From blacking to coals, and from ragged-schools to midnight meetings, constitute his range of subjects. This, however, would be honourable if his speeches were either reasonable, tolerant, or decently truthful. Being so utterly given up to party, nobody expects him to tell the whole truth; yet we are justified in expecting him to keep a respectful distance from open and abandoned lying.

In his speech the "Noble Earl" said, "Those Essays and Reviews ' "had been drawn up and published by learned professors-by men holding high stations in the universities-men who received, he did not hesitate to say, the bread of the Church for the purpose of preaching very different "doctrines, and laying down very different principles, from those to be found "in that bad book." Did his Lordship never hear of Huss, or Wickcliffe, or Luther, preaching doctrines which were utterly at variance with the teaching of that Church from which they received their bread? And if so, has he not also heard that it matters little from what secondary source a man receives his bread, so long as he speaks what he honestly believes to be the truth of that God who gives all the bread? Charles the Second had something to do with laying the foundations of the Shaftesbury House; but we have never known a single Earl who was honest to the source of so much prosperity, or who held himself bound by the obligation to defend his benefactor. Moreover, as the Church feeds so many fools and knaves, he ought not to grumble that a few bravely-honest men take a few crumbs. Does he begrudge them? Having already provided for the greatest number of clerical cripples and mental imbeciles ever introduced by any one man into the Establishment, he ought to be content, and permit, at least, a few who can read Greek and Hebrew, a few real scholars, to remain within the pale. He need not fear that they will make his special favourites blush for their ignorance. Nothing can do that; neither will the denounced men seek the conversion of those whom he delights to honour; they always fish for trout, not for such long gudgeons. They speak to the heart and the intellect, and there is not one among the "Noble Earl's" greatest enemies who has been bold enough to say that his clerical protégés possessed either.

possibly

That

In one portion of his speech he said: "He liked to talk on those subjects, as he wished to drive the truth home to the senses of people, to set them against the doctrines taught in the Essays and Reviews,' to show them "that the heart was far better than the head in all those spiritual matters "that related to eternal love; and to prove to them that in the simplicity of "love they would attain a far deeper and truer insight into the things of the "Most High than by the most elaborate study of geology and metaphysics. They would know much more by experience than those could "know who only knew from study and burning the midnight lamp.' is to say, "feeling is a safer guide than either reason or history.' And if the principle be true, this will follow-that we must all become Hindoos; or, if we remain Christians, we must enter the Catholic Church, where only the feelings are appealed to. The Papal emissary asks nothing more than that the feelings shall be permitted to rule. It is through the feelings they have achieved their victories; and if the "Noble Earl" were in possession of such susceptibilities to emotion, he would not long remain as the jackal for the young lions of the Church. We do not, however, desire to insinuate aught against him in that matter, for he is perfectly safe upon that score. His feelings are made to be worn-they are not inwoven with his mortal fabric; for although there are moments when even an expert may be deceived

into believing his emotions to be real, the delusion speedily vanishes, and the Peer of England stands unveiled in all his native hardness of nature.

In another part of his speech he ventured upon the following extraordinary and pictorial mode of arguing the case: Many of the working men "of England in the agricultural and mechanical districts had very little time "to devote to the study of history and science, but they might have-and "many of them had-heard of the triumphs that had been achieved by the "Bible at all times, how it had changed barbarism into civilisation; made "the savage become mild and gentle, and raised woman from the condition "of servitude to that of equality with man; how it had raised us from the "appalling subjection to which we were bound heart and mind to the Papacy; "how it had introduced the great Reformation and given us freedom of body, "of thought, and of expression; and how it had given us power to walk as "Christians and free men.

Where has it "changed barbarism into civilization"?

In what land? Is it in New Zealand, where the people are being killed much faster than they can be civilised and shriven? Is it in Africa upon the slave coast ?—in America, among the Red Indians? Oh! where has this vaunted miracle been wrought? What savage has it made mild and gentle? And even if the Bible reader has become such, are there none who have done the same without reading the Bible? Are not the Hindoos mild and gentle ? Where has it raised the condition of woman to an equality with that of man? -surely not in England, or the laws are foully belied, for it is only recently that she has been placed on a level with the beast-she may not now be beaten without the protection of the law. How did it raise us from Papal subjection? When did it give "freedom of body"? "SLAVES obey your MASTER, is the New Testament injunction, which arms the slave-dealer and gives him scriptural authority" for his calling. When did it give "freedom of "thought"? Was there no such freedom in Ancient Greece, India, or Egypt? Does it ever exist in any Christian land—that is, minus tar and feathers, or social ostracism? Or "freedom of expression"-when did it secure that? And if it be secured why did the "Noble Earl" repudiate the claim of the Essayists and Reviewers to utter their thoughts freely?

66

The following is a choice morsel: "When the working man had seen, "by the simple operation of God's truth upon the heart, a bad and drunken "husband become a model of conjugal fidelity and kindness; when he had seen a reprobate son and daughter brought to support their father and "mother and when he had seen a bad father and mother caused by its "working to become kind and good parents-when he had seen these great changes wrought by its effects, would he hesitate to receive it as being "sent down from heaven and inspired by God, because some learned professor, sitting in his chair, said he had some doubt as to whether the world was created in six days or in six generations, or that because ichthyosauri "had been found in the chalk, fishes could not have been created on the sixth "day. Those great practical experiences, those great triumphs, the Scrip. "tures had effected; and when science should have produced upon the minds "of a millionth part of the human race a millionth part of the good that was "done by the Bible every hour in England alone, then, and then only, could "science come into competition even with the very fringes of the revealed "Word of God." Did the "Noble Earl" never hear of the teetotal doctrine leading men to abandon drunkenness, and to make their homes very comfortable? Does that fact prove it to have come from heaven? The Chinese

sons and daughters, taught by the books of Confucius, are most exemplary in the conduct towards their parents. Their filial piety surpasses that of any other race; but does that prove the books to have been given by God? The play of "George Barnwell" has converted many from thieving. Gambling has been cured by "The Gamester," and men who had resolved to commit a murder have been reclaimed by "Hamlet" and "Macbeth"-shall we say the cure proves the dramas to be the work of God? And if there are some good things in a book, must it follow that learned professors are wrong who say that geology, the known word of God, contradicts Genesis, which some men suppose to be the word of God? If the Noble Earl would condescend to join a "logic class " in one of the mechanic's institutes, the sharp boys, after taking the shine out of his speeches, would teach him to discriminate with more clearness and precision between cause, effect, and primal origin. One year given to such study would be of infinite value to him, and would preserve him from falling into such stupid errors. And as to "science," we earnestly advise him to read even a small book upon its conquests. He is evidently ignorant of the fact that science, besides bringing about cheap Bible printing, has cured the plague, and achieved a thousand victories by means of which our progress out of savagery into semi-civilisation has been secured. He who speaks so contemptuously of science reminds us of the poor Red Indian, trying to strangle the surgeon who was endeavouring to tie up the wounded artery through which the red savage was bleeding to death. We can pity the savage, but we have a right to expect a superior knowledge of facts in a "Noble Earl."

"How

The climax of absurdity was achieved in the following passage:were the tens and hundreds of thousands of working men in this country "to get time to learn Greek and Hebrew and natural science, without which they were given to understand by the Essayists that they were not qualified to give an opinion as to the meaning of the Bible? Why, it would be a greater sacerdotal tyranny than had ever been exercised even by the Church "of Rome, to say that none but those living in learned leisure could be able "to comprehend in what degree the book should be received, and when re“ceived, in what degree its tenets were to be believed."

Now, we beg to ask, does this great actor mean to say that a man is competent to speak of a translation with greater certainty than of the original? The present Dean of Canterbury told the young men in Exeter Hall the truth when he said that "without a knowledge of Greek they could not properly "understand the New Testament." He has edited an edition which differs from all its predecessors, as all their editions do from each other. But if there cannot be a certainty about the original, how is it to be gained about a translation? But the "Noble Earl" has said it; down among the men of coal and iron he has said it. We are not sure that he himself believes it, but we don't believe it. Nay, we are sure that if he were called upon to speak among scholars he would no more dare to repeat that sophism than he dared to repeat his Exeter Hall speech in the House of Lords. He is said to be a clever actor who can "vamp so as to meet the tastes of his audience, and in vamping the "Noble Earl" stands unrivalled. He, too, will play out his part, but in some other sphere. His darkness will be enlightened; for, as sure as night follows the day, a time must come when the soul of Astley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, will be demonstrated to be plebeian and not noble, to be that of a windbag and no real man.

P. W. P.

JOSEPH BARKER AND THE SECULARISTS.

DOUBTLESS, our readers are aware, that the "Secularists," as a body of Freethinkers, are threatened by the spirit of division; it being highly probable that before long one portion of them will be known by another name. Occasionally we have been informed of its being our duty to take a side in the dispute, and, because of our silence, not merely a few persons, but many, have concluded that we took no interest in the matter. Such was not really the case; but, independently of the fact that other matters occupied our attention, we had no desire to rush into a fray when advice was not likely to be taken, and if, at this late hour, we venture upon making a few observations, it is merely to the end that the gist of the matter may be placed fairly before the subscribers to this Journal.

At the present moment, the two giants of the ultra-freethought platform are Mr. Chas. Bradlaugh and Mr. Joseph Barker. The former is comparatively a young man, but remarkable alike for the intensity of the hatred he bears to the Bible, and the earnestness with which he hunts down those of its defenders with whom he is publicly brought into contact. From him they are neither to expect mercy nor even justice. Probably he has been a formal believer - one of those Bible Christians who said, “ Yes, it is true," merely because they heard others saying so, but when he had entered through the portals of Doubt into the world of Absolute Denial, he vaulted at the conclusion that all who hold his former faith do so upon the same terms and foundations that himself held it. Had he ever thoroughly believed he would now be more just in his judgments. Whether, as years grow upon him, and his experience widens, he will do them more justice we shall not here undertake to pronounce; but they deserve it. Moreover, until ample justice be done unto the very weakest, the blindest, and even the most stubborn among them, they will not be healed of their orthodox malady. When the man of Freethought fights his battles upon the territory of his enemy-when he fights modern theology with Biblical weapons, and fights in the spirit of one who wishes only to save that which is noble, he partially disarms his opponent before a blow is struck, and completely so when it is shown that it is the advantage of his foe, not a mere selfish victory, which constitutes the true end and aim of his reasoning. So far as honesty of purpose, combined with courage, perseverance, and energy are concerned, we consider Mr. Bradlaugh to be worthy of the praise of men, but, unfortunately, he has not sufficiently mastered the questions he undertakes to discuss-he is unconscious of the difficulties which beset the better-read and deeper thinker, and hence came the unfortunate mistakes, the unfair condemnations, and self-contradictions into which, in debates, he has so frequently fallen.

Mr. Barker is a man of another stamp; he is mature as a thinker, logical as a debater, earnest, persevering, dauntless, powerful in argument, and filled with that better and thoroughly practical sort of wisdom which every intellectual man possesses, who has fought his way through the various sloughs of religious creedism which swallow up and destroy so many generous men. If he debates with a bigoted Methodist, not only does he foresee every argument to be used by his antagonist, but he can do him justice, because in all honesty he once occupied his opponent's position; and so it is with the various degrees of Orthodoxy and Freethought, for having gradually passed through them all, he fully appreciates the various difficulties which impede the progress of the believer. There is not in England a man who

is more competent to debate, upon a public platform, the Biblical and theological questions of the age than he is. And, in doing him that justice, we cannot omit the sincere expression of our regret that he does not belong to the school of Theists. Probably he is nearer to it than he imagines; certainly, far nearer than he is to that of Atheism. But whether he joins the former or not, it is certain that he will do considerably more than his part toward destroying the Bibliolatry of the nineteenth century. And, now that he stands alone, his power will be far greater than it was when he was working in the traces with others.

The immediate cause of his standing alone is very easily stated. Some time back a book was published, in which occurred what purports to be a complete physiological discussion of the sexual question, "Is it better to

marry than burn?" or, shall we say that marriage is a great curse which all are to shun? The author is stated to be a physiologist. If that be true, then his book is a mockery-written in a mad frolic; but, having carefully read every page, and it was a painful infliction, we are sure such scientific attainments cannot be predicated of the writer. Frequently he sets forth propositions as established truths, which no physiologist can read without being convulsed with laughter, unless his sorrow and indignation happen to conquer the risible tendency. His theory of observing the laws of nature is based upon the assumption that we are first to call Passion to our aid to show us what those laws really are. He does not in so many words say so, yet, practically, he enforces that it is from the self-indulgent man he would learn the true end of life, and the proper course of human conduct; but they who know anything of the power of habit will tell another tale. Self-restraint is the source of strength. Indulge to day, and self-control is weaker on the morrow. He who would conquer the world must begin with conquering himself. He who has the fewest wants is in the best position to dare the hatred of men, while he who indulges, physically, soon becomes so thoroughly a slave that his intellect bows before the dictates of passion, and his birthright is given for the means of indulgence.

This book was noticed and praised by Mr. Bradlaugh in those columns of the National Reformer which were edited by himself, but, in charity we hope, without his having fully comprehended its purport. Naturally, many who knew its real nature were alarmed at this, for it is unusual with Freethinkers to countenance gross immorality. With his usual tact, Mr. Holyoake had previously declined to promote its circulation, and, naturally, Mr. Barker reasonably felt himself compromised by the favourable notice having appeared in a paper of which he was joint-editor. He has obtained, even among the orthodox, a good moral reputation, which, were it only out of respect for his family, he dared not imperil; and, very properly, he protested against both the book and the review. This protest led to a deal of bickering in the Secularist ranks, finally, to his rupture with the "National Reformer" party, and the establishment of a new weekly Journal, called, "Barker's Review," in which, with great clearness, he now defines his own cause, and promulgates his particular opinions. We wish him success in his undertaking, and cannot doubt that the best-hearted, the purest-minded, and the most intellectual members of the Secular party will render him all the support which is in their power.

But why are not all the Secularists with him? He stood upon a moral platform to protest against immorality-why, then, should he have been opposed? Does Secularism wed itself with vice, and the abominable doctrines