no Theists are willing to accept. But had he plainly said there are none but material realities, and by god I mean matter, and by matter god, his life would not have been worth an hour's purchase. Since the world has been cursed by political christianity, the holdest of those who knew the truth shrunk from an open avowal of it, excepting some half dozen such daring enthusiasts as Vanini, who amid the flames clung to truth with desperate fidelity. Such men have many admirers, but few imitators, nor is the reason of this at all enigmatical. Life is sweet, and the boldest are seldom in a hurry to part with it. All have some fear, and he who least betrays, So said Byron, who knew human nature well. I write not this to justify Spinoza, no, deceit cannot be justified-duplicity is never praiseworthy, and he who practices the one or the other, by so much does violence to truth and wanders from the honourable path all men ought fearlessly to tread. It is of little consequence what motives men have for dishonesty, all society has to deal with are consequences, and I think few will deny that dishonesty, under any or all its forms, is a curse. Though an apologist of Spinoza, I pretend not to be an admirer of his mode of philosophizing-abhorring most heartily what is called expediency, I never will knowingly utter a word or write a line to justify it. Believing that no ends can warrant the systematic use of dishonest means, my voice shall always be raised against those who make the danger of being honest a pretext for their own rascality. If Spinoza was compelled or induced to take refuge in the mists of double doctrine, during the seventeenth century, there is no reason on earth why Atheists of the nineteenth century should follow his example. Now, a man may proclaim himself Atheist, Pantheist, or any imagineable ist without being either burnt or hanged. Our priests, thanks to the general diffusion of knowledge, have all the will, but not the power, to do much mischief. Like savage beasts, minus teeth and claws, they can growl or roar, but happily are without the means of doing serious damage. THEORY OF REGULAR GRADATION. XXVIII. Ir may appear to some who have read my emarks in No. 24, on the "Cowardice and Dishonesty of Scientific Men," that I am eting inconsistently with the rule I laid own for others, when I introduce my speulations, upon the facts which I have preented from the anatomy of the various asses of the animal kingdom, in support of 5 position. It may be said, "If the facts 421 brought to light by comparative anatomy are so striking and indisputable as you would lead us to suppose, why are you not content to let those facts rest upon their own merits, allowing your readers to draw their own deductions ? " This I should be right willing to do, had not the first discoverers of those facts made use of them to inculcate and support the religious dogmas of the day, from a clear perception of the tendency of their discoveries to undermine and ultimately overthrow those dogmas-if the information they were possessed of was given to the world without comment. They dared not themselves use their knowledge, as many doubtless would have wished, from the certain persecution and ruin which would follow, and to give it to the world without comment, was almost equally certain to lead bolder men to an investigation of its value and bearing upon the doctines of the powerful religious corporations of the country, when the names of the discoverers being associated with the arguments of the sceptics, would secure the former a portion of the obloquy attaching to the latter. One only course then remained, by the adoption of which they sought the favour of the clergy, and secured their own safety-at the same time that they gave to the world, for the guidance and information of others, the knowledge they had obtained. This course was to declare that science was the handmaid to religion, and that every fact brought to light by the labours of science more clearly established and proved the soundness of theological doctrines. Here, then, is my reason for pointing out what I consider legitimate conclusions to be drawn from the facts I have given, in opposition, be it remembered, to opinions put forward by the original discoverers, and later commentators upon those facts. The same answer applies here as the Atheist gives to the Theist-had others never affirmed, I should never have denied, for there would have been nothing for me to deny. As long as some men assume, others will be right in disputing. The reader will not have failed to observe the terms "rudimentary form," "developed with more uniformity," (( perfect development," "not yet reached perfection," "though more developed," that some animals possess 66 at maturity organs that they did not possess when young, that the brain and spinal chord "bear a proportionate correspondence" with the perfection of muscular energy-muscular energy being dependent upon the volume of brain and spinal chord--with many other expressions of like import, all of which are the language of others, not my own, and is valuable as showing that necessity, or the force of circumstances, is indirectly admitted, even by its opponents, to be the cause of all we see or know, as I will further explain. When the comparative anatomist perceives | perfectly made, or that this portion of their organisation is more perfectly developed, than it is in those birds who require the addition of a stone to enable them to roost in security. Let us imagine a bird who always looked for a stone to take with it to bed, before it retired to rest, placed in confinement, and all ponderous bodies removed from its reach, and that with it was associated one who did not require adventitious aid—whilst the latter could balance itself upon its perch, and sleep like a top, the former, want. ing its balancing stone, would be continually tumbling off. What a caricature upon infinite wisdom would this heavy-headed organism be! in one animal an organ performing an important part in the economy of that animal, and at the same time sees in another what is evidently only a mere type of such an organ --and finds it quite inadequate to the duties performed by it in other cases, and at times presenting no reason whatever for its existence--he compelled to admit, that in the latter case it is only rudimentary, or that it is not perfectly developed, that is, that it has not grown to the size and taken the position it occupies in other cases. One of two conclusions may be come to upon such facts:- Either, that the animal with the imperfect organ had not been surrounded by circumstances favorable to the development of the organ, and that the organ might be further developed were a material change to take place in the circumstances by which its possessor was surrounded - or, on the other hand, that the maker of the animal did not know so well what he was doing when he made it as he subsequently did, after more practice, or that he had experimentised, and that this was one of his experiments. This last is not consistent with infinite wisdom, and of course would be rejected by an advocate for a being possessing such an attribute-besides, if we adopt this conclusion, the terms imperfect development and rudimentary form are incorrect and, I presume, blasphemous-for unless we suppose the maker to be ignorant, the organ, as the anatomist finds it, is not rudimentary or imperfect, but perfect, because it is just what it was intended it should be, and the other organ of which he imagines it to be the type is a different organ, and not the same organ in an improved form. My readers will, I think, accord to me the greater probability of the first hypothesis, upon the authority of the facts given by Evers, and which I shall now remark upon. I shall confine myself to portions of my two last articles, in Nos. 44-5, which forcibly illustrate the opinions I hold upon this subject. The description in No. 44 of the mechanism which enables birds to sleep more soundly upon one leg than upon two is an excellent illustration for either of the two conclusions I have named-proving either imperfect make or imperfect development. When explaining the reason why birds generally sleep upon one leg, Mr. Evers says, "It is for the purpose of throwing the whole weight of their body on it, and so grasping the firmer, and in order to increase the effect, by adding to the weight of the body, some birds are in the habit of never going to roost without grasping a stone or some ponderous body in the other foot." From this, I think it is clear, that those birds who can sleep with safety without the aid of a stone are more An advocate for theism would tell us that this fact was beautifully illustrative of infinite intelligence and goodness, as it proved most satisfactorily that the bird was left in this defenceless state to afford a field for the exercise of its intelligence, in providing a remedy for its defective construction. Man was evidently left in a similar defenceless condition, that his mental powers might be called into action-coal was buried in the earth that he might construct machinery to draw it forth, and, in addition, was distributed in narrow layers that it might distort the limbs of those who had to work it-the gases liberated by its combustion were intended to produce pulmonary consumption, that doctors might have patients to attend to and receive fees from! Admirable philosophy! How contemptible are the petty reasonings of man, when compared with such stupendous contrivances ! Further on Mr. Evers tells us that "the whole muscular system yields' "" ❝ in 3 remarkable manner to a known law," "that of increasing its growth in proportion to the functions imposed upon it." What is there remarkable in the action of a "known law," or mode of operation? It would be far more remarkable if the muscular system did not yield to the "known law.' Mr. E. proceeds to state, that this remarkable circumstance was strikingly illustrated in the case of a sea-gull, which Mr. Hunter kept for a year, living, contrary to its nature, upon grain. At the end of that period he contrasted its gizzard with that of another sea-gull, which had been living on fish, and found that the digastric (two bellies) muscles of the former had acquired nearly three times the development of the latter. He accomplished similar phenomena by changing the food of an eagle and of a tame kite, the former throve very well on bread, but that it was dissatisfied with its fare, is to be inferreo from its seizing the earliest opportunity of breaking its chain and effecting its escape." Here, then, we have a strong argument against design, and equally strong evidenc of the truth of my hypothesis-for if we suppose the gull to have been intended to live upon fish, and that its organisation was in conformity with such provision, it would follow, that to feed it upon food diametrically opposite, would be to frustrate the intention, of the designer and to cause the death of the bird-unless we also suppose the preservation of its life by miraculous means, or that it was made to thrive upon any food, but would prefer fish when it could get it-when we sacrifice the idea of its being specially dedesigned to live upon one kind of foodthe only ground upon which an argument for design can be based, and which designers would tell us it was. But let us go a little further, and suppose that a few pair of gulls were fed upon grain, that they had young ones, who partook of the changed character of their parents, and that they likewise were kept to the same food-if so great a change was wrought in one year, we might imagine a still greater result in the course of a life-time, if it extended over several years, and gulls, I believe, are not short lived. We might confidently anticipate, from these premises, that in a few generations the present distinctive character of the gull would be entirely obliterated, and that it would present every appearance of having been designed by infinite wisdom to live upon grain, and not upon fish. How it would puzzle subsequent naturalists to account for the silence of their predecessors upon the existence and character of the birds they would find existing, if no narrative of these experiments had been perserved. Mr. E. says, "But that it (the eagle) was dissatisfied with its fare is to be inferred from its seizing the earliest opportunity of breaking its chain and effecting its escape." I draw an inference the very reverse, from the statement just preceding, namely, that it "throve very well on bread," for it is very unusual for animals to thrive on food which they dislike. And when we find the bird was chained, it seeins far more reasonable to conclude that it rebelled against its slavery, to which its abundant fare would not reconcile it. plation of "the different lengths and forms of intestines" in birds, "irresistibly leads us to infer that economy seems to be the main design." How irresistible must be that evidence that seems to lead to a certain conclusion - it is so irresistible as to leave us in doubt whether economy was not the main design, or whether there may not have been some other design, which is wisely hid from us, or whether there was any design at all. Once again, I say, that it is clear from the manner in which scientific men endeavour to bolster up religion, with facts of science, that they do not feel what they write, and that nothing but the certainty of persecution and ruin would induce them to do it-shall we cease then for a moment labouring to destroy the damnable system which produces such hypocrisy and perpetuates ignorance? CRITIQUE UPON THE MYTHOLOGY II. BUT the argument of most weight with me is this: that many of these fables by no means appear to have been invented by the persons who relate and divulge them, whether Homer, Hesiod, or others; for if I were assured they first flowed from those later times and authors that transmit them to us, I should never expect any thing singularly great and noble from such an origin. But whoever attentively considers the thing will find that these fables are delivered down and related by those writers, not as matters then first invented and proposed, but as things received and embraced in earlier ages. Besides, as they are differently related by writers nearly of the same ages, it is easily perceived that the relators drew from the common stock of ancient tradition, and varied but in point of embellishment, which is their own. And this principally raises my esteem of these fables, which I receive, not as the product of the age or invention of the poets, but as sacred relics, gentle whispers, and the breath of better times, that from the traditions of more ancient nations came at length into the flutes and trumpets of the the Greeks. But, if any one shall, notwithstanding this, contend that allegories are always adventitious, or imposed upon the ancient fables, and no way native, or genuinely contained in them, we might here leave him undisturbed in that gravity of judgment he affects (though we cannot help accounting it somewhat dull and phlegmatic), and if it were worth the trouble, proceed to another kind of argument. Mr. Evers says, "that these facts show in a clear manner the provision of nature for the preservation of life under a variety of circumstances." Indeed! If this be true, it is equally "clear" that nature makes abundant provision likewise for the neglect or destruction of life under a great variety of circumstances. What provision does nature make for the thousands sometimes swallowed up by earthquakes, swept away by hurricanes, buried in the occean by storms, or starved to death by the barbarous laws and institutions of society? If man be "the Men have proposed to answer two differnoblest work of god," he seems to be less ent and contrary ends by the use of parable; cared for than any other animal on the face for parables serve as well to instruct or ilof the earth. Mr. E. says that a contem-lustrate as to wrap up and envelope; so that, though for the present we drop the concealed use, and suppose the ancient fables to be vague, undeterminate things, formed for amusement, still the other must remain, and can never be given up. And every man, of any learning, must readily allow that this method of instructing is grave, sober, or exceedingly useful, and sometimes necessary in the sciences, as it opens an easy and familiar passage to the human understanding in all new discoveries that are abstruse and out of the road of vulgar opinions. Hence, in the first ages, when such inventions and conclusions of the human reasoning as are now trite and common were new and little known, all things abounded with fables, parables, similies, comparisons, and allusions, which were not intended to conceal, but to inform and teach; whilst the minds of men continued rude and unpractised in matters of subtility and speculation, or even impatient and in a manner incapable of receiving such things as did not directly fall under and strike the senses. For as hieroglyphics were in use before writing, so were parables in use before arguments. And even to this day if any man would let new light in upon the human understanding and conquer prejudice without raising contests, animosities, opposition, or disturbance, he must still go in the same path, and have recourse to the like method of allegory, metaphor, and allusion. To conclude, the knowledge of the early ages was either great or happy; great, if they by design made this use of trope or figure; happy, if whilst they had other views they afforded matter and occasion to such noble contemplations. Let either be the case, our pains, perhaps, will not be misemployed, whether we illustrate antiquity, or things themselves. The like indeed has been attempted by others; but to speak ingeniously, their great and voluminous labours have almost destroyed the energy, the efficacy, and the grace of the thing, whilst being unskilled in nature, and their learning no more than that of commonplace, they have applied the sense of the parables to certain general and vulgar matters, without reaching to their real purport, genuine interpretation, and full depth. For myself, therefore, I expect to appear new in these common things, because, leaving untouched such as are sufficiently plain and open, I shall drive only at those that are either deep or rich. MR. SOUTHWELL. Reasons for Mr. SOUTHWELL not becoming religious; by the Chaplain of Bristol Gaol. From the Bristol Mercury, of Nov. 12: "One other class, or rather individual, remains to be noticed. It is well known that during the last nine months a prisoner has been confined in this gaol who was convicted of a blasphemous libel. In regard to this prisoner the chaplain has only to observe, that the great freedom which, as a first class misdemeanant, he has obtained, in respect of epistolary and personal intercourse with his friends and partisans, and the constant perusal of newspapers, &c., has been by no means favourable to any endeavours on his (the chaplain's) part to lead him to a serious, solemnised review of his principles. the same time, it is but just to add, that the chaplain's visits have always been received with great courtesy and respect on the part of the prisoner. THOMAS F. JENNINGS, M.A., Chaplain." At If any proof were wanting to establish the important fact, that supernaturalism destroys all the finer feelings of human nature, and absolutely stultifies the human intellect, it is to be found in the above extract from the Annual Report of the "man of god," under whose care Southwell has been placed for the last ten months. The chaplain, finding that he cannot, by his sillySunday harangues, make a convert of Southwell, gently hints to the authorities the propriety of taking away those privileges which, in his estimation, have been found too powerful for the word of god and god himself to overcome. Hear it, Christians! and come to the help of the lord against the mighty! The trinity of "friends, partisans, and newspapers" are more powerful than father, son, and holyghost. Christianity is surely on its last legs, when it advocates resort to such arguments as these. NOTICES. J. C. F. MR. CARLILE, in a letter he has addressed to W.C. says, "he lies who says that I attempt to per petuate a superstitious veneration for the bible." In the opinion expressed by W. C. in my absence I if any, resulting from such expression. Mr. C. also fully concur, and am prepared to sustain the odium, asks," Who are you? What is your name One at a time, if yon please, Mr. Carlile, let me go first. To quote your favourite Jew book, we must be "wise as serpents." We are not to be taunted into squandering our victims. All correspondents are requested to send direct to the Editor of the Oracle of Reason, 8, Holywellstreet, Strand, London. NOW READY, PRICE 2s. THE JUSTLY CELEBRATED NextWeek, No. 1 of the DEIST. GH ORACLE OF RESONG: Or, Philosophy Vindicated. GULAR UNION "FAITH'S EMPIRE IS THE WORLD; ITS MONARCH, GOD; ITS MINISTERS, THE PRIESTS; ITS SLAVES, THE PEOPLE " EDITED BY THOMAS PATERSON. No. 52.] Originally Edited by CHARLES SOUTHWELL, sentenced, on January 15, 1842, Lay on Macduff; And damn'd be him that first cries-hold, enough! THERE IS A BOOK, which has occasioned more deplorable calamaties, more fierce animosities, and more heart-rending misery, than any similar compound of criminality and absurdity which has ever contributed to the demoralisation of the human race. There is a book, in whose blood-dabbled pages are found the types of all the savage atrocities which have so long been a reproach to the criminal codes of those countries which have been most curst with its influence. There is a book, in which the most absurd contradictions and immoral rubbish are palmed on the credulous as divine revelation; in which knowledge has been held up as a bugbear, the search after it forbidden, and its acquisition punished with horrible barbarity. [PRICE ID. There is a religion, whose revelations are pretences, whose miracles are cheats, whose inspiration imposture, whose scriptures are forgeries, whose traditions are false, whose prophecies are guesses. There is a religion, whose church is a swindle, whose followers are persecutors, whose career is one of blood, whose promises whose chief supporters have been tyrants, are worthless, whose threatenings are futile, bullies, or knaves, and principal maintenance the lash, the torture, dungeon, fine, or massacre. There is a religion,which has checked improvement, retarded science, engendered hypocrisy, deadened the affections, inflamed the passions, warped the judgment, crippled the body, and distorted morality, by introducing fear as the leading motive of action; and which, finally, by its bloody and devas- THAT RELIGION IS THE RELIGION THERE IS A GOD, whose earliest recorded There is a book, the making up, selection, act was to create a pair of sentient beings, and custody of whose numerous fables, rhap- with a high capacity and relish for enjoyment, sodies, ravings, and rhodomontade, babbled which they were only suffered to taste, in by all sorts of maniacs, impostors, and dri-order, with the greater intensity of bitterness vellers, in every variety of disgusting and and anguish, to feel the reverse of misery filthy phraseology, and at various stages of and death; who created a world full of barbarism, have been intrusted solely to vam | miserable wretches, with wants, feelings, pire priests, backed by cut-throat soldiers. emotions, passions, which they were expected THAT BOOK IS THE BIBLE OF THE to subdue, but which were made too powerful for control; and who finally involved in general and terrible destruction all who failed to regard those mandates which he had made them incapable of obeying. CHRISTIANS ! THERE IS A RELIGION, whose tenets are unintelligible, whose precepts are immoral, whose worship is debasing, whose gods are criminals, whose devil is superior in potency. There is a god, who sent "strong delusions" and "lying spirits," to create and perpetuate |