FREE THOUGHT LECTURER.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 263, 6 November 1877, Page 2

FREE THOUGHT LECTURER.

To thb Editor of the « Evening Mail.' Sir—A correspondent of the Daily Times under the modest norn de piume of "Inquirer " is troubled, like my neighbor "Q. " re my surmises as to the success of Mr Bright's Free Thought lectures in Melbourne. I sympathise with both of them. But truth is very relentless and impartial, and notwithstanding the Australasian and " the many ladies and gentlemen " cited by "Inquirer," I still trust to my information, and in due time hope to verify it. If I fail I shall do the amende honorable to Mr B. and his friends. I would not notice at present "Inquirer's " letter, but that inspired by the teaching of Mr B. himself I am desirous, with your permission, to give fuller expression to the free thought that is in me—my own thought—for which no man save himself is responsible—the thought evolved out of my own consciousness of right and wrong, my own intuitive perception of fche fituess of things (this I think is quite a la Bright, and cannot be taken exception to by his disciples) m reference to the lecturer, the {lecture, aud the behaviour of a part of the audience on the first night. Mr Bright has laid himself out to live by lecturing, no despicable .'calling. I only regret that the effeminacy of the age has so little appreciation of the competent lecturer that the Christy Minstrels aud the banjo are so much more powerful to attract. Mr Bright, let us hope by his convictions, elects to deal with the highest of all subjects that can possibly engage the human thought, i.e., man's relations to God, and necessarily the tremendous issues involved in such a subject. Now I respectfully submit that the very first qualification of any man who undertakes such a dutyi s a reverent and humble mind, and a becoming respect for the opinions ot men who differ from him For no man of any sensibility of feeling will lay himself ont wantonly to insult and outrage the convictions, especially .the religious convictions, of other men, however crude and ridiculous their faith and worship may be Even the superstitions and prejudices of men, however grovelling, are aacred from ridicule by every man of right sentiment. My complaint against Mr Bright is, not that he rejects the Christian faith, not that he seeks to prove it false, but that eschewin<* argument and reason he laughs and sneers and scoffs at a faith that is revered by tens of thousands of men who are vastly superior to himself iv scholarship and intellect, a faith which for 2000 'years has stood the test of the most searching inquiry by friend and foe, and as yet has not been shown to be untenable. A faith, however mistaken the interpretation of some of its fundamental teachings may possibly be, yet inculcates a pure morality, a lofty patriotism, an universal charity, a spirit of brotherhood, concord, and peace. A faith which is the highest form of man's spiritual nature. I say the man who treats such a subject in the spirit that Mr .Bright does most deservedly and unfailingly brings upon himself the severest reprobatTon and contempt of every rightly constituted mind This condemnation is all that I meant my letter to be, simply an indignant protest against Mr B.*s method of treatment of this sacred subject, and not, in any sense, a criticism of the lecture Indeed I was sorry to fail to find anything in the lecture to criticise. I came away faillug even to understand what views the am"u er he,t'' whafc acho °l he belonged to. All that I gathered clearly was that he was uot an Atheist, nor an orthodox Christian ; but where between those poles he dwelt, or if indeed he has found any resting place ; auy ground wbereiu his soul's resting place may remain, I failed to discover from his lecture— whether he had found refuge in pantheism, seeing God in everything, or in rational sm, which sees God in his works, but yet banishes him to afar off solitude, and • excludes him from the world he is admitted to have created," or in spiritualism -here if anywhere I should say—for he hinted something as to the intuitive susceptibility of the human mind, which unfailingly determines what Truth is, or in that attenuated diluted form of scepticism known as indiffere-Uism, m which so many of our free thought friends find food for their hungry souls, and satisfaction for all the yearnings and asniratious of their spiritual nature. Thi-> I wa's unable to determine. And yet I think from some little familiarity with those varied schools of thought, if a mau talked with ordinary relevancy, I could make a wide guess as to what sect he belonged to. Now what did Mr Bright really do? After an exordium which told us how uutrammelled and independent he was in all his thinking he commenced with the profound observation that "doubt was the parent of progress " a truth learnt by our first mother very painfully, if the record be true, and surely au observation sufficiently axiomatic to* insure universal acceptance. Doubtless such an axiom might have sufliced as a scientific basis, upon which a clear intellect, fully informed upon the subject, might have led his audience upward and onward to wide aud philosophic generalisations, and have cast some light on the innate superstition of the human mind and the rationale of ita slavery to fashion and custom. Ji Mr B. had attempted

this or anything like it, I should have thanked him. But he fought shy of all such speculations. He found it wiser "to pish and pshaw" at theology-a science he is marvellously innocent of, aud to ridicule the idea of "the divinity of Jesus" and the folly of worship, and the senility of conversion, and then he launched into clap-trap and stale jokes anent the clergy, when 'his eye glistened and his whole frame dilated, and his noble soul revelled and rejoiced with " a supreme delight " as he expatiated on that interesting aspect of his case, and held up to scorn and contempt the teachers of the people. I must withhold some further re-marks.-—I am, &c, ■p