturer his name is 
 a household word, nob only in this country, bat also in the United States. 
 In any populous part of England or Scotland, tho announcement of bis 
 adTont is sufficient to crowd the Inrgest obtainable hall with a sympathetic 
 and enthusiastic gathering. His control over his audience is complete. In 
 turn he erokes laughter, applause, tears ; a few solemn words will hush 
 
14 REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 hit hsDrers to a death<liko •tillnen ; a urcastic phrais or ■eut«aoe will a«t 
 «poa them like an electric ahock. He has proved hii competence to deg\ 
 with every phase of platform work : political oampaigniug, theological deb&<^ 
 Mr propagandiam, and Bcieutiflc diBCourao, come alik« readily to his htkiiJS. 
 ▲t oat-door maebings, even at timei of keen excitement, a taabnlent »»«« 
 will link into quietness when hia hand ia raised ; and the powerful tones of 
 kia voice onoe heard, all is attention. This denotes an influence 'which, for 
 
 Sod or evil, is a seriouB element in social life ; and it is only fair to state 
 at on no oooaaioa has Bradiaugh ever roused the feelings of the people to 
 tarn them to an unpatriotic use." 
 
 I now propose to give some extracts from the British press, 
 to show the public sentiment there, iu reference to Mr. Brad- 
 laugh's exclusion from the House of Commons. 
 
 " It is not pleasant to be constantly callinnr attention to the case of Ifr. 
 Bradiaugh, bat every Liberal journal which dvisires to earn a reputation for 
 fair play and for a firm insistence upon constitutional principles is bound to 
 do what it can to promote a dispasaieoate consideration of Mr. Bradlaugh's 
 position. There can ba no doubt that the member for Northampton has been 
 very badly treated. • * • * Of the spirit exhibited by Mr. Bradlaugh'B 
 pi«ns persecutors : j is impossible to ^peak but in t«)rms of unmitigated con- 
 tempt. They have openly insulted and vilitied him, have held him up to 
 every mob which they cuuld )*ssemble as a person to be abhorred and crushed, 
 have attributed to him the vilest motives, have ;;ro8sly insulted tha women 
 with whom he was known to be associated in public objects, and are now 
 trying to drive him into the Bankruptcy Coart. Ta condemn such cendnet 
 aa this as mconsibtent with the decencies of political warfare nee i imply no 
 partiality for Mr. Bradiaugh or his opinions. The point to bo uoticad is that 
 Hr. Bradiaugh has been subjected to this treatment because he is unhappily 
 devoid of theological belief. The broad question at iftfiue is the right of the 
 constitnencies to choose their own ropreseatativus ; and the Liberal party 
 will expect the (robsmracnt, at the earliest opportuQit>, to clear this right of 
 any theological entanglement by whieh it may now be hampered." — Livtrpoci 
 Mcho. 
 
 The true aolution of the difficulty is an impersonal one, and ia to be 
 foaght in the abolition of an oath which, besides entirely failing to aecdre 
 the object for which it was institnted, has now become the subject of an 
 •mbittered controversy and the ocoaaion of serious injury to the public inter ' 
 ests. It seems impossiblo to terminate the dispute iu that way at present, 
 and meantime the Heuse, the eonstituency and the member nust alike con- 
 lant to endure the inoonveniences of a false position." — London Times. 
 
 •• The House of Commons has not treated Mr. Bradiaugh as a court of law 
 wonld undoubtedly have treated him, had it been possible to bring the question 
 •f an oath before such a court, and this is very naturally resented . No con- 
 stituency will stand having its member rejected by the House of Ccmmons 
 on no legal ground." — London Spectator. 
 
 " Mr. Bradiaugh yesterday insisted that it is no fault of hia if he finds 
 kimaelf compelled thus to disturb the routine of Parliamentary business. 
 (Certainly the main fault ia not hia. He is the chosen representative of a ebn- 
 •tituency, and he has the undoubted right to present himstlf at the table of 
 the House of Oommons and ask to be allowed to take the oath which the 
 •tatute praacril^es. "—iJaiiy JV^tcs. 
 
 ■' With Mr. Bradiaugh, as a man, w« hava nothing whatever to do. We 
 hftve Uttlc sympathy with hia peculiar opinions ; but hia right to ait in the 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. I5 
 
 -Honseof Oommous Moms tool absolatoly iDcontostsble, H« proudly urged 
 ibsb aight that bis eleotiou had ndver been impaanh«)d. He \raB chosea by 
 ^ihe electors of Northacr <ton to ropreseat them in Pa.aarndnt ; and we maia- 
 ,taia that lid has a COIL /itutional right to perform those legislative dutien 
 vkich hare been entrusted to hini. During the debates last year, Mr. 
 Bright laid down the principle that a man who has been freely elected to 
 .repruseiit a eoustitudncy should ba a 7ed to take his seat nnlcss he baa 
 rhe^D. uonvioted of crime. This ia the ouiy safe principle that can be adopted 
 
 tin reference to representation. The decision of the House of Commo]u» 
 fltrikes a blow at popular Government, bocvuae it Infringes the rights of co#. 
 latitiiencies. This ia a question of such momentous import that Mr. Brad- 
 laugh's personal interests are entirely overshadowed by it. Unless th« 
 country ia content to saoritiue tho principle of freedom it cannot allow this 
 question to remain in its present position. The only way out of th« difficulty 
 is to pass a Bill enabling any member to affirm who chouses to do so." — Daily 
 Chronicle. 
 
 " If these reasonings be sound, there ia no escape from the unwelcome con-^ 
 elusion that a gross constitutional outrage has been committed by means of a 
 ehance combination of a number of persons, swayed, it would appear from 
 the reports, mainly by n variety of strong feelings <*nd personal antipathies. 
 
 ' It muse bo reluctantly admitted, too, in disparagement of one of the most 
 eminent and capable officers the Houee has ever had, that this combination 
 was supported by the Speaker, who seriously misapprehended his duties, and 
 allowed himself to be made the implement of a casual, tumultuous and tyrani- 
 eal majority, instead of insisting on his true character as the organ of the 
 
 (whole House, fully and solemnly accoutred with all itstradilions, law8,righta, 
 
 ' privileges, and responsibilities," — Contemporary Revkw. 
 
 If tho door of the House is legally open, no one can doubt that it is pract- 
 ically shut ; if tho House is not, legally open, then we at least, and a very 
 large proportion of the Liberal party, hold that it ought to be. Some will 
 
 {.prefer that a Bill psrmittiu/ mamberj to elect bdt.veau oath and affirmation 
 should be introduced, s*me that all Parliamentary oaths should be swept 
 away. The second appears to us the most businesslike and honest of the 
 iwo courses. But, as things now stand, there can be no end bo confusion. — 
 Christian World. 
 
 '^.. , " Sir Stafford Northcote and his following. Liberal as well as Tory, were net 
 •ent by the nation to the House of Commons in order to protect the honor of 
 the Deity, but to give the aid of their advice and counsel in the government 
 ef tho British Empire. Mr. Bradlaugh was sent to the House of Commons 
 by the constituency of Northfimptou on precisely the same errand. The law- 
 requires that all tl^oso ivho are thus nominated by the nation should take an 
 oath before entering upon the discharge of their duties. Mr. Bradlaugh 
 desirea to fulhl the law iu this respect, precisely as Sir Stafford Northcote 
 and the majority had done before him. But the majority interpose, and, 
 with the menace of persual violeucs if he acts counter to their dictation, 
 ferbid him to fulfil the requirements of the law." — Weekly Dispatch. 
 
 " It is a pity that Mr. Bradlaugh or any one should suffer wrong, not only 
 
 ' hi the deprivation of his rights as a Parliamentary representative, but in th 
 gross form of personal injury, on account of hie opinions on raligion ; hut 
 Idle case of the majority of the House of Commons, who have achieved this 
 inglorious triumph of muscular Christianity, is much more to be commiserat- 
 ed." — The Scotsman. 
 
 "No more painful and disgraceful scene has been enacted fer maay gener- 
 ations in the British House of CommoDs than was witnessed on Wednesday. 
 
 , At the dears of the House was te be seen a rgularly elected nember of the 
 
 I 
 
16 RKfl.Y TO THE MAIL. 
 
 HouM turnod oat by plijaioaJ force like .» oummen f«I«ii — vemiodiug ob« 
 ioroiblj ttf ft druokea brawl &k « pablic-hoase door — for bo etlier rsMon than 
 th^t ho wiahed to take p«»:6ftble puaaesaion of a neat wbieh his eonstituenoy 
 had dulj eleoted him to. The aooue ia degrading to the House of Commoiu, 
 disgraoeful to oar free inatitutionB, and, we are bold to say, will in the long 
 xiiu produce the very opposite fruits expected by the partiea who zealoaaly 
 
 fromoted the expalaion of the junior member for Northampton .... 
 t is just possible tha*; there waa a aprinkling of genuine Christians amongst 
 tbose who supported the reaolatiou to dobar Mr. tiradlangh taking his seat 
 in the House ; but we are, we suspect, not far wrong in thinking that the 
 ▼aat majority of them hung out the theologioal flag and professed their zeai 
 ior roligioa for no other paipaae tbau political ends. Indeed, iu the mattei- 
 of religion we ake not sure but that Mr. firadlangh ia more honest tLou maajr 
 of those who denounce his creed, for it is gravely to be snapeched that not « 
 few " swallow " the oath without either thinking what it means, or earia^ 
 whether thoy believe it or nut. It is high time we were done with thic 
 religious hobgoblin. It has been used long enough to degrade and diagraot 
 all that ia honoralle and pure in Christianity," — Sratheam Hvratd. 
 
 " For ourselves, wu decline entirely to discuss Mr. Ijradlaugh'e religieus or 
 social heresies. These are matters for the electors of Northampton, and fet 
 them alone. We stand by the rights of oonatitnencics and the forms of tkt 
 House of Commons. A man who is duly elected, and who is willing totak* 
 the rath, o'liiht not to be shut out by the arbitary voice of the majority."- 
 Lwerpool Post. 
 
 *' When wo hare right on the one side aud brute force on the other, there 
 is sure to bo a light, in whioh right may fail for a time, but in which brat« 
 force is sure to go down in the end. He represents right, aud those who 
 barred the way and prevented him from performing his duty as a member et 
 Parliament repreaeu . brute force. Mr. Bradlaugh haa already fought thi« 
 monster, and lie will fight again and again until it bites the dust, and he sitK 
 a triumphant British legislator." — Glasgow Timef. 
 
 "This for an assembly like the house of Commons is a spiteful and cou- 
 temptible abuse of strenj^th. It is the moan oppression of the weah by the 
 stro&g, and is certain to stir in the constituencies that determination to act 
 fair play given which in this country protects from icjustiee even the wor«t 
 of crimiuiils Nothing so cowardly has eter been done by Parlia- 
 ment as that which the followers of Sir Stafford Northcote have dene to Mr. 
 Bradlaugh." — Dundef Adverther. 
 
 •' We are by no means prepared to defsnd every step wbieh he has takou, 
 but this is perhaps scarcely the time to criticise hie co'arse minutely, and 
 his own imprudence or inconsistency cannot in the least alt«r the fact that 
 he has been treated with the grossest injuBtioe, aud that he repreaenta .% 
 principle of the highest political importance. Mr. Burt, Mr. Broadhurst, 
 and Mr. Illingworth, two of them speaking with peculiar authority on betalf 
 of the working classes, the third, the mouthpieee of a larcc commercial oon 
 stituency and a man of pronounced religious riewfi, emphatically declare*! 
 that the public disapproval of Mr. Bradlaugh's arbitrary exelnsioii isgroiv 
 ing from day to day. It would be little to the credit of the English natioB 
 if It did not. Every borough in the United Kingdom may reflect that ilf 
 neighbor's house is on are. Its own turn may eome n«xt. , . , So«aer 
 or later it will be generally acknowledged thai hie exclusion was one of the 
 most high-handed acts of which any legislative body has ever been euiltv ' 
 DatTy^'ews (London.) ^ 
 
RBFLY TO THE MAIL. 17 
 
 .I-/.'.'! .r V <M> . 
 
 *' Stripk of unnf^oessary "orblrige tho i|ueition at issue is very simple. Mr. 
 OrodlBUgh having been leffally elected, und being prepared to comply wiek 
 the law, jnstice to Norlhampiou as well ai to the hoa, gentleman, demands 
 l|hat be should be aUowed to take hi* aest. ; ... For a parallel bo Mr. 
 Jftradlaiigh we must probaoly o back to Boltngbroke. Hia infidelity i»ma 
 Sotorioue, and yet ho took the oath, aat in the Houho of Coimmona, was 
 iWioe Minister of State ; only . i unanticipated event prevented him from 
 ^becoming Prime Minlater, an I afterwards he wan tranalato I to the Houao of 
 ^ords. But, then, the intidel Bollngbroke happened to be a Tory and a 
 favorite in 'Society.' If Mr. Bradlangh had belonged to tho same political 
 ■^rty, with the advantage of a good social standing, he might have oconpied 
 k place where once dak B( I'ogbroke, and Orthodox churchmen yn the 
 opposition benches woald h«ive \oen him take the oath without irincing. 
 {But Mr. Bradlaugh is a Radical And that raaken all the difference."— i?o/<on 
 ^Weekly Jo^trnal. 
 
 '■ " The preaenl House of Commons have, in a liot fit of sentimental fervor, 
 committed a constitutional blunder that must, sooner orlatur, be repaired ; 
 bat the longer the settlement is deferred the more difficult it becomes. Why 
 \tt>ouM Northampton bo practically disfranchised because of the opinions of 
 4he man whom they have chosen as their member? That is really the 
 tquestion." — Sontemei County Oraphic. 
 
 " Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions may be odious, shocking and impious, but he 
 ihas a rizht to hold them. It is even bettor, we maintain, that a dangerous 
 •error should be sometimes preached than that the human mind should be 
 debarred from all speculation, and confined to one conventional groove of 
 jfchuugbt. We have not the Rmallest grain of sympathy with atheism— not 
 ♦even with that scientific A<,'no3ticism whose cardinal doctrine seems to be a 
 fttnivernal denial ; but we hold thU a m%n has a right no bo an Atheist with- 
 Jbut Huifering disability and peraeeution in consequence. It is a m*tter 
 ^between him aud his consoiencc. The simplo fact is that we cannot all think 
 *ttlike or believe alike ; each of ud believes what he can, and winged horses 
 <oould not make us believe more. Why, then, with these inborn differences 
 'in the human mind, should people try tn coerce each other, and trample under- 
 'ffoot those who do not believe just what they belieVo ? tVhy should A per- 
 'ieoute B because the latter regards A's truths an superstitious errors? When 
 will people realize the truth of those noble lines of the Laureate's, ' There is 
 'Jiiore faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds.' The doubt- 
 'ers, after all, are the men who think. If they did not think they would not 
 doubt. Every act of pei'secniion, every word or sign of intolerence, there- 
 fore, is a check upon the free exercise of thought. It id for liberty of opinion 
 •'that we plead . If the lefison of that grand old martyr's life, whose memory it 
 ■is now sought to keep green in his native town, teaches us anything at all, it 
 'teaches ua the need for more courage in the avowal of our conscientious 
 "tiews, whether those views be orth'>.lox and sanctioned by authority or not. 
 'It also teaches us that the persecution of -^ne age is viewed with horror by 
 ♦another. By and bye, as thought broa<lon3 and intelligence expands, the 
 •intolerence of to-day will be regarded with a condemnation only less severe 
 than that with which we visit the Smithfield rires, because political disabili- 
 'ties aud social oold-shoulderings are les« drastic methods of persecution than 
 'burning heretics alive."— if irmt«;//»rt/» />ai/», J/aW. . " i 
 
 At Newcastle-on-Tyne, on Saturday : — 
 
 "Mr. Cowen, M. P., stated that ho would vote for the admission of Mr. 
 ^Bradlaugh into Parliament, and ha did not believe the House of CommonH 
 '■kad the right to prevent his entering it. They had no more right to inqnire 
 
I8 REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 into Mr. firacilaugh'i tbe'>logicsl opiniona than they bad to inquire into 
 lu8(Mr. Cowan's.)" 
 
 " Last night Mr. Bradl&uj^h, who behaved throngbout with singular 
 dignity and moderation, oiferod to abstain from taking the oath or from pre- 
 neuting liinisolf again to the Houho, if he could receive assurance that a Bill 
 woald be brought in and accepted by which he would be permitted to make 
 an affirmation. This offer was pressed upon the leader of the Opposition, 
 and it was unequivocally refused. . . . An appeal must, therefore, bo made tu 
 the country auiainst the exercisp of a power which, as we believe, the House 
 of Commona has no legal right to assume* It is a constitutional question, ia- 
 Toiving the constitutional right of a constituency, and not of one only, but of 
 all, for the representation now, on theological grounds, denied to Northamp- 
 ton may be at any moihent, on the same grounds, denied to other borout^hs 
 or counties, for there are many members of the House of Commons — and on 
 both sides, too — who would fail to satisfy the theological scruples of the 
 ezclasionists. There is only one way in which the matter can be settled ; 
 and that is by abolishing the oath altogether and by substituting an affirma 
 tion for it. . . It is useless to waste words or time in denouncing the bigotry 
 of the majority. The thing to be done is to get rid of an obstruction which, 
 under a profession of religious zeal, is capable of being used to prevent the 
 free exercise of a politiosl right."— Bimiingham Daily Post. 
 
 " If Conservatives have any doubt on this Hubject let them ask the opinion 
 of Lord Justice Holker, their ex-Attorney-General. A good Conservative, 
 but a bettor lawyer, that eminent man has never sought to hide his coutIo- 
 tion that Mr. Bradlaugh not only has a right to take the oath, but is required 
 to take it, and ought to take it, and that no inferences which anybody chooses 
 to draw from his opinions, and no conjectures or positive conclusion as to the 
 state of his mind, can be legally construed into any pretence for preventing 
 him from complying with a statutable obligation The Par- 
 liamentary oath hardly deserves to be raised to such an elevation. It is 
 treated as a mere form, and in ninety-nine cases oub of a hundred it is felt to 
 be nothing more. We hope it is no libel on the piety of the House to avow 
 our belief that it will be taken by Mr. Bradlaugh as reverently as it has been 
 taken by hundreds ot members whose oithodoxy excites no suspicion. But 
 this is Mr, Bradlaugh's concern, not ours. He is bound to comply with the 
 law, and we have not a tittle of right to prevent him. The Government are 
 taking the proper course, and we cannot doubt that the previous question 
 will be carried." — ManckeMer Examiner. 
 
 " The question for the House of Commons is not what Mr. Bradlaugh 
 thinks, but what is the law of the land. And this is a question which it is 
 not for the House of Commons to decide. Nothing can well be raoro danger- 
 ous to the liberties of Englishmen than that one branch of the Legislature 
 ■hould be permitted to ride roughshod over the statutes which can only be 
 made with the concurrence of the whole three. We care not which branch 
 of the Legislature it is that attempts to do this. The country can no more 
 afford to lot the popular assembly break the law than it cauld afiord to let 
 Charles the First do the same thing. But besides Mr. Bradlaugh himself, 
 there is the constituency he was elected to represent, to be considered. Is 
 the House of Commons to be permitted to deprive Northampton of half its: 
 Toice and voting power in the council of the nation because it does not choose 
 to send up a member whose views on religions and social subjects are exactly 
 OB all fours with those of 286 of hia fellow members f As will be seen, there- 
 fore, there are grave eonstitutional matters involTed in the question whioh 
 cbe House of Commons so cavalierly disposed of jeiterday. Here ii a d«l7> 
 elected member whom the House will not allow to affirm er to take the oath» 
 
^ REPLY TO THE MAIL. I9 
 
 1 
 
 «r to vott) or to bpcak, and y«t it will neither try him for the ntfenoe on 
 Mconnk of which it vmitB bim with ull thoce ilinnbilitief, iiornniieat him. We 
 aro not proud of our client, but we cannot close our eysa to the f Act that ha 
 kaa juHtice on hiu side, anil that to deny him this justice by a mere rote of 
 the House of Commons in to Ret a precedent which strikes at tlie root of the 
 national liberties." — Lhrrpool MHrciri/. 
 
 " In his Bpoeah at the FreoTrado hftll, yesterday, Mr. Hradlaugh restated 
 —and on tho whole temperately — the issue between himself and the majority 
 of the House of Commons. It is ditlicult to uuderatand how any one can 
 diaputo the justice of his contention that the refusal t > ullow him to take the 
 oath rc(iuired by law wbs nn uncondtitutionnl proceeding ; and it ir important 
 that this point should be kept steadily in view by the Liberals of Northamp- 
 ton, as, indeed, by Liberals everywhere." — Manchester iliinrdinii. 
 
 "That a strong Government should have been defeated on the question of 
 tho right of a duly elected representative to take bin seat will probably be 
 instanced by future historians as a remarkable evidence of the ha/.y ideas of 
 justice and oonstitutioual right prevailing in tiie Victorian perio<l. We have 
 nothing to do with Mr, Bradlaugh's theological opinions, though wo may 
 mention that they hav«) been hold by cabinet ministers and some of the ablest 
 men of both political parties. What in more, they aio held by a few so-called 
 honorable members who voted against him on Tuesday. What every right- 
 thinking, and therefore every religious man, ought to prot«8t against 
 is that the House of Commons should seek to impose a religious test 
 vpon its members, and assume the right to exclude those whose views are 
 repulsive to Tory ideas of piety." — Harrow Times. 
 
 ' " It is impossible to deny that all through this wretched business .Vlr. 
 Bradlaugli has behaved with fax more dignity and forbearauoo than hie 
 opponents. Ha wanted to athrm as the most seemly thiug he could do under 
 the circumstances, and when the House refused its permission he then offer- 
 ed to take the oath, which was also refused. It is ridiculou<) to pretend 
 that in these days the House can eet up a religious test ; and it is iutolerable 
 that it should go ou trilling with a question of this kind from the most con- 
 temptible personal or party motives. The absurdity of the case is so appar- 
 ent that no roan has the knavery not ^o pretend to see it,' — UorhdnUr Ob- 
 trrer. 
 
 " However objectionable Mr. Bradlaugh'a views uiight lie, the House of 
 Comracns had nothing to do with them. The responsibility of Mr. Brad- 
 laugh's views rested with Mr. Bradli\u<jjh himself. Tho responsibilityof send- 
 ing to Parliament a man holding those views rested with the electors of 
 Northampton. With the law as it stands, Northampton iiad 11 perfect right 
 
 tjto mak*) the choice it did. . , If, therefore,it is right to allow acoustituency 
 to return Mr. Bradlaugh, it is wrong to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, when elected, 
 from taking his seat. His religious views wero not part of the question ; it 
 was one of constitutional right. The responsiVjility, therefore, of tho utterly 
 disgraceful scenes that have attended Mr. Bradlaugh's attempts to take his 
 seat rests on those who have been preventing him. He wished at first to 
 affirm. They refused to allow him to affirm : he could only take his seat if 
 he'took the oath. He offered to take the oath, although the word "God" had 
 to him no meaning ; but they refused to let him take the oath. • • The attempt 
 to pass off indulgence of personal dislike, and the carrying out of party objects 
 «nder the guise of regard for the name of God had been the most shameful 
 feature of the whole business. It had done more to dishonor {jrti\'» n:uu9 
 and bring discredit en religion than all the atheism of Mr. Bradlaugh."— 
 JEleT. D. Maerae in Dundee Advertiser . 
 
 ** We have all along insisted that the law is on the side, not of the Hoiise 
 
so RBPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 of Conmoni, but of Mr. Dradlau^h ; th»t the Honse of Commonft, in f«ob, han 
 VioUtAil the Uw in refiiBiag to allow a daly-oleotod membftr to tako liis seat 
 ■a tkemaaDer preaoribad by atatuke. It it thia peculiarity of th^ situation 
 thait givea Mr. Bradlaiigh his atrength. And it is the samo peouiiarity thi^t 
 trill ovontually compel even the House of Gommons to abandon itf atteoipt 
 to ovorride the ri^jhts of ooaatituoncioa." — Weio^astle Weekly Chronicle. 
 \ "UHt we abouhl be insincere to truth if we did not rooognitsa andi in thr 
 interpata of fair play, impress npoa oar readers the fact that Mr. IirAdlt»agh 
 did all in his power to savo the oonscienoea of sensitive (Jhristiaua- Boliev- 
 idg lie was entitled by law to do so, he offered, when roturuod at bUo / "ueral 
 tieotion, to affirm. Thd courts declared that h« was not entitled to «lo so, 
 but mast take the oath. Ho was re-elooted and prooeoded to obey the law. 
 Eren then he said, " 1 will stand aside if you will bring in a Bill to enaMc 
 ime to aftirm." With lofty scorn he was told, " We ot tho Conservativo party 
 oan have nothing to say with nuch a fellow as thou Art. We will bold no 
 Ipariey with thee." Thus treated, who ean wonder that t<te hoii. goutloman 
 —-with the mandate of the law, informing him he was acting IsgaUy, in his 
 band — should, in effect, reply, " Very well, if thit is your decision, I accept 
 the situation. Only, be mindful of this : I shall not give up the struggle." 
 — Daily Mercury. 
 
 " So th3 unhappy but eloquent member for Northampton has been taught 
 Another lesson of Christian cjleratiun by th%t holy assomb'y of saints — the 
 British House of (jommoui. latiould think anoshjr such exhibition of god- 
 like charity would about convert him to the Chrintian faith, and make him 
 as buruing and shining a ligiit in theranka of beliovers, as Mr. KewdegaW 
 himself ! Ah, Mr. Charles Rr^dlaugh, you cominictod a grave blunder in 
 being so exceptionally str^i^hCorward. Christian legislators of Tory views 
 would have pirdoned chicanery or prevaricj.ition. You spoiled your game by 
 being truthful, thereby fiauntinz in their faces a virtue for which they've no 
 0Ort of sympithy. You should nave followed the excellent example of Mr. 
 Tom Collins, and on enteriny; the " holy of holies" to which you were elected 
 have concealed your obnoxious vi^wj under ths sanctifying shade of the 
 "family umbrella. ' All would hare been well!" — HavtrJordw?.st Ttkgraph. 
 
 ** There be-ng no law entailing political disabilities on the ground of religi- 
 ous O0inion, Mr. Bradlaui^h having been duly elected, has as much rifht to a 
 
 seat in the House as Sir S, North joce or Lord R. Churchill If 
 
 the House of (Jjmmons assumes the rights of censorship, or of determiniag 
 what members are morally qaalified to take the preacribad oath, it is mitking 
 an assumption that may be used in a very iuoonvoniont manner in tho futarr; 
 in reference to other members whose religious or o'^h'ir opinions may not be 
 acceptable to the majority of the House. Thevo cannot be ona law for Air, 
 Bradlaugh, and another for other members of thi House, who have no more 
 religion and less honesty than he." — Barrow News. 
 
 . ::, . , PART II. J 
 
 Being thus convicted of deliberate misrepresentation of per- 
 sons, we know what sort of presentation of our positions wc 
 may expect from the '* Mail." Here the Organ of politics and 
 theology may fairly claim the virtue of consistency. Principles 
 and persons are alike travestied and misrepresented ; with the 
 occasional redeeming feature, however, of the contradictions in 
 
RBPLY TO THE MAIL. 21 
 
 m 
 
 Aiich the truth once in a while, by a lucky chance, inadvcr- 
 wntly slips from the point of a very accommodating quill. Iii 
 one lugubrious sermon he sets out to prove that this is, indeed, 
 a Christian country ; but before he gets through— if there ia 
 artj'y truth in inductive dialectics — he shows that it is not tt' 
 Ohristiari country ! The next week heavers — with well-assum-' 
 e>d virtue and courage- that Christianity has, at the preBcot 
 tfeine, a stronger hold upon the world than ever before — that it 
 it going on conquering and to conquer — while a week or two 
 Mcnce (under, perhaps, a quite different spirit'ual influence or 
 {iupiraiion) he lets the truth out accidentally, to wit, that the 
 Christian faith is " rapidly vanishing!" And for evidence ot- 
 his characteristic fairness in his presentation ol the systems and 
 doctrines he criticiies, we need only turn to his sermons on 
 ^Positivism ; for he is continually harping upon August Comte'& 
 Positivism. But what does he give us ? Caricature instead 
 of a truthful picture; the husks of cynicism instead of the fruit 
 ol honest criticism. 
 
 Positivism, in its ultra-ceremonial aspects has, we admit, a 
 weak side — its ceremonial formularies — but it has also its strong, 
 its invulnerable side— a philosophy and a polity founded upoa 
 positive and immovable ground, tositivism, in its broad and,, 
 true sense, is a Philosophy, a Polity and a Religion — a natural 
 religion — thus embracing the whole realm ot intellect, sentiment 
 and emotion. Its aim and scope is to correlate and harmonize 
 all human activities and reduce all to the coherence of one 
 grand synthesis. As pertinent here, I may be permitted to 
 quote a paragraph from my reply some years ago to a lecture 
 on Positivism, given at Selby, by Rev. Prof. Badgley, of Albert; 
 College, Belleville. *' It is no doubt true that the comprehen- 
 sive system elaborated by August Comte is, in many ot its 
 minor details, open to objection, especially when criticised in 
 its separate aspects ; but it would be marvellous if it were not. 
 What other system aims at so much ? It would be strange, 
 indeed, if some of the minor aspects of so stupeunous a scheme,, 
 elaborated by one man, would not be crude and erroneous. 
 But what 1 claim is this: — That the fundamental principles of 
 that grand system of Positive Philosophy elaborated by August 
 Comte, are founded on the great truths of nature ; and the 
 ultimate aim and issue of the system, when practically realised 
 by humanity, will be the highest cizilization. As the philosophy, 
 rfeligion and polity of positivism, are inter-dependent, and close- 
 ly cor- related — the philosophy forming the basis of a system of 
 pJractical, moral and religioui lite, and the polity a corollary I 
 
 I 
 
M REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 the two — it is as foolish as it is unjust to criticise one aspect 
 disassociated from the others." But this is exactly what the 
 " Mail" does. Leaving out altogether the grand tasentials of 
 Positivism he simply directs his ridicule against a few cere- 
 monials on its religious side. Coolly but prudently ignoring 
 the impregnable philosophy and polity of positivism, this dis- 
 ingenuous critic spends his modicum of strength against its 
 ceremonial formularies, which really do not coacern us, as we 
 have never espoused them. For a system which claims a Har- 
 rison and a Congrieve he has nothing better than a sneer. In- 
 voking what he calls an " unknown and inconceivable human 
 divinity,'" — a "nondescript conglomerate humanity," — is,hesays, 
 *• pitiful buffoonery ;" yet he sees no '' pitiful buffoonery" in 
 Christian invocations to a Divinity which is equally ** unknown 
 and inconceivable'" — a Divinity which has not the advantage of 
 being liuman or humane, but inhuman, malevolent. In all the 
 Christian mummeries of attitudes, genuflections, crossings, 
 counting of beads, and hysterical revival shoutings, to say 
 nothing of " ^Salvation Army" maunderings and whoopings, the 
 ** Mail" man sees no " pitiful buffoonery." Let him just look 
 on this picture and then on that, and say which is more grotesque 
 and " pitiful ;" and say which is the nobler object of worship — an 
 abstract, benignant Jtumaniti/, or a concrete, malignant Divinity I 
 I am not, however, specially concerned here in defending Pos- 
 itivism as a formulated religion ; but I venture to think that 
 Frederick Harrison or Dr. Congrieve would have little difficulty 
 in proving from the Bible that the Christians' God, Jehovah, 
 who, we are told, made man and then repented that he had 
 made him, and is going to consign a majority of mankind to 
 hell, is infinitely worse and more absurd than the Positivists' 
 God, Humanity, or than any" human divinity" could possibly 
 be ; and that the invocations to such a Deity are quite as " piti- 
 ful'" as those to the " nondescript conglomerate called Human- 
 ity." Witli reference to this God of the Bible who has pre- 
 pared a place of torment for his own creatures, Alfred Tenny- 
 son, the poet Laureate, of England, in a late production, says 
 that " If there be such a God, may the great God curse him, 
 and bnnj,' him to nought," We agree with Tennyson. We 
 refuse to worship or believe in such a God, and want nothing 
 to do will) Him. As to invocations to Him, we regard them »s 
 Hothing less than " pitiful buffoonery." 
 
 A very remarkable sermon was delivered at the last session 
 of the Anglican Synod of the Diocese of Ontario, by Mr. Low, 
 Kector of Carleton Place, Ontario, which is at once a sign of tkc 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. 2$ 
 
 tiJnes and a rebuke to the " Mail's" sneers at Positivism. The 
 Rev. gentleman took some very adTanced positions which 
 apparently met the general approval ot the Synod, for the 
 sermon was subsequently published in pamphlet form, being 
 dedicated by the author to the bishop, dean, arch-deacons and 
 clergy of the Diocese, " whose kind enconiums and generous 
 assistance prompted its publication." The learned Rector 
 declares that though historical criticism should prove the 
 Bible unauthentic, " it woald not in the least affect the Catho- 
 lic position which is that the great historical Church of God 
 existed in all its corporate integrity be/ore the Uobj Scriptures 
 vtere written at all ;" albeit "such a revelation" (that is, the 
 Bible shown to be unauthentic) " may indeed," he says " scare 
 the Puritan whose system is built on the postulate that the 
 Bible and the Bible alone, just as it stands, is the infallible 
 word of God, and is the only guide to truth." Now, from 
 this it will be seen that though all the non-conformist 
 Puritanism on the one side of Catholicity, and the Ultramon- 
 tanism on the other side, may be speedily swamped in the 
 wave of Historical Criticism, the Catholic c'aurch, so thinks 
 the rector, will, by its " corporate unity," survive the wreck. 
 «' In these days," he says,'" which are even now upon us of eccle- 
 siastical and doctrinal dismemberment the sacerdotal church 
 will save Christianity," even with a contemned and obsolete 
 Bible. Alter thus treating so compromisingly with the histori- 
 cal critics the magnanimous and liberal-minded Rector pro- 
 ceeds to compound with the Materialists and Positivists, He 
 Miys the force of the Materialists' attack upon Christianity 
 !• lies in tVie scientific law of the inter-dependence and cor-rela- 
 tion of matter and force, of body and mind ;— th; it is impos- 
 sible to conceive of mind as existmg apart from matter, or of 
 an Intellect without an ^Organism. ' This materialistic doc- 
 trine, he says, •' is quite compatible with the Catholic faith ; 
 though it may upset the Puritan theory." Our materialistic de- 
 ductions, he says," do not disturb the Catholic, however much 
 they may harrassthe Platonistor the Puritan." Why ? Because 
 the Athanasian creed declares that " the reasonable soul and 
 flesh is one man," and that the church regards the " great future 
 life, not as of a disembodied Intellect, but as of an Organism." 
 ** Her creed says not ' I believe in the immortality of the soul,' 
 but, 'I believe im the resurrection of the dead.* " The Rector 
 ■cglects, however, to tell us how, according to scientific Ma- 
 terialiSkii.the dead bodies can be resurrected ! Passing from His- 
 torical criticism and Materialism to Positivism and Sociology. 
 
24 REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 tftc courteous and conciliating Rector hoists a flag of truce 
 thereunder, and summons Comte, and Harrison, and Spencer, 
 to an amicablj rendezvous. Just here I would paTticularly 
 invite the attention of the " Mail" critic who sees nothing gopd 
 in Positivism, to what follows from the Rector. He says, " The 
 disciples of the Comtran or Positive pjiilosophy, who seetfj 
 to be increasing in numbers, having demolished, to their ovyn 
 satisfaction, the Christian religion, have set themselves V(ii}} 
 laudable zeal, to give us in its place, as the »ummim bonum, 
 semething better, because more positive, and more enHobling — 
 so they say. The men of that school reject Christianity be- 
 cause of its * selfishness ;' — they look with scorn upon the ordi- 
 nary view of Heaven as one of eternal indolence and selfish 
 enjoyment, as ' gross,' and what not. They recoil from the 
 individualism oi the Christian wholly absorbed — as they put it 
 —in ' saving his own soul' ; and announce as a grand discovery 
 of their own, the doctrine of Corporate Humanity. Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer, and other exponents of Sociology " (the "Mail" sneers 
 at Sociology) '* teach (and very truly) that the individual is 
 what he is, not entirely owing to forces from tcUhin but equally 
 if not mainly indeed, to forces from withmtt; — that to under- 
 stand" the individual we must study, not only his ' organism,' 
 but his environments ; that the parents, the family, tlie educa- 
 tion, the associates, the neighberhood, nay, the air he breathes, 
 are all-important factors in the constitution of the man himself ; 
 that the scientific law of the Conservation of Energy applies to 
 the mental and moral force as well as the physical ; — and that 
 in consequence, the elevation and perfectmg of corporate 
 humanity is the highest and holiest aim to which we can 
 aspire." Now, the Rector has here given a very fair statement 
 (quite in contrast to the travesties of the " Mail") of great Posi- 
 tive and Sociological principles ; and he admits the truth of 
 them, but hints that afttrr all they may be no new discovery; 
 and urges that the Church, fully embracing what he calls this 
 " Sociological aspect of Christianity," will work " for the very 
 purpose of bringmgabout that perfection of Corporate Human- 
 iny which is the boasted aim of the Positivists." Tlur learned 
 Rector thus recognizes " the glorious idea of the perfection of 
 Corporate Humanity ;" and, by his liberal and cosmopolitan 
 exegesis', finds the doctrines of Sociology and of the Positivists 
 in the New Testament. A church which thus feels prepared 
 to accommodate itself, according to its 34th Article, to " coun- 
 tries, times and men's manners," or as we would put it, to the 
 advance of modern science and enlightenment, will, without 
 doubt, survive the downfall of the other Christian sects, While 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. 25 
 
 from Methodism the Rosses aaJ Thomases are expelled ; froni 
 fesbyterianism, the Swings and McRaes ; trom Ultramontan.- 
 i^, the Hyacinthes and Dollingers, the Anglican Catholic 
 (Siurch, with its flexibility and latituditiananism, keeps her 
 Colensos and Stanleys within her pale. " That wonderlul 
 ct)mprehensiveness," as the Rector puts it, "which some thmk 
 our reproach— calling us the Church of Compromise— is our 
 
 broast and pride." v i 
 
 Now, we are in the habit ofxpecting much more liberality and 
 bVeadth of view from the leading press than from the average 
 jiulpit, yet here all this is reversed,— the '« Mail"' being narrow, 
 unfair, and ultramontane, while the Rector of Carleton Place 
 is generous in spirit, Catholic and cosmopolitan in his breadth 
 of view, and tair towards his opponents. 
 
 The " Mail " Philosopher teUs us Evolution is theologically a 
 *' very harmless doctrine," inasmuch as it would not " invali- 
 date the primal truths of religion." He says there is nothing 
 unchristian in Darwin's 'theory ^ or in Spencer's philosophy, 
 yet he admits in another sernun (probably under a different 
 inspiration) that Spencer' Unknown and Unknowable, from a 
 humanly religious point of view, is " not only disturbing but 
 utterly inadmissible"; and to .clinch this contradiction and cap 
 the climax of inconsistency, he tells us farther that " a Being 
 who cannot be known spiritually, and, although man's Creator 
 and Disposer, keeps himself aloof from his creatures, is as if he 
 were non-existent." The docti-mes ot Evolution and the De- 
 scent of Man as taught by Spencer, Darwin, Haeckel and 
 
 * NoTE.-Probably thU is th- reason Una', the great. Naturalist, now deceased. 
 was. a few days ui,'o (lua rom.iins) laid away amonn Ciirlstians m \\ estrnm8t<?i- 
 Abboy-that srroat repo4tory of the distingaiahcd dead. Tho eminent scientist and 
 heretic was taken undei the ro?is ot! tho Ani^Uoan Church and received the nt«s ot 
 Christian sepulture. i'his event -the profound homaKo and respexjt shown the 
 deceased author of the "Origin of .Species" and the "' i>oscent of Man. by rtis- 
 tinKuished Chri.r,tLans as well as great Scientists and Phdoiiophors.and hisintermenl 
 in Westminster Abbey with the rites of the churoli - lias a two-fold siRniflcanco of 
 groat importance to tliose who can re^d the siKus of the tunes, in the first place it 
 shows unmistakably th.it Dar.vinisni. ou'-e so obnoxio.n and dprcstable, so odious 
 in the public mind, is now at least tolerable, beinj? prenorallv accepted not only 
 amonKthePhilosophersandSjitntistsof thoday, but among the educated upper 
 classed and even theologians, and hence treated with resp.>ct : and in the second 
 place it is a proof at once of tho lalitudinarianlsm of the Anglican Church ana u»» 
 Cathollcitv of spirit already referred to. So long as an unbeliever preserves a non- 
 aggressive attitude towards Christianity and refrains from publicly attacking it, no 
 matter what the inevitable .sonclusion^ ani logical outo;-me of his scientitlc teach- 
 ing ma? be. ho is never ex'-omni!inicit-d from the An;?hcau ( huivh, but Is allowert 
 quietly' to remain during life under her a\giH and atdoatji receives her rites and hei- 
 benediction (ex-ofllcio.> Well. we. certainly have no fault to tind with thu if it » 
 agreeable to all concerned. <'or it show.^, at least in one sect or Christianity, a breadth 
 erf liberality and a degree ot concession which must be rc-assuring to those wlio ar*' 
 striving to'beat the theologic .swords into ulo w-.share.i. Hut j u U. imagines the auUioi- 
 ;of the doctrine that " man is descended '' (through countless ages) froni ahalrjr 
 quadruped, furnished with a Uui and pointed ears. i)rob.ibly arl)i>real m Ite habit»» 
 —juat imagine him recoiving tho iioniHgc and ritei of a religion which teaches tha»t 
 man was created perfect about six thousand years ago. 
 
26 REPLY TO THE MAIL, • '' v" 
 
 Huxley are quite " harmless," as they do not affect " the prim- 
 ary truths of religion!" . But pray what are the primary truths 
 of religion? Of the Christian religion, for instance, in whose 
 interests the " Mail " is enlisted in all this specious and special 
 pleading ? The primary truths (or rather assumptions) ot the 
 Christian religion are : A personal, triune God— three Gods in 
 one,— Man, a special creation ; his subsequent " fall " and re- 
 demption through the vicarious sacrifice of one of these Gods, or 
 of all three (according to the way you understand the Divine 
 arithmetic) ; and the ultimate salvation of only a minority.— 
 These are the " primal truths " that are not affected by the 
 harmless doctrines of Evolution ! Then we may expect them 
 to be embraced by the Evolutionists. Now, Haeckel says :— 
 *' Where faith commences, Science ends " ; that the Bible •' in 
 all scientific questions * * is full of gross errors," and that 
 it cannot therefore be a Divine Revelation. Huxley says :— - 
 "Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle ot every science 
 as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules," and that he 
 believes in •'justification, not hj faith, bat by verification." 
 Tyndall says :— *« As far as the eye of science has hitherto 
 ranged through nature, no intrusion of purely creative power 
 into any series of phenomena has ever been observed "; that 
 " the Book of Genesis has no voice in scientific questions"; 
 that he does " not fear the charge of Atheism "; that if he wish- 
 ed to find a scrupulously honest and upright man— a good 
 citizen, a good husband, a good father— he would seek and find 
 him, among the Atheists. Darwin tells us that man, instead of 
 having been specially created perfect by the gods (" let ua 
 make man ") a few thousand years ago as the Bible tells us, haS; 
 through hundreds ot thousands of years, been gradually devel- 
 oped from a lower form— a hairy animal on all-fours. Now, 
 does all this affect the primary truths ot Christianity ? That is 
 the question! But Darwin admits that life may have been 
 ^'originally breathed into a few forms orinto one " by a Creator, 
 •or, rather, he admits the grandeur oi ^nch a view; and from 
 this little crumb much Christian comfort is extracted, as 
 -"drowning men catch at straws." But does this really help the 
 Christian Theology ? No more than Paine's " Age of Reason " 
 or Voltaire's •' Pocket Theology " helps it. Darwin's admis- 
 sion that there is " grandeur'' in such a view may help Deism— 
 pure and simple— but Christianity is not simply Deism. The 
 '' Age of Reason " is purely Deistic, arguing strongly for the 
 existence of a Creator of the Universe ; but does the Christian 
 Church take Paine to its bosom as '« harmless ? " Or does i 
 
■-., ' ^ RETLY T© THE MAIL. S^ 
 
 aourish Voltaire as theologically innocuous ? Not to any very 
 alarming extent, — ^with, perhaps, tha exceptions of Messrs. 
 Bowell, Patton and the " Mail " who evidently love the Deism 
 ol Paine and Voltaire with truly Christian love!"''' By the 
 way, there is one other " primal truth" of the Christian religion, 
 or at any rate primal practice, on behalf of which the Scientists 
 'and Evolutionists can be hardly counted in — though the "Mail" 
 may fairly lay claim— and that is.to decide for other people what 
 they shall read and what they shall not read. The trio men- 
 tioned can, as Sir Oracles, do that ; and when they ope their 
 theological mouths, let the " coarser herd of sceptics " as well 
 
 as the finer Christian vassals 
 
 i 1 '' ' ■ f . >i 
 
 " In a bondman's key. 
 With ■bated breath, and whiBpcrinpr bumblent w,.' ' ' * 
 
 be thankful for such mental pabulum as will pass the custom's 
 Index Expurgalorius ! But let that. pass. The whirligig oi 
 Time will bring its revenges. There is scarcely a Secularist 
 Conservative in Canada whom the " Mail " has not alienated by 
 its medieval and bigoted course in re the late book seizure, 
 and its persistent misrepresentations and slanders against 
 Bradlaugh. On the other hand the Globe has gained many 
 Iriends among its political opponents by its uncompromising 
 opposition to the seizure, and its liberal defence of popular 
 rights. . . 
 
 In the Saturday sermons, .we are almost weekly reminded 
 that unless we believe in God we are without amoral compass, 
 can do nothing good, or at least cannot be expected to ; that 
 such belief is the highest virtue, and constitutes the only prop 
 ef morality and the only safeguard of society. But pray, Mr. 
 Preacher, what God are we to believe in ? Which God on high 
 Olympus is the true one ? Or, if they have all vanished, which 
 one oi the more modern and improved Gods would you recom- 
 mend ? Besides Brahma and Vishnu, Siva and Chrishna, 
 Osiris and Isis, Thor and Odin, Jupiter and Jove, Jehovah 
 and Moloch, and numerous other old Gods, there are many 
 comparitively young ones ; which would you recommend? — 
 There is the Deist's God; the Theist's God; the Pan- 
 
 * A few months ago our liberal friend, Mr. Vf. B. Cooke, who haaa shop of 
 liberal publications on Yongo st . Toronto, ordered from D. M. Bennett 8 PjjbliBhingc 
 House, New York, a consignment of Paine'a "Age of Reason and Voltaire b 
 " Pocket Theology." Ool'ector Patton. of the Toronto Custom House, seized the 
 books at that port on the ground that they were "immoral and obsceno ; and in this 
 narrow and bigoted manoeuvuro he was sustained by Mr, Bowell, the Minister or 
 Customs at OtUwa, and defended by the Mail, which stoutly upheld the conflsca- 
 tton and which would probably defend and uphold anything a co-politlcian nugnt 
 Aq, from potty larceny to homiolde— always prorlded the victim is a party of tn« 
 other part in politics. 
 
28 REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 tlieist's God ; the Materialist's God (Matter and Force), 
 Sp^^icer's God (the Unknown and the Unknowable), the i*9si- 
 tivi^t's God (a " nodescript conglomerate called humanitj^") 
 Spinoza's God (an Absolute Substance) ; Fichte's God Tthe 
 moral order of the world) ; Parker's and Pope's God (the Soul 
 of the Universe) ; the Spiritualist's God (Eternal Law) ; the God 
 of the 39 articles (" without body, parts or passions") ; Beech- 
 er's God (a " dim and shadowy mfluence"); Talmage's God 
 (who, according to his own account, is as nearly like a mountie- 
 bank as he is himself) ; the Calvanistic God (who has little 
 infants not a span long roasting in hell) ; the Presbyterian's 
 God (who may not, perhaps, of late years, have intants there, 
 but will ultimately have all there but the elect few) ; the Roman 
 Cathohc God i^who generously divides his power and honor vith 
 his Mother) ; the Methodist's God (who is very emotion. il and 
 slightly deaf) ; and the Universalist's God, a benignant Father, 
 who is, perhaps, the best of the whole lot, as he is, at least, 
 equal to his creatures in goodness. 
 
 Lucretius says, — '• Fear first made Gods in the world," while 
 our modern Lucretius — Ingersoll — says, "An honest God is 
 the noblest work of man." Somebody else (Pope, I think,) 
 says : — 
 
 'MTcar motlc our devils, 
 And weak hope our Gods." 
 
 Whoever or whatever made them,- they all, with a few excep- 
 tions, appear to be a bad lot, and consequently, for myself, I 
 feel like letting all ot them '• severely alone." The average 
 Agnostic is (juite content to 
 
 • Let Gods attend to things that Gods innst know. 
 Man's only care relates to things below." 
 
 As an illustration of how much or how little respect and 
 attention the Gods are receiving at the present day from the 
 intellectual world, we may note the fact that at the last meeting 
 of the " British Association for the advancement ot science" — 
 the most learned body of men in the world — not one of the 
 many papers read Had the name of God in it from beginning to 
 end. Ind'ifid, the learned men of this age manage to get along 
 very well without any Ood at all, except the Forces of Nature. 
 To these and these only (including in concrete all the moral and 
 social dutieis of man) do they tro^ible themselves to yield belief 
 or obedience. They believe not in the Christians' God, yet, 
 strange to say, they are very tolerable citizens ! They ought, 
 however, according to the ''Mail" moralist, to be, because of 
 their unbelief, deeply-dyed villians — " fit for treason, stratagems 
 and spoils !' He forgets that every villain, since history began, 
 
REPLY TO THE UAIL. jM 
 
 bjSlieved in one or more of these Gods : that those who have 
 filled the most human blood believed the most. And from 
 »raham and Moses down to Guiteau, they all thought the 
 >ds commanded them to do it. Look at Guiteau and His 
 ;tim ! What a contrast ! The one a thorough-going 
 fpd'believer — a zealous disciple of Christianity — duly inspire^; 
 le other nominally a believer, but really a heritic, who put 
 fs trust in himselt instead of Providence, and believed in rea- 
 spn rather than " inspiration." This statement will, no doubt, 
 l>e questioned by some Christians ; but they who knew Gar- 
 ^eld intimately of late years, know that he was an Agnostic, 
 •jt^ough the world did not know it. Nor did the world know 
 iux&t Abraham Lincoln was an unbeliever in Christianity until 
 J^is biographies were published after his death. It is well 
 laiown to a tew personal friends of the late President Garfield 
 t)iat for several years past he had been a diligent student and 
 ',yarm admirer of Herbert Spencer and other advanced thinkers; 
 %nd had quite abandoned his belief in the supernatural origin 
 )q{ Christianity. And Garfield's whole demeanor during his 
 long sickness confirms this conclusion. It was noted and free- 
 hr commented on at the time that no minister attended him. 
 ■He wanted none. No. prayer, so far as appears, escaped his 
 ^ps during those long days and weeks of pain and suffering. 
 jHe submitted to the inevitable heroically, and died hke a phil- 
 psopher. Guiteau, however, also says that he does not fear to 
 .die — that he will, next June, die the death of a Christian, and 
 ,go to *• glory." As to his Divine commission to " remove" 
 Qarfield, heie is his logic about the matter, and from a biblical 
 standpoint it is unanswerable : — • 
 
 "1 want the nowppapprs and doctors who actually killed the Prcsidentto share wit^ 
 mc the odiumof his death. I never woald havcahothimof my own volition, notwith- 
 '•B^audiuK those newspapers, it [ iiiul not been commissioned by the Deity to do the 
 mood. Ii. has beeii publisluid tliat I am in fear of de^th. It ia false. I have alwayR 
 been a religious nwn. au active worker for God. I am not Insane ; the question be- 
 fore the Court is whether Deity or I is responnlblo for the removal of the President ; 
 whether Deity or (iiiiloau 11ri> l the shot. Home poojile think that I am the murder- ' 
 er, but the Lord does not, I'jr he in-jpired the act, as in the case of Abraham and a 
 Bcori; of t.ther eases in the Bible." 
 
 ; Here Guiteau has his adversaries "on the hip," for this is 
 good Bible doctrine. He is, at least, consistent and logical here, 
 ,but are those who are arrayed against him ? The utterances 
 •ejf the Christian pulpit and press on this subject have been a 
 iburlesque on logic and consistency — have been to the philo- 
 ifiophic mind supremely ridiculous. They at first execrated the 
 :;lTniserable wretch who shot Garfield, and prayed with a million 
 .tongues for his recovery; and when it seemed he was about to 
 recover they exulted in the efficay of their prayers that had 
 
3© REPLY TO THE UAIL. 
 
 *• saved the President." Talmage said they had " done it," 
 though one of the doctors dryly said it was the •* whiskey they 
 were giving him that was doing it instead of the prayers." But 
 amid all the prayers, and whiskey, and drugr. the poor Presi- 
 dent, who, for long weeks had suffered physically almost " the 
 tortures of the damned," died. Then we were promptly told by our 
 Christian friends (who are always equal to such an emergency) 
 that it was God's will — it was the decree of Providence! We 
 were also assured, ex-officio, by his successor in office that his 
 removal was the inscrutible will and work of an Almighty Pro- 
 vidence ; albeit we were further assured by some of the theo- 
 logical wiseacres, who were, doubtless, more into the details of 
 the celestial arcana than the others, that the President's re- 
 moval was a judgment from Heaven on the nation for certain 
 wicked political manoeuvers which they had recently perpe- 
 trated ! Leaving aside, however, all speculations as to what, 
 particular matter God was angry about, which caused him t© 
 remove the President, in any case, whatever displeased Him, 
 if He actually did remove Garfield, who is to blame ? If it was 
 God's will and wish that Garfield should be removed who 
 would be to blame for carrying out God's will and wish ? Who 
 that was selected and "inspired" to do tt could help carrying 
 it out ? Who could resist the behests of a God who " worketh 
 in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure ?" If the 
 removal of Garfield was the will, and wish, and behest of an 
 Almighty God, why hangGuiteau? He was simply the instru- 
 ment — like Clay in the hands of the Potter. Why disbelieve him 
 when he avers he was mspired by God to do it, and could not 
 resist. If his Bible premiss be true, his position is invulner- 
 able—his conclusion is logical, and cannot be gainsaid. And 
 the Cliristian world (always including the Toronto " Mail") 
 admit the premiss to be true, viz., that the will of God is 
 supreme, and that through His Providence he works 
 
 ' " In a my sterioas way, 
 
 Uia wonuei'B to perform." 
 
 Though with their superficiality and logical inconsistency the 
 " Mail" sermons are perfectly harmless to the critical reader, 
 yet there is a dangerous and vicious element in them which can 
 only have an evil influence. The monstrous position is coolly 
 taken that if a man has no belief in any of these Gods — in their 
 heavens and hells, — there is nothing save civil law to restrain 
 him from committing all manner of crimes. If he does not 
 beheve especially in the God who commanded innocent women 
 and children to bo butchored, he may therefore murder his fel- 
 
\ REPLY TO THE MAIL. 3,! 
 
 i 
 
 ws. If he does not believe in a God who sanctioned rape 
 and adultery, he must needs, therefore, seduce the innocent 1 
 Ijfhe does not believe in the lake of fire and brimstone, he must 
 therefore, cheat ?.nd rob without compensation ! Because he 
 cannot accept the superstitions of his fathers h( 'nust, in con- 
 sequence, indulge the basest passions — lead a liic of lowest 
 lust and bestiality. This preudo-moralist cannot tolerate the 
 spectacle of an " infidel" leading an upright, moral and honest 
 life. If such an one is not bad he ought to bcjaccording to this false 
 logic and spurious ethics. To be consistent the Agnostic ought 
 to be a vile scoundrel. Because he cannot see how one is three, 
 and three one, he ought,therefore, to blot out conscience,trample 
 upon all natural affection, and sink every vestage of human 
 nobiUty. If he does not believe in an avenging God, and has 
 not the fear of hell before his eyes, there is nothing save the 
 hangman's whip to hold him in order and prevent him becom- 
 ing a monster like the God he is asked to believe in. What am 
 insult to humanity this is ! Yet it forms the staple pabulum — 
 the shoddy stock-in-trade of this spurious moralist. It is iter- 
 ated and re-iterated from week to week and from month to 
 month until even Christians themselves must feel a moral nau- 
 sea at so putrid a philosophy. 
 
 " All aecms infected that the infected npr, . ■ i. ■ 
 
 Ab all lookR yellow to the jaundiced eye. ' 
 
 • 
 
 Talk about immorality ! Is not this itself the basest kind of 
 immorality ? To tell men that It they do not believe this fig- 
 ment and that fable, they have a free license to indulge every 
 passion and commit every crime ! Shame on such utterly false, 
 as well as utterly senseless and vicious teaching as this ! At a 
 time when, as everybody knows, the religious beliefs of the 
 world are rapidly breaking up— the Christian faith, as he him- 
 self admits, rapidly vaishing, — when the Christian basis of 
 morals must inevitably be shifted to firmer ground^ — at such a 
 time, at such a critical juncture — this is the teaching sent forth 
 froHi one of our leading Canadian newspapers ! At a time 
 ^•when, as Provide, the historian, says recently in the North 
 American Meview, " In every corner of the world there is the 
 phenomenon of the decay of established religions, in Catholic 
 countries as well as Protestant ; nay, among Mohammedans, 
 Jews, Buddhists and Brahmins." When the religions of the 
 world are thus inevitably doomed, this enemy of mankind 
 Vould destroy morality too ! For the only effect of such teach- 
 iiig among the ignorant and unthinking must be baneful and 
 {Hi^udicaL It is moral and social poison. It is a base prosti- 
 
pt REPLY TO THI-; MAIL. 
 
 tution of the privileges and responsibilities of the public press * 
 —an utter perversion of its rights and duties. Even if it were l 
 ifieorttically true (which it is not, but false) that the Agnostic, to ^ 
 be consistent, must be vile, it would only be a leprous pen that ' 
 would strive to give it practical life — only a tnoral viper that ' 
 would try to vivify the moral virus of the dormant cobra. 
 
 If the "Mail" has nothing more morally wholesome than ' 
 this lor itb readers, it had better a thousand times confine itself 
 to its coU'^'enial cess-pool of party politics. Every right-mind- 
 ed man— whether Christian or Infidel— every friend to human- 
 ity, must deplore the promulgation of so infamous a doctrine ! 
 But what can we expect ? Can the stream rise higher than the 
 fountain? The column of moral slime and false philosophy is 
 in good keeping and company alongsidethe column of partizan 
 diatribe and unscrupulous factional squabble. From such a 
 Politico- Puritanical Ultramontanism (the i6th century quarrel- 
 ling with the 19th) we can no more expect wholesome 
 moral or political philosophy than we can expect a pure 
 stream from a corrupt fountain Here we have the absurd 
 as well as deplorable spectacle of the retained pleader uphold- 
 ing, with rotten argument, a religion which he himself admits 
 is rotten and " rapidly vanishing." After picturing what the 
 Agnostic is, or ought to be, morally, because he takes no stock 
 in this rotten laith, with characteristic inconsistency he admits 
 that religion is merely an outside affair, — the people go to 
 church, he tells us, " because it is a paying speculation."' The " 
 religion of the "good pillars of the church" is, he says, " like 
 their Sunday coats, worn only with the gloss, and carqfuUy 
 stowed awfty during the six working days." 
 
 " Are tlia pcoplo wc describo. ' ho aaks, " any the better lor f lieir attendance there ' 
 IJoes the gnndniK employer act better to his unfortnnatc and niiserablv paid clerlcB 
 and Bervuntson Monday than he did on Saturday ? Does the dishonest debtor, who 
 IB Bchemmfjltow to maintain credit witliout discharginx hia liabilities, leave the 
 porch Willi a atrickcn heart and a solemn resolve to amend his evil way 1 Does 
 the adult era t-or of Koode lind his conscience troubled on Sunday ? Are the impure 
 tlio uncharitable, the extravagant, the moan and eorbid any the better for beiDK 
 at church T - . e> 
 
 Now, these are the very questions we ourselves were about to 
 ask the " Mail" preacher, who has told us over and over again 
 how vile we wiil become without the church and without this 
 Sunday religion— this " paying speculation."' But he ha^ 
 saved us the trouble of askihg, and we thank thee, Jew, for thy 
 honest admissions. .. . /; ^ ;., Uj) 
 
 " The attempt to build up a morality on the ruins of religion 
 is futile," we are told. And you. Sir, are doing your best to 
 render it futile. The true philanthropist, even though he be- 
 lieved religion to be indispensable to morality, would make the 
 
i 
 
 REPLY TO THB MAIL. 33 
 
 best of the circumstances, and try to nourish and retain tht 
 inbrality when he sees that the Faith must go. But so far as 
 we are concerned, we are not attempting to "build up a naoT- 
 aiity on the ruins of rehgion." We will simply ktip our natural, 
 nl>t reld^iout, birthright, — ^what the world has had before ChriS' 
 tianity was ever heard of. Morality will coutinue to stand, the 
 central fortress, and will not be destroyed by the death of 
 superstition and fable any more than the rubbing away of cob- 
 w6hs from a granite monument would destroy the monument 
 upon which they had accumulated and which they had ob- 
 scured. 
 
 _'* It was our holy religion that not only first, but definilirely 
 proclaimed the universal brotherhood ot man, and the equality 
 otus all in the sight of God/' we are piously told. *' Jacob 
 hiye I loved, but Esam have I hated." — Is this equality ? *' For 
 t$e children being not yet born neither having dont 
 *Ry goQd or evil, that the purpose ol God, according to eUcticm^ 
 naght stand,not of works, but of Him that calleth." What tender 
 fainernood and equality that is ! " I come not to bring peace 
 but a sword." — That is the style of •• brotherhood" brought into 
 tK^ world by " our holy religion 1" And this sword of brother- 
 hood has been kef>t well unsheathed ever since, till seas of 
 brothers' blood have reddened the earth. To properly realise 
 tKfe " brotherhood" and see it in its true light we may just 
 tHink of the Crusades, the St. Bartholomews, the massacres of 
 the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Hugi'.enots, the Heretics of 
 the Netherlands, the butcherings ot Irotestants by Catholica 
 afid Catholics by Protestants in England, Scotland and Ireland, 
 the fierce wranglings, and quarrellings, and persecutions of 
 Christian sects among themselves, even at the present day. 
 And, then, this tender brotherhood of •' our holy religion" it to 
 be carried out on the same brotherly principles in the future. 
 "W« are told with fatherly kindness that the foad to Heaven is 
 narrow, but that to Hell is broad ; and that these brethren 
 
 Swhat a mockery of language !) of the human race are to be 
 ivided at the judgment, and most of them tenderly consigned 
 te^ everlasting punishment of some kind or other, depending 
 upon the particular "Version" used on that important occasion. 
 lE^t, we are told by this lay preacher that if Christianity Acm 
 np^ succeed ultimately in keeping people out of hell — if itiiails 
 tOikeep them straight morally while here — if it doea aot make 
 tliem what they should be — it is not the fault of the faith, bttt 
 tlie '• fault hes with Humanity." Now, that is one way of 
 escaping the difficulty ! Such logic looks to me very much iikm 
 
, 34 REPLY TO THF, MAIL. 
 
 saying, for instance, that if I should make a carriage six feet 
 wide and then make a track five feet wide to run it upan, and 
 the carriage runs off and comes to grief,the "fault" lies with the 
 track or with the carriage ! But who or what really is to blame 
 in such a case ? The track, the carriage,or myself— the maker? 
 1 make a carriage six feet wide and put it upon a track five 
 feet wide expecting it to run all right, but it, of course, runs 
 off, and I should think I am the responsible party. At any 
 rate I am quite willing to take all the blame. Nor will I at- 
 tempt to create any scapegoat of anybody or anything to sad- 
 dle my folly upon. I have played the fool and must take the 
 consequences. The application of all this is, ol course, obvi- 
 ous enough ; yet, to be technically exact, as a contra-serraon- 
 izer, I may be permitted to " apply the application" thus : It 
 both Humanity and Christianity are God's own handiwork,and 
 they do not fit each other — if they fail to " dovetail"— who's to 
 blame ? The Maker or the things made ? If poor, eight by 
 ten mortals are put upon a seven by nine track and they run 
 oflf and bring up in Hades or some place of that sort, who's to 
 blame ? Let the " Mail" philosopher answer. 
 
 "Both reason and conscience are Divine gifts, but the latter 
 only is the supreme arbiter of conduct," we are told. Now, if 
 reason is a Divine gift, why should it be a sin to use it ? And 
 using it is sure to land us ofi the seven by nine Bible track into 
 the regions of Agnosticism. And the query is, how can a 
 Divine gift err when honestly used? This is just what the Ration- 
 • alist does. . He uses this " Divine gift" freely, fearlessly and 
 honestly. As to the Divinity of conscience, I quote here from 
 my reply to Wendling : — 
 
 That conscience is mnaU in man, and a God-given faculty, 
 instead of acquired by development, is another convenient 
 assumption without any substantial foundation. If conscience 
 is a Divine gift to humanity, how is it that consciences differ so 
 widely not only in degree but in kindt If conscience is a Divine 
 *' monitor" and " guide" from lievaen, why is it that it often be- 
 comes a very blind guide, and leads people into many by- 
 paths ? How is it that under the sanctio» of concscience the 
 mest horrid crimes and cruelties against humanity hare been 
 committed in the name of God, its alleged author ? How is it, 
 if conscience is an " unerring |fuide" to conduct, implanted by 
 God, that it has guided man, m the name of its- author, to let 
 out the life blood of his fellow-creatures in rivers, on accouat 
 of differences of opinion atmeimtioualy entertained ? Does God 
 give one man one sort of conscience and another mad another 
 
i 
 
 REPLY TO THE MAIL. 35 
 
 and wholly diflerent sort, leading them in opposite directions, 
 and then prompt the conscience of one to put the other (his 
 fellow) to death for conscience sake and for (rod's sake] If so 
 it is very questionable work, surely, lor a goc'' i?) God to be 
 engaged in ! If God implants the conscience n man, why ilot 
 be fair and just and give all men consciences ? and give them 
 all the same article ? and not give one man a tolerably good 
 article of conscience (the Freethinker, for example) and then 
 gd and give others (some of our Christian friends, for example) 
 so poor an article, so to speak — so flexible and elastic — that it 
 allows them to murder, cheat, lie, slander, rob widows and 
 orphans, and run away witV other people's money and other 
 men's wives without compunction — without any troublesome 
 pangs. 
 
 • 
 
 The Christian world has been quite long enough teaching an 
 irrational and absurd doctrine about conscience. They not only 
 blunder as to its origin, but as to its nature and fuixtions. 
 Nearly every Christian writer defines conscience as an " inward 
 monitor" to tell us right Irom wrong; a Divine faculty enabl- 
 ing us to "judge between the good and the bad ;" a " guide to 
 conduct," &c., &c. In the light of our present mental science 
 this definition of conscience is utterly false. Conscience is not 
 an intelligent faculty at all — it is simply a teeling. liy mod- 
 ern metaphysics conscience has been relegated from the domain 
 ofthe intellect to its proper place among the emotions. Hence it 
 ^icidea nothing, iudges nothing as between right and v/rong, or 
 jpytljing else ; for that is a function of intellect. Conscience, 
 instead of being a " guide," or "judge," is but a blind impulse 
 needing itself to be guided. It is simply a feeling ior the right 
 — a thirsting for the good — but the intellect must decide what is 
 right ; and the nature and character of its decisions will de- 
 pend upon various circumstances, such as organization, educa- 
 tion, &c. ; and the decisions of different individuals as to right 
 and wrong will differ as those circumstances dilTer. We hear 
 a great deal about " enlightening the conscience ;'' but it can- 
 not be done. You might as well talk of enlightening a sun- 
 flower, which instinctively turns its head to the light; or a vine 
 •lihich instinctively climbs up the portico. The intellect, how- 
 ever, may be enlightened. Reason, which is the only and ulti- 
 mate arbiter and guide to conduct, may be enlightened ; and 
 •^e may thus modify, guide and direct the blind impulses ot 
 Conscience. The truth is; conscience in man, such as it is, is a 
 diBvelopment— is acquired rather than innate.; has been veK 
 (iped by Nature ins'^ead of -' implanted" by God. Thf ..lOraJ 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 sense, Without doubt, gradually devdloped in man as he rose 
 HI the scale of intelligence. Where there is little or no intelli. 
 gence, the moral sense would be inapplicable and incongruous, 
 and IS not needed, hence does not exist. When it is required' 
 nature in perfect keeping with all her other adaptations, de' 
 velops It. Darwin, in the " Descent of Man," vol. i, pp. 6"8-o. 
 says : — ^ 
 
 " The following proposition seems to me in a high degree 
 probable— namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with 
 well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a. moral 
 sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had be- 
 come as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as it 
 man." : , 
 
 the " Mail's" thesis that morality is entirely (dependent upon 
 religious belief, and hence cannot stand without such belief, 
 proceeds from the assumpton that right has no origin except in 
 ♦he arbitrary behests of a Deity— no sanction except that God 
 commands it. But this is absurd, for suppose God's will in 
 the matter ts not known, as is the case with a majority of man. 
 kind, or the terms of the will are in dispute, as is the cake witk 
 Ihe whole Christian world, morality, under such circumstances, 
 must go by the board, as, indeed, it has done under the diverse 
 and conflicting interpretations of a Divine toill with so many 
 *' Versions" And if the will of God were the exclusive source 
 ^»d sanction of moral conduct— of right and wrong— such an 
 ethical system would necessarily be arbitrary and unchange- 
 able, unless, indeed, new will$ were made from time to titne by 
 God, bequeathing new and better rules of life. But this would 
 be stultifying to a God who is said to be omniscient and un- 
 ehangeable. And the pertinent query comes in here : If right 
 and wrong are absolute and arbitrary instead of relative 
 and sequential,— if right is simply the will of God instead of 
 the result of human experiences,— how is it that the Christian 
 has been continually changing right and wrong, or changing 
 God s will, for nearly 2,000 years? What he called right in 
 the past, he calls wrong to-day ; and we may safely predicate 
 that what he calls right to-day he will call wron,/ some time in 
 the near future. According to the will of God, the Inquisition 
 was perfectly right in its day. Both the Protestant kM 
 Koman holocausts were morally right and religiously proper ! 
 Not many decades ago the torturing and burning of witchas 
 was perfectly right and moral.because it was the will and word of 
 (jod— «« Thou shait not suffer a witch to live." Not long giiice the 
 hanging of Quakers was a very proper, puritanical, mdrkl and 
 Uodly thing to do, and hence the Quakers were duly hahg. 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. 37 
 
 John Calvin thought it was the right thing — the will of God — to 
 D^rn Servetus ; but the Calvinist of to-day, as bad as he is, 
 ai^d as nearly like his Jewish God, would hardly consider this 
 right. Indeed, the average Christian of to-day is getting much 
 better than the God he worships, and it is not the word and 
 ejlample of this God that have made him so ; but it is the benign 
 light of science and the influence of civilization that have soft- 
 ^ed his heart and mollified his horrible creed. The question, 
 tiben, for the " Mail" high priest, and those who think with 
 htim to answer is this : If morality cannot stand without reli- 
 
 §ion — if right and wrong have no origin or sanction outside 
 it will of an unchangeable God — how is it that this will of 
 God has been like a " Will o' the Wisp," continually shifting 
 and turning, and that the Christian's boasted standard of right 
 htis beea diligently keeping time to the phantasm by turning 
 §prr4spond>ifig somersaults. It will not do, Mr. " Mail" to explain 
 t^at the Christian has simply been changing his interpreta- 
 t^ns of the Divine will, and hence changing his notions oi 
 right and wrong. Why should a varied succession of interpre- 
 tiitions of God's will be necessary when that will is given in a 
 book by God himself? If the Christian were trying to read 
 !(3^od's will in Nature like the Deist, he then might have som<> 
 jBRHcuse for changing his interpretations as his knowledge increas- 
 •4 ; but if God has taken the trouble to have his will written in 
 |fe book for our benefit, and has put it in so slip -shod a way 
 iiidit we cannot understand it so as to be of any practical .use 
 to us, has not God made a blunder here ? Rather is not this 
 prima facie evidence that God had nothing at all to do with it ? 
 Qt, if he couldn't put it so that man could understand it, could 
 he not easily enough, if he wanted to, make man understand 
 it aright by a mere turn of his will ? And this would do'much 
 
 food as well as save much time, contention, trouble and money I 
 Jut this claim of the Christian thatheis compelled to alt^his in- 
 terpretations of God's will from time to time as he grows wiser, is 
 suicidal, and quite fatal to the " Mail" man's theory. He steals 
 our artillery and with it demolishes his own works. It is toe 
 who are prepared to change our conclusions of right and wrong 
 as new light reveals to us what is best for man's highest good 
 in this world. And we can do this consistently, for we do not 
 look to a Divine will or a Divine book for an arbitrary code 
 of ethics, but to the Nature of Man and his Environment : 
 <to his needs and to his highest good. With every advance of 
 ^knowledge, social and psychological, — with every new light 
 yielded by experience, — we can postulate higher and better 
 
3^ REPLY TO THE MAIL. 
 
 conclusious as to right and wrong, as to what is best for wj 
 (not what is best for God) : and what is best for man here in 
 this world is^the highest morality— the only code we recognize 
 or need. 
 
 As rational moralists we,theretore, take the position that right 
 and wrong are more relative than absolute.that there is no arbit- 
 rary standard of morals *;xcept that which may ultimately be 
 deduced from firmly established social and psychological laws. 
 In the past, at present, and until then, moral systems have 
 been, are, and will be, more or less tentative. In the further 
 evolution and disclosure of man and his environment, therejwill 
 be a /^rif.ncc of Ethics. There is iiow, but it is as yet imperfectly 
 revealed. That which best conduces to human happiness and 
 well-bemg, will then as now be the sanction ; but increased en- 
 lightenment, advanced social and psychological development 
 will render more clear what does conduce to the highest hap- 
 piness and well-being of mankind. As our present morality 
 has been naturally evolved from the experiences of the past, it 
 must therefor? develope into higher form in the future. And 
 the Christian, though theoretically denying the human origin 
 and tentative character of ethical doctrines, tacitly admits both, 
 in his alleged altered interpretations of God's will. Why has 
 he altered his interpretations ? Because the advanced natural 
 morahty has forced him, from time to time, to do so, just as the 
 aovancement of the science of Geology has forced him to change 
 his.interpretations of the Mosaic account of the creation.— 
 Human morality, having its origin in the nature of man and his 
 social necessities, and its sanction in his highest mundane good, 
 is found to be a better article than the divine commodity, and 
 hence the changed exegesis ; and this practically amounts to a 
 repudiation of the spurious for the genuine natural morality, 
 which comes, not from the Gods, but from Man. Hence]the 
 impossibility of natural morality dying with supernatural be- 
 liefs. The dogmas, the creeds, may and will go ; but the prin- 
 cipJes of Ethics, no less than the principles of Mathematics, 
 will remain. On the demise of faith practical morality may 
 jndeed be temporarily somewhat disturbed, the same as a 
 healthy organism is disturbed for a time by the excision of an 
 excrescence or morbid growth. But the Rationalist may con- 
 fidently look forward to the time when, in the higher and 
 still higher developtnent of man, and the corresponding im- 
 provement of his environments, superstitious faiths will have 
 departed forever from the human mind, reason will sit supreme 
 on its rightful throne, j^nd a greatly superior practical morality 
 
 '■■'I' 
 
REPLY TO THE MAIL. 39 
 
 will have been attained as the iruit of the advance of Science, 
 and accumulated Experience. Towards the consummation of 
 this «nd, an immense work is before us, and let each do his 
 part. To remove the mountains of error — to elimimate the 
 perverse instincts and untoward tendencies inherited from 
 our ancestors— to purify our bodies from the foul blood of ages 
 of unphysiological habits, and our minds from the blighting 
 nightmare of error which has also been bequeathed to us, — 
 this, my friends, will take time. But we must not rest on our 
 oars and say Evolution will, in due tnne, accomplish all. Let 
 ^lis work. Let us live in purity of mind and body, aud labor 
 faithfully, each in his way, to destroy superstition and spread 
 the truth, and thus prove by our good works that the calumni- 
 ous Christian doctrine of the "total depravity" of man, and 
 the necessity of belief in imaginary Gods, is not true, or that if 
 'it is true of its disciples, it is, at least, not true of us. 
 
 «' 
 
 I 
 
j^P^ZPEUDZX:. 
 
 What follows is partly taken from our Canadian '• Sec- 
 ularist's Manuel ot Songs and Ceremonies," issued under 
 the auspices of the Toronto Secular Society. As Canadian 
 Freethinkers become organized into societies, I think it would 
 be well, in imitation of our English Secular brrthren, to adopt 
 the terms Secularist and Secularism, as the Toronto friends 
 have already done. The term Secularist being more inclusive 
 and cosmopolitan than any of the various cognomens by which 
 Freethinkers are popularly designated ; lor purposes of organi- 
 zation it is prefereble to any. . •: • .... :, - i. 
 
 OUR PRINCIPLES. 
 
 1. That the present Life being the only one of which we have 
 any certain knowledge, its concerns claim our primary attention. 
 
 2. That the promotion of the general good and of our own 
 individual well-being in this World, is at once our highest wis- 
 dom and Duty. 
 
 3. That the oniy means upon which we can rely for the 
 accomplishment ot this object is Human Effort, based upon 
 Knowledge and Experience. 
 
 4. We judge conduct by its issues in this World only : what 
 conduces to the general well-being is Right ; what has the oppo- 
 site tendency is wrong. 
 
 Upon the above four principles all Secularif 'ic Freethinkers 
 are, doubtless, quite agreed. 
 
 Human improvement and happiness cannot be effectually pro- 
 moted without civil and religious liberty. It is, therefore, the duty 
 of every Freethinker to actively attack the barriers to equal 
 freedom of thought and utterance for all, upon religious, social, 
 political, or any other questions. Those, however, who can- 
 not afford to bear the social and pecuniary injury which such a 
 course entails in an orthodox community, ought, to the extent 
 of their ability, to render substantial aid to the propagandist 
 • and aggressive efforts of those who are willing to face the 
 music — the discordant music of bitter opposition, persecution, 
 public odium, social ostracism and all such. 
 
 We have secured the passage of the Evidence Amendment 
 Act in this Province, under which we may hereafter give evi- 
 dence in the Courts, in all civil cases, when called upon ; but 
 there is much work yet to be done. We want the complete 
 separation of Church and State. As Freethinkers, no less than 
 
APPENDIX. 41 
 
 Christians, contribute to the support of the State, the State 
 ■hould not grant special privileges to Christians as r.eligious 
 bodies, which it denies other citizens. Church property should 
 not, in justice, be exempt from • taxation any more than our 
 Jarms should be exempt. We should not thus be mdirectly 
 Opmpelled to give moral and financial support to religious doc- 
 trines which we do not hold. If we choose, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, for social or other good reasons, to do so voluntar- 
 ily, that is another matter : we ought not to be compelled to do it 
 by law. There should be no Christian teaching or observances 
 (except moral) in educational institutions, supported by the 
 taxes of Freethinkers and Christians alike ; and we are, there- 
 Ibre, bound to work for the abrogation of all such unjust and 
 mscriminating laws. The Puritanical Sunday laws must also 
 be removed from the Statute Books. We must also have a 
 l^w in Canada legalizing civil marriages — a law similar to the 
 Qjyil Marriage Lawof England. Such a law exists on the Statute 
 l^oks of nearly every civilized country, but Canada, as usual 
 \% behind in this matter. 
 
 It will thus be seen that we have much work before us, and 
 it must be done. The " Toronto Secular Society" — our head 
 centre — ^is doing a great work in that city ; its meetings, under 
 
 t;e efficient and judicious Presidency of Mr. Piddington, being 
 rgely attended, orderly, and admirably conducted through. 
 ;taried exercises of original essays, readings, recitations, 
 'Music, singing, etc. The " Manual" already referred to was 
 'a great detideratum. In numerous other places in this Pro- 
 vince, although but little organized Propogandism is carried on 
 (except, perhaps, at Ottawa, where there is an efficient organi- 
 ':'2iation — •' The Progressive Society") yet there is much eflfective 
 work done, and very satisfactory progress is being made. In 
 the lower Provinces also, there is the Montreal •' Pioneer Free- 
 thought Club" — George Martin, Esq., President — which is 
 doing earnest and excellent work, "but on a rather poor soil, as 
 much of the good seed falls on stony, barren places. The 
 fruits of its labors, however, are visible, as manifested in one 
 direction in the increasing liberality of the city press — they 
 having recently admitted to their columns letters from our side 
 in vindication of Charles Bradlaugh, etc., which could have 
 found no such medium a year or two ago. On the whole, our 
 cause is making very satisfactory progress, especially in this 
 Province of Ontario. In conclusion, I beg to present some 
 selections from the " Secularist's Manual," and a funeral ad- 
 dress by Col. R. G. Ingersoll. 
 
 „ ) 
 
•4^ APPENDIX 
 
 A FUNERAL ADDRESS 
 
 OVER THE GRAVE OF 
 
 HARRY YATES MILLER. 
 
 " In a remote conier of the OngroBaional C letery yesterday afternoon," says the 
 yvashington Post of January 9th. 1882. ■ a small group ot people, with uncover- 
 ea heads, ranged around a newly-opened grave. They included Mr. and Mrs 
 Oeorge O. Miller, family and friends, who had gathered to witness the burial oi 
 the former s bright little son Harry, a recent victim of diphtheria. As the casket 
 rested upon the trestles, there was a painful pause, broken only by the mother's 
 S0D3. until the undertaker advanced toward a gentleman in the party ami 
 wftispered to him, the words being inaudible to the looker's-on. This gentle- 
 man was Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. a friend of the Millers, He shook his head 
 tvhen the undertaker first addressed him, and then said suddenly : 'Does Mrs 
 Miller desire it r The undertaker gave an afflrmativo answer. Mr. Miller 
 looked appealingly toward the noted orator, and then hastily Col. Ingersoll ad- 
 vanced to the side of the grave, made a motion denoting a desire ifor silence 
 ana m a voice of exquisite cadence delivered one of his characteristic eulogies 
 
 • ^or the dead. The scene was intensely dramatic. A fine drizzling rain was 
 railing, and every head was bent and every ear turned to catch the impassione/1 
 words of eloquence and hope, that fell from the lips of the distinguished speak- 
 fK*„-,r J •, ?n?orsoll was unprotected by either hat or umbrella, and his invocation 
 tnnlled his hearers with awe, each eye that had previously been bedimmed witk 
 tears brightening, and sobs becoming hushed. Col. Ingersoll said :" 
 
 My Friends : I know how vain it is to gild a grief with 
 words, and yet I wish to take from every grave its fear. Here 
 in this world, where life and death are equal kings, all should 
 t>e brave enough to meet what all the dead have met. The 
 future has been filled with fear, stained and polluted by the 
 heartless past. From the wondrous tree of life the buds and 
 blossoms fall with ripened fruit, and in the common bed of 
 earth the patriarchs and babes sleep side by side. 
 
 Why should we fear that which will come to all that is .? We 
 cannot tell, we do not know, which is the greater blessing— 
 me or death. We cannot say that death is not a good. We 
 do not know whether the grave is the end of this life, or the 
 door of another, or whether the night here is not somewhere 
 else a dawn. Neither can we tell which is the more fortunate 
 —the child dying in its mother's arms, before its lips have 
 learned to form a word, or he who journeys all the length of 
 
^y APPENDIX. 43 
 
 lite's uneven road, painfully taking the last slow steps with staff 
 and crutch. 
 
 Every cradle asks us " Whence ?" and every coffin •' Whith- 
 er ?" The poor barbarian, weeping above his dead, can answer 
 these questions as intelligently and satisfactorily as the robed 
 priest of the most authentic creed. ' The tearful ignorance of 
 the one is just as consoling as the learned and unmeaning 
 words of the other. No man, standing where the horizon of 
 life has touched a grave, has any right to prophesy a future 
 filled with pain and tears. May be that death gives all there is 
 of worth to life. If those we press and strain against our hearts 
 could never die, perhaps that love would wither from the earth. 
 May be this common fate treads from out the paths between 
 our hearts th« weeds of selfishness and hate. And I had rather 
 live and love where death is king, than have eternal life where 
 love is not. Another life is nought, unless we know and love 
 again the ones who love us here. 
 
 They who stand with breaking liearts around this little grave, 
 need have no fear. The larger and the nobler faith in all that 
 is, and is to .be, tells us that death, even at its worst, is only 
 perfect rest. We know that through the common wants of lil^ 
 —the needs and duties of each hour— their grief will lesson day 
 by day, until at last this grave will be to them a place of rest 
 and peace — almost of joy. There is for them this consolation : 
 The dead do not suffer. If they live again, their lives will sure- 
 ly be as good as ours. We have no fear. We are all children 
 of the same mother, and the same fate awaits us all. We, too, 
 have our religion, and it is this: Help for the living — Hope 
 
 FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 , ■%'...■ 
 
m 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 DEATH. 
 
 Why should we tremble or deplore 
 
 The fact of everlasting sleep ? 
 Our work once done, earth needs no more 
 
 That we shall smile, or speak, or weep. 
 
 It we have nobly wrought for all, 
 Our lives unselfish been and true, 
 
 No matter when or where we fall, 
 There can no change our work undo. 
 
 Above our clay our friends may bend, 
 
 The'quiet grave upon us close, 
 In dreamless sleep that knows no end. 
 
 Secure from ills we shall repose. 
 
 So we may fold our helpless hands, 
 And smile on nature's kind decree. 
 
 While she a willing sponsor stands 
 For other lives that are to be. . 
 
 — Mrs. Jennie Brown. 
 
 THE SLUMBER OF DEATH. 
 
 Peaceful and fair is the smiling repose, 
 
 That the breast-cradled slumber of infancy knows ; 
 
 Sound is the rest of the weary and worn, 
 
 Whose feet have been galled with the dust and the thorn ; 
 
 Sweet is the sleep on the eyelids of youth, 
 
 When theydream of the world as all pleasure and truth ! 
 
 Yet child, pilgrim and youth shall awaken again 
 
 To the journeys of toil, and the trials of pain ; 
 
 But, Oh ! there's a fast and a visionless sleep. 
 The calm and the stirless, the long and the deep ; 
 'Tis the sleep that is soundest and sweetest of all, 
 When our couch is the bier, and our night robe the pall. 
 
 No voice of the foe or the friend shall impart 
 
 The proud flush to the cheek, or warm throb to the heart ; ' 
 
 The lips of the dearest may se^k for the breath, 
 
 But their kiss cannot rouse the cold stillness of death. 
 
APPENDIX. 45 
 
 'Tis a long, 'tis a last, 'tis a beautiful rest, 
 
 When all sorrow is passed from the brow and the breast ; 
 
 And the lone spirit truly and wisely may crave 
 
 The sleep that is dreamless, the sleep of the grave. 
 
 — Eliza Cook. 
 
 WHAT ART THOU, DEATH? 
 
 What art thou, Death, that I should fear 
 
 The shadow of a shade ? 
 What's in the name that meet's the ear, 
 
 Of which to be afraid ? 
 
 Thou art not care, thou art not pain, 
 But thou art rest and peace ; 
 
 'Tis thou canst make our terrors vain. 
 And bid our torments cease. 
 
 Misfortune's stings, affection's throes, 
 Destructipn's poisonous breath — 
 
 The world itself, and all its woes, 
 Are swallowed up in death. 
 
 Then let us pass our lives in peace, 
 
 The little titne we stay; 
 Nor let our acts of friendship cease 
 
 Till lite shall fade away. 
 
 KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 Knowledge its empire shall extend ; 
 
 Beneath its gentle sway 
 Kings of the earth shall humbly bend, 
 
 And peaceful laws obey. 
 
 From sea to sea, from shore to shore, 
 
 All nations shall be blest ; 
 Shall hear the noise of war no more — 
 
 The people shall hare rest. 
 
 As rai^ d(:9cends in gentle show'ns 
 
 In each returning spring, 
 And calls to life the fragrant flow'rs, 
 
 And makes all nature sing : 
 
46 APPENDIX. 
 
 So knowledge in a gen'rous mind 
 Frees the wrung heart from woe ; 
 
 Its blessings on all human kind 
 In gentle currents flow. 
 
 Long as the sun shall rule the day, 
 Or moon shall cheer the night, 
 
 True knowledge shall its sceptre sway 
 With never-ceasing light. 
 
 FREEDOM. 
 
 Men ! whose boast it is that ye 
 Come of fathers brave and free. 
 If there breathe on earth a slave, 
 Are ye truly free and brave ? 
 If ye do not feel the chain, 
 "When it works a brother's pain, 
 Are ye not base slaves indeed, — 
 Slaves unworthy to be freed ? 
 
 Is true freedom but to break 
 Fetters lor our own dear sake. 
 And, with leathren hearts, forget^ 
 That we owe mankind a debt ? 
 No ! true freedom is to share 
 All the chains our brothers wear, 
 And, with heart and hand, to be 
 Earnest to make others free ! 
 
 They are slaves who fear to speak 
 
 For the fallen and the weak ; 
 
 They are slaves who will not choose 
 
 Hatred, scoffing and abuse, 
 
 Rather than in silence shrink 
 
 From the truth they needs must think ; 
 
 They are slaves who dare not be 
 
 In the right with two or three. 
 
 'K 
 
 -Russell Lowell. 
 
APPENDIX; 47 
 
 PRAISE TO THE HEROES. 
 
 Praise to the heroes who struck for the right, 
 
 When freedom and truth were defended in fight, 
 
 Of bloodshedding hirehngs, the deeds are abhorred, 
 
 But the Freethinker strikes with the pen, not the sword. 
 
 Praise to the martyrs who died for the right, 
 
 Nor ever bowed down at the bidding of might. 
 
 Their ashes were cast all abroad on the wind, 
 
 But more widely the blessings they won for mankind. 
 
 Praise to the sages, the teachers of right, 
 
 Whose voice in the darkness said, '* Let there be light." 
 
 Praise to the martyrs, &c. 
 
 Heroes and martyrs, true prophets of right, 
 They foresaw and they made man's futurity bright. 
 Their fame v/ould ascend though the world sank in flames ; 
 Be their spirit on all who sing praise to their names. 
 Praise to the martyrs, &c. 
 
 TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 Let truth alone prevail, 
 ■ • Within each human breast ; 
 
 And error take its flight. 
 To an eternal rest. 
 
 * Truth cheers the wildered mind ; 
 
 It leads our steps aright ; 
 Keeps sorrow from our hearts, 
 And brings us peaceful light. 
 
 — Abner Kneeland. 
 
 A NEW FAITH FOR THE OLD. 
 
 Let superstition be destroyed. 
 
 And falsehood cast away. 
 That liberty may be enjoyed, 
 
 And truth hold sov'reign sway. 
 
 Let thought be free to all mankind, 
 
 And reason's light illume, 
 The long benighted realms oi mind, 
 
 Dispeilin^doudaF .of' gloom, , 
 
 o « 
 
 . •, • • • 
 .... „ 
 
 • • • . . • ." 
 
 
48 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Let kindness fill the human heart, 
 
 \/ith sympathy for all, 
 And bid us knowledge to impart, 
 
 The mind to disenthral. 
 
 Let love prevail o'er every breast, 
 And happiness abound ; 
 
 May all mankind be truly blest ; 
 Humanity be crown'd 
 
 y 
 
 { r. . 
 
 .t 
 
 1 1 • 4 1 
 
 f< 
 
 . . • » • 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 u"