FREE THOUGHT LECTURE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 254, 26 October 1877, Page 2

FREE THOUGHT LECTURE.

To the Editor ov the ' Evening Mail.' Sir— l wenfc athirsfc for knowledge, and burdened with some difficult problems of "the mystery of life," which I thought might be fairly discussed in the theme of the evening, to listen to the Apostle of Free .thought; but vain, very vaiti, was my expectation, there is no light for the dark, no wisdom for the perplexed from that source. Most truly is the lecture designated "Free Thought," jrouically, I fancy, for anything more unfettered by the links of a djscrimiuatiug logic, more attenuated and feeble, more unscientific and overladen with vapid watery platitudes it has not been my lot to listen to, aud I came away feeling I had been imposed upon. The burden of the tale was that poor humanity is the slave of custoirj of fashion and superstition. Alas! all too true! But thafc is no new discovery. The world did not await the new lights of the day to inform them of this. But that was not the point aimed at by Mr Bright, but to charge aj! thjs on religion, for the object of his school is to make Christianity accountable for the slavery of the human niind. Now it would be no difficult thing to prove that fqr whatever liberty of thought aud freedom of speech there is iu the world it ia indebted to Protestantism. lam no apologist of sacerdotalism. I hold as firmly as Mr Bright that Priesiism in all its forms, the sapped nwq set aside to do so- ' called sacred work, tends to crau^D the intellect, to retard the growth of pure religion, whether he be found rouged uuder the absolution of the Pope, or the hierarchy of episcopacy, or in the couventicle of nonconformity its effects are the same. It is the same everywhere ; it is found in the rudest paganism; its simplest form is fetishism, aud out of its sottish imbecility has grown up the sacerdotalism that has been dominant among every people in every age of the world. It grows out of the primitive affections of men's souls, and if Mr Bright had come as we had a right to expect he would come and attempted to deal philosophically with this great subject, he would earn our gratitude. But tbis is no part of his purpose; it is far easier to turn the clergy into ridicule by retailing stale jokes from Dean j Ramsay and elsewhere. Why did not Mr Bright attempt to show in an earnest manner —aud by an argument which should be marked by a philosophical and scientific knowledge of his subject— howbest fcoeoiubaf this deep seated sentiment of humanity? Thafc all "the sects" labor each with deep earuestneßS to inculcate as divine and immoveable all that is? in each established is freely granted. But the duty of the teacher is to show how best to counteract this tendency, how to liberate the mind from its serf4om— not to raise false issues and indulge in maue stale jokes that have been current among us for auy length of time. Why did

not Mr Bright try to deal wifch the problem of how to discriminate between what is eternally true and false. Old Euripides told the world long ago thafc " what comes from long time is established eternally and inheres m Nature!" Nothing older than the reverence of the human mind for authority May not Mr Bright be fighting against his own good nature when he protests— " protests o'er much" as we think— against this inalienable sentiment of humanity? It i 3 a poo r philosophy that is simply destructive; that overturns the altars of a people, and asks them to trust in a negation. The mode of treatment of the subject was an impertinence, and an insult to all men of thought. And if this ecture is the product of the study of the lecturer, the sooner he abrogates the role of the teacher and returns to the rauks of the scholars the better. Men won't go to church, granted; but if a strong man dares to speak out the thought thafc is in him, men will flock to listen? If lam rightly informed a strong man iu the person of Mr Bright opened shop on his own account in the City of Melbourne. The enterprise was bolstereu up by all the aid which the Melbourne Argus could give; the lectures were duly reported at length in its columns; every stage trick was worked to get a crowd, but alasl Mr Bright had to address himself Sunday after Sunday to an audience that grew beautifully less— until it disappeared. Was it lack of manly strevqlh iu the gentleman who deals ao trenchantly with the effeminacy of the clergy that led fco the collapse? Or the feeling in the audience ' that the new gospel of social organization met no want of hungry souls? Which horn of the dilemma does Mr B. elect to hang upon? Why does not Mr Bright come out of tha region of generalities and tell us in plain words what he means when he exhorts us " to have confidence or faith if we like in the Great Living Spirit, Nature -Spirit Force, the Infinite "— what is it he means by this— ls it a Derson? Has he moral attributes? Are we related to him? Did he make us? When we call upon him will he hear us? Or are we invited to discard such a conception, and trust in an abstraction, in a myth, in cold material laws? Pray, let us understand you Mr Bright ! The first qualification of a teacher is to be intelligible ; to my comprehension you are so far unintelligible.— Yours, &c, P.