THE FAEETHOUGHT REVIEW.

Freethought Review, Volume I, Issue 1, 1 October 1883, Page 1

THE FAEETHOUGHT REVIEW.

Price: 6d.

WANGANUI, N.Z.: OCTOBER i, 1883.

VOL. I.—No. 1.

The Rev. Mr. Cameron, a clergyman of the English Church, responded to an invitation of the Wanganui Freethought Association to deliver an address on a subjeCt to be selected by presumably on one involving the Christian and Freethought positions. He objected, however, to the condition that there should be a discussion at the end of his discourse, and preferred to make his own arrangements. His subjedl was entitled “ Truth Wins, ” and was elucidated in the advertisement by the following syllabus : “ The Spiritual Reveals the Natural—Course of the Natural explaining the Spiritual key to whole question Christ and Darwin— plan of thought and purpose —The Bible the most brilliant of books— Science and Religion twin Sisters, though long unknown to each other Cosmogony of Scripture corresponds essentially with the Scientific— statements confirmed by modern investigation.” It appears that the Bishop of Wellington was made acquainted with Mr. Cameron’s intentions, for a gentle admonition was sent advising the champion of orthodoxy to confine himself to his parochial work. The recommendation has been taken as a command, and Mr. Cameron has withdrawn his announcement from the papers. It is apparent that the Bishop thinks Mr. Cameron is not a “likely” controversialist, or that the “verities” are best left undisturbed.

Mr. Cameron is an original thinker, and has discovered an universal solvent for the doubts of sceptics. In a letter to a paper, defining his position and announcing the discovery, he says, “ Apply the principles of logic and pure mathematics, and you can positively assert that man, even from the works of Nature around him, can * assert ’ that there ‘is a God. The Christian has, therefore the positive as regards a God, and the negative as regards a Christ, a Holy Spirit, an after life, and a resurrection.” This remarkable eleClric thesis of negatives and positives is characterised at least by raciness and freshness. The idea of God being positive and Christ negative would hardly have suggested itself to the speculative Freethinker. It undoubtedly has the merit of being difficult to answer, and we know not whether the Christian or his antagonist will feel the more indebted to Mr. Cameron for his “mathematical” investigations. From the historical point of view, the terms would probably be reversed ; we mean that the historical evidence is rather in favour of the existence of Jesus, who might have been more appropriately placed at the positive pole of Mr. Cameron s battery. Logically, the Christian’s negative, according to Mr. Cameron, appears to be equivalent to a denial of Christ and the resurrection.

Evolution has lately been making converts in strange latitudes. The Rev. Mr. Fitchett, a Church of England clergyman at Dunedin, finds in the God of the Old Testament a being undergoing progressive development, until he emerges from a state of pupilage at the time of Christ, who thinks of him as a Spirit. Mr. Fitchett’s sermon appears in our columns as reported in one of the Dunedin papers, and it is almost impossible, we think, to have the anthropomorphous conception of the Jewish people more graphically described. This tribal God seems from Mr. Fitchett’s sketch to

have been something more than an anthropomorphous deity—a Pantheistic conception of Nature in her various moods. The evolution process went on, until at length “ Hebrew thought had made long advances towards a purer and more spiritual conception of God than that formed by the primitive tribe.” It is for orthodoxy to account for the imperfeCt revelation. If the alleged miraculous events of the Old Testament were but the equivalent of “ a crude anthropomorphism,” the antetypes have no meaning, and the “ scheme of redemption ” is deprived of the pillars on which it was supported. To affirm that ‘ God is a Spirit,’ is to say the final word, Mr. Fitchett asserts, about the nature of God. But the word Spirit conveys no meaning without a number of attributes, and only suggests a new departure in evolution. The God of the Jews is a being, according to our authority, of the materialistic r>rrlp>r I'm!- rrrarlncilK?- Incincr cahip nf ttip ornccipr nttri~o* * butes of a crude man-like apprehension. Did it never occur that the Spirit idea was subjeCl to the same law of development ? But may we not be asking too much? The treatment of the “ primitive tribe” and their anthropomorphous God is so bold and thorough that we may well pause until the reader has recovered breath.

The term “ Liberal ” in the United States is equivalent to that of Freethought and Freethinker, Secular and Secularist in England and the colonies. In faCt it connotes nearly all that the word Freethought does in the idiom with which we are familiar. On one point we feel somewhat uncertain. The word does not seem to include the if w r e may judge from the circumstance that in some collections, we have “Liberal Hymns” and “Spiritualistic Hymns,” carefully distinguished by name and association from each other. In Sydney, it would appear,the term “Liberal” has been introduced from America by the Freethought party, and is in a fair way of being acclimatised. We hope it wall not become a designation of the party in New Zealand, for the following reasons : The term Liberal is already the designation of one of the political parties in the Colony, and it would be impossible to appropriate it to the Freethought movement without

creating confusion, and causing in all probability mischief. Freethinkers belong to all political parties, and, though one of their greatest objects is social amelioration by political means, there is no reason why they should not remain in the ranks where, each one judging for himself, they may think they can achieve the greatest good. In a word, Freethought, as such, has no connexion with political parties, and will do well to avoid their terminology. While thus thinking that the term

“ Liberal ” is inappropriate in this Colony at least, we offer no objection to its use by our American brethren, where it may be “ racy of the soil,” and as expressive of a distinCt line of thought and organisation as are

the terms Republican and Democrat when applied to the great political combinations of the country.

The late Sir George Bowyer, who since his reception into the Roman Catholic Church was a very strong Ultramontane, addressed to the Duke of Sutherland a protest against the ereClion of a memorial to General Garibaldi at Stafford House. The letter, which was

written just two days before Sir George’s sudden death, runs as follows :—“ My dear Duke, — I am sorry to see you doing honor to Garibaldi. You gave him hospitality, but do you think he would have tolerated the existence of a duke ? If he had the power he would have deprived you of your rank, and divided your property among the Radicals. He was a bitter atheist —as bad as Bradlaugh— a thorough Communist and Republican. When he commanded in Rome many good and unoffending priests were murdered with his sanction. He publicly defended political assassination. He derived great pecuniary profit from his political crimes —a large salary, and the payment of his own and his son’s debts. His life was passed in conspiracy, violence, bloodshed, and blasphemy. Yours, George Bowyer.” This indictment is rather mixed. One point only requires to be noticed. It is said Garibaldi publicly defended political assassination.” If he did it was a grave fault, but we imagine it was more of a blunder than a crime. It would have been strange if the enthusiastic nature of Garibaldi had not led him to favor the “ last resort ” of the oppressed in the case, for instance, of the tyrant of Naples. Assassination is never justifiable, but the crimes of certain Italian rulers before 1559 made it a virtue in the eyes of millions of Italians. In a large sense it is true that “ his life was passed in conspiracy, violence, bloodshed, and blasphemy,” —in the sense that each phase here given of his career contributes to the greatness of a very noble character. It may be said that Garibaldi conspired against tyrants ; violently took possession of the Government of Naples, conveyed thither in an express train at the rate of forty miles an hour ; shed his blood for the cause of the oppressed, and was rewarded with the never-dying gratitude of a nation ; and blasphemed in denying the claims of superstition, priestcraft, and fraud. Who would desire a better or more enduring epitaph !

The clergy— stimulated doubtless by the advance of Freethought —are uniting to demand Bible instruction in the public schools. From the political point of view, it would be inexpedient to grant a request which would weaken the national character of the system, and cause sections of the community (minorities) to feel that the State was favoring the religion of the majority. Freethinkers, while sympathising with this view, have a decided objection to children receiving moral instruction from a book a large part of which is immoral in its tendency. The mythical part of religion, embodied in dogma, concerns them but little, being easily disposed of in argument best Bible scholars becoming not seldom the most advanced and accomplished Freethinkers. But when, for instance, a lustful, treacherous, and cruel character is held up for admiration as a successful man, one after “ God’s own heart,” a lesson is imparted which, unless the child has gifts of reason to enable it to rise above the instruction, may impress the mind with the idea that an outward profession will sanCtity a life of hypocrisy and badness. Believing all this, the duty of the Freethinker is clear, namely, to resist as far as his constitutional privileges will enable him to go, the introduction of a book of the kind into the public schools. And as this is the highest, it is the best ground that can be taken up. An expurgated Bible is sometimes advocated by Christians as a schoolbook. The onus is on them to produce such a work ; but the irony of an expurgated revelation is too transparent to allow of the attempt in our time.

The question has been asked, “ Can a Mason be consistently a member of a Freethought Association.” In the United States no question has been more frequently or more earnestly discussed, and apparently is still far from being settled. The use made of the Bible in Masonic Ceremonies as well as in Masonic ritual has inclined some members of the Order to reply in the negative. On the other hand it is held that though Masonry is largely indebted to the Old Testament for its symbols, allegory, and forms, it is essentially a system of morality, universal in its adaptation to people of all races and creeds, almost universal in its acceptance. With the latter view we agree; otherwise it would have to be held that the ancient and memorable order was a theological seCl, instead of finding its inspiration in the sentiment that has been its proudest boast—the brotherhood of man.

The House of Representatives passed in its recent session a Bill abolishing oaths and substituting therefor a simple form of affirmation. A Quaker member, Mr. Mason, was instrumental in inducing the House to take this forward step in juridical reform. The majority in favor of the principle was overwhelming, but this faff did not prevent the summary rejection of the Bill in the Legislative Council. The privilege of swearing was too valuable to be swept away with so little notice, and now we may expeCl the history of the Deceased Wife’s Sister question repeated. The professors of Christianity do not appear to be conscious of the immorality of the formula which draws a distinction between “the truth” and “ the whole truth.” Equally obtuse are they to the logical dilemma of adjuring God to help them , and punishing them if he should fail to render his assistance. It is not surprising that Judge Higinbotham should ask for a revised Christianity as one of the wants of the age.

To Freethinkers as a class at present in the minority, the rejection of the School Elections Bill in the Legislative Council as welcome news. The cumulative system of voting for the Committees affords minorities the opportunity of returning members in proportion to their strength. This is fair both to majorities and minorities. The system, consecrated by time and usage, gave a majority the power to return every member ; and it can easily be understood how unsparingly such a power would be exercised when Freethinkers had to be excluded. In the matter of education, the Freethought party cannot be too deeply interested. They must do battle in preserving the secular character of the system intact. Hence every change, whatever may be its ostensible objeCt, should be closely scrutinised to discover its tendency as well as the motive of the author. The opposition to the educational system of the Colony is becoming every year more organised if not more formidable. We see the Anglican Church drawing up its forces in line with the Catholics, while murmurings of discontent are heard among the other seCts. Are the friends of the existing secular system strong enough to withstand the combined attack of its enemies ? We care nothing for existing combinations in the General Assembly. What verdiCt will the constituencies return when the appeal is made to them ? That will depend largely on the prudence, intelligence, and organisation of the friends of a free, secular, and compulsory system of national education.

The announcement that Professor Beesley and Mr. Frederic Harrison are coming out to the colonies"© n a lecturing tour has a twofold interest. They are both profound thinkers, and Mr. Harrison is one of the greatest living masters of English pure and undefiled.’ The special interest to Freethinkers is that both are Positivists, who recognise in Science the * promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.’ As apostles of the School of Humanity, they will dwell on the conditions on which the salvation of the race depends. Positivism has put on one side the Supernatural, and is emphatically the religion of History and Science. The doctrine of the school has found reception in some of the greatest brains of the age. This admits of no doubt when we mention the names of Augustu Comte Comte, the late G. H. Lewes, the late Harriet Martineau, Congreve, John Morley, Harrison, and Tyndal. But what interests us equally to know is the progress the cultus is making among the people. Comte held that all advance must come from above. His appeal was (necessarily as we thinks to the people in the unner \ J / x r~~ "x x ■ mansions, who indeed were the only class likely to comprehend the doctrine until it found interpreters. We have noticed that an effort is being made in England to popularise and extend the influence of the Society. Is this the objedt of the two apostles who are coming amongst us ? Whatever their aims may be, we cannot doubt that they are far above mere money-getting. Freethinkers will therefore give them a hearty greeting.