• Home

        A RESPECTABLE MAN OF THE WORLD, REPUTEDLY PIOUS,
                          AND A HERETIC
           ADDICTED TO PUBLIC ADVOCACY OF FREETHOUGHT

                      by Charles Bradlough

             ("National Reformer," July 25th, 1886.)

     R.M.W. -- What is the use of disturbing men's views on
religion? Some religion is necessary to restrain the lower classes.

     H. -- I do not admit your last proposition. The utility of
provoking thought seems to me too dear to need defence.

     R.M.W. -- But you must admit that infidelity is unfasionable,
and that to be known as an aggressive infidel is a barrier to any
respectable career.

     H. -- Are not the cases of Mill, Tyndall, Huxley, Darwin,
instances to the contrary?

     R.M.W. -- Tyndall is not an infidel, nor is Huxley; certainly
neither of them should be described as aggressive infidels.

     H. -- A few years ago Tyndal as very hotly and sometimes
coarsely denounced as an infidel from many pulpits, and the alleged
materialism of Huxley has been made matter of severest censure and
attack.

     R.M.W. -- But none of the great men you have mentioned have
preached infidelity at public meetings up and down the country.

     H. -- They have been as badly assailed as if they had. It has
been charged that they erected science as the foe of religion.

     R.M.W. -- When urging on you the unpopularity of heresy, I
rather referred to the coarser infidelity which attacks the Bible.

     H. -- Such an attack was made by Colenso.

     R.M.W. -- But he would not have lectured against the Bible to
the lower orders, and he confined his criticisms to the Old
Testament.

     H. -- It is to anti-biblical criticism specially made clear to
the people and going beyond the Hebrew books that you object?

     R.M.W. -- I object that the whole thing is all waste of time:
why not leave those matters to the clergy whose business it is, and
devote your abilities to something useful?

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                1



     H. -- DO you not regard it as useful to have accurate views on
religion? If all questions of faith were left to the clergy, you
would leave an unchallenged control over the public mind. Such a
control has seldom been used for public advantage.

     R.M.W. -- But belief in the Bible helps to keep men sober and
moral.

     H. -- Does it? How then do you account for the existence of
much crime where there is no heresy? How do you account for some
men being great criminals and yet preachers of the Bible? What do
the horrible offences recorded in assize calendars mean?

     R.M.W. -- These are exceptions; the general result of belief
in the Bible is good.

     H. -- I do not think so. The general result in any country,
under any faith, is only good when the general life conditions are
favourable to moral conduct. Most convicted murderers have
professed some religion; many swindlers have had high reputation
for piety.

     R.M.W. -- I do not desire to argue with you generally on
matters of religion; I wanted to point out personally to you that
known unbelief is prejudicial to your worldly prospects.

     H. -- But is it prejudicial to my permanent usefulness to my
fellow-men?

     R.M.W. -- Yes, decidedly yes; there is much good work you
might do which now you cannot. There are high positions you might
occupy, from which you are excluded. No respectable club will have
an avowed infidel as a member.

     H. -- But many who are not known to be what you call
"infidels" are members of clubs; and their unbelief is known to
their fellow-members.

     R.M.W. -- Yes, but they do not publicly lecture about their
views.

     H. -- Then it is not the opinion held but the honest advocacy
you object to?

     R.M.W. -- No one would care what your views were if you did
not thrust them on the public.

     H. -- Suppose that, holding the views, I concealed them, would
not this be hypocrisy?

     R.M.W. -- But you cannot expect respectable men to be
identified with one who attacks religion.

     H. -- Why not? Why should not men associate in any good work,
on which they are agreed, notwithstanding their differences of
religious opinion? Mohammedans, Roman Catholics, and Protestants of
all shades work together on temperance platforms, and most
certainly Roman Catholics and Protestants are constantly disturbing
one another's religious opinions; sometimes, indeed, breaking one
another's heads.
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                2



     R.M.W. -- Oh, yes, but you have no religion.

     H. -- Just so, and thinking religion mischievous I say so.

     R.M.W. -- What do you give to the men whose religion you take
away?

     H. -- Sounder judgment on the affairs of life.

     R.M.W. -- How can the ignorant be expected to exercise that
judgment?

     H. -- I do my best at least on religious questions to
dissipate their ignorance.

     R.M.W. -- But while you thrust your irreligion on the world
you close to yourself many opportunities for usefulness.

     H. -- You mean that so-called religious persons are afraid of
the odium of being known to cooperate with me?

     R.M.W. -- Put it that way if you like. It at any rate hinders
you.

     H. -- I am not sure that it does if I am strong enough to
stand; and if I am weak enough to be hypocrite, I am afraid my
sphere of human usefulness will never be very wide.

                          ****     ****

                  A MISSIONARY AND AN ATHEIST,
            ON PROPHECY AS EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.
                      by Charles Bradlough

                                I

           ("National Reformer." October 24th, 1886.)

     MISSIONARY. -- Why do you disregard the evidence of the truth
of Christianity involved in the fulffiment prophecy?

     ATHEIST. -- What do you mean by prophecy?

     M. -- To use the appropriate language of Hartwell Horne,
prophecy is "a miracle of knowledge, a declaration or description
of something future, beyond the power of human sagacity to discern
or calculate, and it is the highest evidence that can be given of
supematural communion with the deity, and of the truth of a
revelation from God."

     A. -- But the acceptance of prophecy then involves the
acceptance of what you call "deity" foreknowing the happings of the
particular event described in the prophetic passage?

     M. -- Yes.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                3



     A. -- When you speak of "deity" foreknowing the happening in
the future of a particular event, do you mean that what you call
deity causes the event to happen?

     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- Does that mean that this deity causes all events to 
happen?

     M. -- Certainly.

     A. -- Does deity then cause the prophet to prophesy, meaning
the prophecy to be evidence to me, and at the same time cause me to
disbelieve the prophecy?

     M. -- No, he leaves you your free will.

     A. -- Does that mean that deity does not know beforehand of
any proposition what I will believe, or of any act that I Will do?

     M. -- God knows everything.

     A. -- Then he does always know what I will believe and what I
will do?

     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- Can I believe, or do, the contrary of that which God
foreknows I shall believe or do?

     M. -- No.

     A. -- But if I can only believe or do that which God foreknew
I should believe or do, what becomes of my free Will?

     M. -- You are digressing from the value of prophecy as
evidence into a mere metaphysird discussion.

     A. -- Heine foretold the terrible German invasion of France.
Was that prophecy?

     M. -- That was a guess or reasoning as to probable national
action: it was not prophecy.

     A. -- Mazzini, in fervid language, foretold the unification of
Italy. Was that prophecy?

     M. -- That was the expression of a hope as to the future of
his country which Joseph Mazzini worked to realize: it was not
prophecy.

     A. -- Charles Sumner, in the American Senate, eloquently
foretold the abolution of slavery by the United States. Was that
prophecy?

     M. -- That was a judgment on the likely results of a long-
sustained anti-slavery agitation: it was not prophecy.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                4



     A. -- Give me some clear test distinguishing prophecy from,
say, Mother Shipton's verses.

     M. -- The prophecy attributed to Mother Shipton has probably
grown in the repetition, and been gradually made to fit the facts 
after they have happened.

     A. -- How can a prophecy be tested?

     M. -- It must clearly tell something that could not be known
to the prophet except by supematural means.

     A. -- So that to accept prophecy I must first admit the
possibility or rather the actuality of the supernatural?

     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- But to me nature means everything.

     M. -- I will agree that nature means everything material.

     A. -- Do you know anything that is not material?

     M. -- Yes; soul, angel, devil, God; these are all
supernatural.

     A. -- What do you mean by soul?

     M. -- The life, the intelligence of each individual human
being.

     A. -- Is the life of a man or woman his or her soul?

     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- By life I mean the functional activity of each animal;
the normal activity is healthy life: abnormal activity, as in
inflammation or arrestment, is disease cessation of all functional
activity, followed by decay, is death. Is the life of a pig its
soul?

     M. -- I speak of the life of a rational being.

     A. -- But do not many animals, besides human animals, reason?

     M. -- I decline to be drawn away from the subject of prophecy
into a discussion on psychology.

     A. -- But unless there is the supernatural, prophecy, on your
own definition, is impossible.

     M. -- It is impossible to argue with an Atheist who denies
everything.

     A. -- On the contrary, I accept everything. It is when you
affirm other than everything that I wish this surplusage explained
to me. Give. me an instance of what you call prophecy.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                5



     M. -- Take Isaiah vii. 1-16. As Hartwell Home says: "Within
tree short years the event justified the prophecy in all its parts,
though it was without any natural probability."

     A. -- First, there is not a particle of evidence that this so-
called prophecy was recorded before the happening of the events to 
which it relates; and it is liable to the objection taken by you to
Mother Shipton's prophecy. Second, even if spoken before the event
to which it relates, it might well be a guess or reasoning founded
on political knowledge or conjecture, and would fall under the
objection raised by you against the prophecies of Heine, Mazzini,
and Sumner.

     M. -- Take another instance cited by Hartwell Home: "The
destruction of Sennacherib's army, together with all the minute
circumstances of his previous advance, was announced by Isaiah a
long time before it happened, with this additional circumstance,
that such destruction should take place in the night; and that the
noise of the thunder that should roll over the Assyrians should be
to Jerusalem an harmonious sound, and like a melodious concert,
because it would be followed with public thanks-givings. It was
these precise and circumstantial predictions that supported the
hopes of Hezekiah, notwithstanding everything that seemed to oppose
it." You will find this in Isaiah x. 26-28; and following xxix.
6-8; xxx. 29-31, 32.

     A. -- Again, there is not a shred of testimony to show that
this so-called prophecy existed before the events claimed as the
fulfilment. In any case, the language is too vague to be worth
serious argument.

     M. -- Take the chief of the predictions as to the Jewish
nation -- (a) Genesis xii. 1-3; (b) xiii. 14-16; (c) xv. 5; (d)
xvii. 2-8; (e) xxii. 17, 18; (f) Exodus xxii. 13.

     A. -- (a) is not true, and there is no evidence that it has
ever been temporarily true; (b and f) it is certain that there is
no land anywhere which the Jews have owned in perpetuity; (c) nor
have the Jews been innumerable; (d) the land of Canaan has clearly
not been an everlasting possession for the Jews; (e) the Jews have
sccarcely been blessed in Europe during the past fifteen centuries.

     M. -- I pass to the prophecies relating to the Messiah, which,
as Hartwell Home says, "are astonishingly minute," and I have the
more satisfaction on this branch of the subject, because "the great
object of the prophecies of the Old Testament is the redemption of
mankind." To quote once more Hartwell Home: "The prophecies which
respect the Messiah are neither few in number nor vague and
equivocal in their reference, but numerous, pointed, and
particular. They bear on them those discriminating marks by which
divine inspiration may be distinguished from the conjectures of
human sagacity, and a necessary or probable event from a casual and
uncutain contingency. They are such as cannot be referred to the
dictates of mere natural penetration, because they are not confined
to general occurrences, but point out with singular exactness a
variety of minute circumstances relating to times, places, and
persons which were neither objects of foresight nor conjecture, 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                6



because they were not necessarily connected with the principal
event, or even probable either in themselves or in their relation.
They were such as could only have occurred to a mind that was under
the immediate influence of the divinity, by which distant periods 
were revealed and the secrets of unborn ages disclosed."

     A. -- Before taking the specific instances of so-called
Messianic prophecy, I submit for your consideration a couple of
extracts from Dr. Kalisch: The gift of prophecy, which all ancient
nations attributed to elected favourites of the deity, is again
nothing else but the gift of human reason and judgment, striving to
penetrate through the veil of the future, and hence naturally
liable to error." And whilst he claims that the Hebrew prophets
were high-minded and unselfish, he says they "were not the less
fallible; their activity was absolutely tied to the ordinary limits
of the human mind; and therefore they occasionally predicted events
which either were not fulffiled at all, or happened in a different
manner and form. Thus Amos foretold, 'Jeroboam shall die by the
sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own
land,' whereas the historical account relates 'that he slept with
his fathers, and Nadab, his son, reigned in his stead.' Jeremiah
prophesied of King Jehoiakim, that 'he shall be buried in the
burial of an ass, and drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of
Jerusalem'; but history tells us that 'he slept with his fathers.'
Again, Jeremiah foretold, concerning the Edomites, that all their
towns would be given up to eternal desolation, that, in fact, their
whole territory would be converted into a dreary, uninhabited
desert, the horror and mockery of all strangers, like Sodom and
Gomorrah, and that they themselves would be carried away by
Nebuchadnezzar like helpless lambs; and gloomy predictions of a
similar nature, likewise suggested by deep and implacable hatred,
were pronounced by Ezekiel, Obadiah, and other writers. Now, the
Edomites were indeed subjugated by the Babylonians, and suffered
considerable injuries, but they remained in their land; they
succeeded even in appropriating to themselves a part of Southern
Judea including Hebron, which was therefore frequently called
Idumea; they took an active part in the Maccabean wars in the
course of which they were compelled by john Hyrcanus (about 130
B.C.) to adopt the rite of circumcision, and were incorporated in
the Jewish commonwealth. Ezekiel promised the political reunion of
the empires of Israel and Judah, which has never been realized. The
total destruction of Gaza is repeatedly predicted in distinct
terms, yet the town exists to the present day."

                          ****     ****

            A MISSIONARY AND AN ATHEIST, ON PROPHECY
                  As EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.
                      by Charles Bradlough

                               II

           ("National Reformer," October 31st, 1886.)

     A. -- I understood you to describe prophecy as a miracle of
knowledge -- that is, that the prophet foretold an event which
"Deity " intended to happen, but which human forethought was 
insufficient to predict.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                7



     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- Does not that involve that the matters to which the
prophecy relates must have been predestined by "Deity"?

     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- Does that mean that all events are predestined?

     M. -- Yes; subject to the fact that man is endowed by God with
freedom of will.

     A. -- Then whether I should be good or wicked must have been
predestined before my birth?

     M. -- You forget that you have a free will.

     A. -- Did Herod slaughter the little children that prophecy
might be fulfilled?

     M. -- So Matthew says.

     A. -- Did Herod in slaughtering the little children exercise
his free will?

     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- But, if Matthew is correct in treating the massacre as
prophesied by Jeremiah, was not that slaughter predestined?

     M. -- God knew how Herod would act.

     A. -- Could Herod have refrained from slaughtering the little
children?

     M. -- Certainly he could; but God knew the wickedness of his
heart.

     A. -- Several centuries before he was born?

     M. -- Yes; time makes no difference to God's knowledge.

     A. -- Are any events the subject of prophecy which are not
dependent on man's volition?

     M. -- There may be such events.

     A. -- In such cases the events must be predestined by "Deity"?

     M. -- Yes.

     A. -- And the happening of some such events may involve
advantages or disadvantages to individuals?

     A. -- Yes.

     A. -- But will this not show actual partiality of "Deity" for
or against such individuals?

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                8




     M. -- The finite must not presume to judge the infinite. We
are the creatures of Deity.

     A. -- Who should therefore treat us all fairly, and does not.

     M. -- That is blasphemy.

     A. -- You referred me to the Messianic prophecies. I will take
them in the order given in the Gospels. (1) Matthew 1.:

     "22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

     23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Emrrianuel; which being
interpreted is, God with us."

     The marginal reference in the Bible is to Isaiah vii. where I
read:

     "10. Moreover, the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
     "11. Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God: ask it either in the
depth, or in the height above.

     "12. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither Will I tempt the
Lord.

     "13. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small
thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

     "14. Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel.

     "15. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse
the evil, and choose the good.

     "16. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and
choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of
both her kings.

     "17. The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and
upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that
Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

     "18. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord
shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers
of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria:

     "19. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the
desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all
thorns, and upon all bushes.

     "20, In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is
hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria,
the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the 
beard.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                9



     "21. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall
nourish a young cow and two sheeps:

     "22. And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that
they shall give that he shall eat butter: for butter and honey 
shall everyone eat that is left in the land.

     "23. And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place
shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand
silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thoms.

     "24. With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because
all the land shall become briers and thorns.

     "25. And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock,
there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thoms: but it
shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of
lesser cattle."

     Are any of the particulars given here in any way applicable to
Jesus?

     M. -- Verses 17 t0 25 are no part of the prophecy.

     A. -- They are all part of one chapter; apparently all relate
to the one matter. But take verses 14, 15, and 16: is not the word
translated "virgin" in this verse @@705Y?@@ and does not that mean
a woman of marriageable age? is not the identical Arabic word used
for dancing girls? is not the proper Hebrew word for virgin
@@ilb)nD@@? and does not Isaiah viii. 3 and 4, show explicitly that
a virgin is not meant here? Where is Jesus in the Gospels called
Immanuel? where is the evidence that he ate butter and honey? and
what shadow of justification is there for pretending that in the
case of Jesus there is any fulfilment of verse 16?

     M. -- I am content to read Isaiah as Matthew read it. That
Jesus was to be born of a virgin was also prophesied by Jeremiah
(xxxi. 22).

     A. -- Do you really mean that that text has the most remote
reference to Jesus? It reads:

     "22. How long wilt thou go about, O thou back-sliding
daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth. A
woman shall compass a man." The words are ambiguous; the meaning is
vague and obscure. Instead of covering your evasion with Jeremiah,
answer rather the objections I have taken to the alleged prophecy
from Isaiah vii.

     M. -- "The absolute authority of the New Testament," as has
been well observed by Mr. Tregelles, in his note to Gesenius, "is
quite sufficient to settle the question to a Christian."

     A. -- So that you prove the truth of the New Testament by
prophecy, and the prophecy by the New Testament. Convenient to the
Christian, but hardly convincing to anybody else. I will go to the
next alleged prophecy in Matthew ii.:


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               10



     "3.  When Herod the king had heard these things, he was
troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

     "4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes
of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be
born.

     "5. And they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judsea: for thus
it is written by the prophet;

     "6. And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least
among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor,
thit shall rule my people Ismel."

     The only place in the Old Testament where anything like this
can be found is Micah v.:

     "1. Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops; he
hath laid siege against us; they shall smite the judge of Israel
with a rod upon the cheek.

     "2. But thou, Bethlehem, Ephratah, though thou be little among
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me
that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of
old, from everlasting.

     "3. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she
which travaileth hath brought forth; then the remnant of his
brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

     "4. And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall
abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

     "5. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall
come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then
shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal
men.

     "6. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword,
and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he
deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh unto our land, and
when he treadeth within our borders."

How do you make this in any fashion into a prophecy of Jesus? Was
he ever ruler in Israel? Were the goings-forth of Jesus from of
old, from everlasting"? Was Jesus "peace" when the Assyrian came
into Judea? and did Jesus deliver the Jews from the Assyrian when
seven shepherds and eight princes were raised up?

     M. -- You take a narrow and perverse view of the texts,
seeking to raise minute and technical difficuities in order to
shake the Christian faith, which tends so much to the comfort of
man.





                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               11



     A. -- At present I leave untouched the tendency of the
Christian faith. I am limiting myself to the value of the evidence
from prophtcy as stated in the Gospels, which you allege to be 
divinely inspired; and I will take the next given, Matthew ii.:

     "14. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by
night, and departed into Egypt:

     "15. And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out
of Egypt have I called my son."

The only likeness to this is in the prophet Hosea xi.:

     "1. When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my
son out of Egypt.

     "2. As they called them, so they went from them: they
sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

     "3. I taught Ephraim also to go, taling them by their arms;
but they knew not that I healed them.

     "4. I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and
I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I
laid meat unto them.

     "5. He shall not retum into the land of Egypt, but the
Assyrian shall be his king, becaupe they refused to retum.

     "6. And the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume
his branches, and devour them, because of their own counsels."

it surely requires considerable audacity to pretend that this was
prophetic of Jesus. It is in the past tense, and relates to the
calling out of Egypt narrated in the Pentateuch, with which it has
some agreement, whilst it has none whatever with the gospel
narrative of the life of Jesus.

     M. -- The Evangelist Matthew was inspired: he knew that the
prophecy in Hosea applied to Jesus, and I refuse to be misled by
your sophistries.

     A. -- Then I will go to the next "prophecy" in order, Matthew
ii.:

     "16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise
men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children
that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, from two
years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently
enquired of the wise men.

     "17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy, the.
prophet, saying,

     "18. In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and
weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and 
would not be comforted, because they are not."

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               12



          [The text referred to is Jeremiah xxxi.]

     "15. Thus saith the Lord, A voice was heard in Ramah,
lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children
refused to be comforted for her chfldren, because they were not.

     "16. Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and
thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the
Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.

     "17. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy
children shall come again to their own border."

But this refers to Rachel's children, then in captivity, who were
to be rescued or released, not to children who were to be
slaughtered in the future, and who, being dead, could never "come
again to their own border." There is one other prophecy quoted,
Matthew ii.

     "23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it
might be fulffiled which was spoken by the prophet, He shall be
called a Nazarene."

As there is no such prophecy to be found in any part of the Bible,
and the only phrase like it is in Judges xii. 5 and 7, clearly
limited to Samson, I leave you for the present with this testimony
to explain.

                          ****     ****

                 A CHRISTIAN LADY AND AN INFIDEL
                      by Charles Bradlough

           ("National Reformer," January 23rd, I887.)

     [The views attributed to the Christian Lady are all taken
textually from a small religious book, "The Test of Truth," by Mary
Jane Graham, published by S.W. Partridge, and sent to me to convert
me. The answers are mine.]

     CURISTIAN LADY. -- I will suppose that it is yet a matter of
doubt whether the Scriptures are the genuine and lively oralcles of
God, or the sordid, lying inventions of man.

     INFIDEL. -- There is another alternative which you have
omitted, i.e., that what you called the Scriptures may be a mixture
of crystallized tradition and legend, with some errors, some
blunders, some truths, some falsehoods, and some misapprehensions,
grown together through many centuries.

     C.L. -- You are, I hope, willing to allow that this universal
frame is the work of some divine uncreated intelligence.

     I. -- If by "universal fame" you mean the universe, I do not
make the admission you ask. The words, "some divine uncreated
intelligence," imply the possibility of more than one such. I only
know intelligence as characteristic of organization, varying in 
quantity and quality with each organism. I do not understand the
sense you intend by "divine uncreated."

                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               13



     C.L. -- You are surely not so thoroughly debased in heart as
to be able to look round on the wonders of creation without
perceiving in them all manifest tokens of creating power.

     I. -- Is it quite well to asshme "debasement" for those who do
not believe as you do? Looking round on the phenomena nearest me,
I can hardly see tokens of creating power in the Lisbon earthquake,
the lava-destroyed Herculaneum, the cinder-smothered Pompeii, or
the disrupted. Krakatoa.

     C.L. -- It is enough for my argument if you admit that the
existence of God, if not certain, is at least probable; or if not
probable, is at least possible.

     I. -- I can make no such admission until I know what you
intend by the word "God."

     C.L. -- The various instances of deep design and exquisite
contrivance which force themselves upon your notice on every side
will not suffer you to deny the possible existence of some great
Designer and Contriver.

     I. -- If each phenomenon has been designed and contrived, how
am I to regard the designer and contriver of leprosy? of famine? of
cholera? of war? of Climate fatal to those not indigenous? of coal
and iron useful to man hidden away from him for thousands of years?
of rattlesnakes, wolves, and tigers? of a hundred conflicting forms
of religion? Is it possible to imagine much corn designed to grom
in Kansas, and many thousands of human beings designed to starve in
Ireland? I cannot imagine it possible that dynamite and melinite
were designed to explode amongst human beings contrived by the same
designer for the purpose of being blown to pieces.

     C.L. -- You may pretend to be an Atheist in public, but I am.
persuaded you are not an Atheist alone. You may boast that you are
one in the convivial circle, but you cannot support the character
in your closet.

     I. -- That is your view; but in my case it is certainly not
true. I thought myself into Atheism when quite alone, during a
period when I had no access to heretical writings, and no
opportunity of hearing Atheistical arguments. I have never mixed
much in "convivial society," and I have certainly never in such
society spoken on theologic questions; much less have I boasted
over the winecup. Most of the opinions I now hold on theology have
been thought out quite alone. Three times -- with years between --
have I believed myself about to die, and remained Atheist with the
shadow of the grave in my path.

     C.L. -- Surely God has not left himself without a witness even
in your heart?

     I. -- You forget that if your assumption be true, that though
I declare myself to be an Atheist yet that I know "God," then you
affirm that "God" has at the same time compelled me to recognize
his existence, and enabled me to deny it.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               14



     C.L. -- A single glance at the various and absurd religions of
mankind may suffice to convince us that God is not universally or
even generally known upon earth.

     I. -- Why, then, did you just now suggest that in my case
"God's" existence must be known to me? and why do you call the
religions held by other people "absurd," and yet feel surprised or
indignant that I may apply the same word to your own creed?"

     C.L. -- Out of so many different Gods, only one can be the
true God.

     I. -- But assuming the possibility of coherent meaning for the
phrase "one true God," how do you account for any false Gods having
been accepted? How can you distinguish the "true God"?

     C.L. -- Whoever God is, it must be obvious to both Christians
and Infidels that the world in general knows very little about him.

     I. -- You may go further with safety, Madam, and say that the
world in general knows nothing at all about him; but is not your
own assumption the exact contradiction of your assumption that
"God" had left witness of his existence in the heart of every human
being?

                          ****     ****

              A CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY AND A SKEPTIC
                      by Charles Bradlough

           ("National Reformer," October 16th, 1887.)

     CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY. -- DO you deny immortal life?

     SKEPTIC. -- The words immortal life are to me contradictory.
By life I mean "the totality of functional ability, its activity
and result in each individual organism." To speak of life as
immortal is confusing.

     C.M. -- But you ignore the soul?

     S. -- I have no meaning for the word "soul" if you imply an
entity other than the living animal or vegetable.

     C.M. -- But where does the life go when a man dies?

     S. -- Do you ask where the life goes when an oyster dies?

     C.M. -- That is an evasion, and there is no fair comparison
between the life of an oyster and that of a man.

     S. -- Each organism differs from all other organisms, or it
could not be distinguished in thought. The word "life" only
expresses state of organism, ie., the state of the particular
organism described as living. Normal life is health; abnormal
activity, excess, or collapse, would be disease. Cessation of
activity, and negation of its possible resumption, is death. You do
not ask where the life of a sheep has gone when you have converted 
the sheep into mutton pie.

                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               15



     C.M. -- But sheep is not intelligent as is man.

     S. -- Sheep is more intelligent than oyster; but why do you
mix up intelligence with this assertion of immortality?

     C.M. -- The soul, which is immortal, is intelligence as well
as life.

     S. -- What you call intelligence, which you do not define, is
to me the totality of nervous encephalic ability, its activity and
results in each animal. I cannot conceive the individual
intelligence of any animal continuing in activity after the
individual animal has died.

     C.M. -- But where do you say life goes when the breath leaves
the body?

     S. -- When an animal permanently ceases to breathe, no breath
leaves his body and there is no life to go anywhere.

     C.M. -- Yours is a black doctrine of annihilation.

     S. -- Instead of finding unpleasant colour for a doctrine that
I do not hold, explain your own view. Do you say that a man does
live when he has died and whilst he is dead?

     C.M. -- I say that the Bible teaches that man has an immortal
life -- that man is a living soul.

     S. -- Before dealing with the supposed teaching of any book
let me be sure that I know what you mean. Do you mean that man
continues to live notwithstanding that he has died?

     C.M. -- Man's soul lives.

     S. -- The body ceases to be a living body?

     C.M. -- Yes; the body is mortal, it is the soul lives on.

     S. -- Can you afford me any means of distinguishing what you
call soul as separate from the body, or of identifying a soul
living on after the death of the body?

     C.M. -- You reject the Bible.

     S. -- Apart from the Bible, can you answer my question?

     C.M. -- The best and most intellectual men believe in the
immortality of the soul.

     S. -- My question is, can you afford me to-day any means,
apart from the Bible and apart from the belief of others, of
identifying a soul as living on after the death of its body?

     C.M. -- If you will not believe, it is useless to reason with
you.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               16



     S. -- It is not a question of my willingness or unwillingness
to believe, but it is rather a question of your ability to make
yourself clear on propositions to which you ask my assent. What do
you mean by soul?

     C.M. -- Man's immortal spirit.

     S. -- That is only a change of words; it is not an explanation
of meaning. What do you mean by man's immortal spirit?

     C.M. -- That which is intelligent and living in man.

     S. -- Is that which is intelligent and living in an ox its
immortal spirit?

     C.M. -- The intelligence of an ox is very different from that
of a man.

     S. -- But the ox lives: has an ox immortal life, or when it
dies does it cease to live?

     C.M. -- That is always the way with infidels; you try to
reduce man to the level of the beast.

     S. -- That is not true, and if it were true would, at least as
to dying have the scriptural justification. "As the one dieth, so
dieth the other"; but as you say the soul is that which is
intelligent in man, I will ask you whether the basis of
intelligence is sensation and memory of sensation?

     C.M. -- No doubt the soul uses the senses.

     S. -- Leaving aside "soul," which you have not defined, what
kind of intelligence would you expect to find in a person born
without sight, hearing, taste, or smell?

     C.M. -- You take an almost impossible case.

     S. -- Or in the case of a congenital idiot? Do you say that
the intelligence of the idiot boy is his soul?

     C.M. -- I do not deny that there are some mysteries, but these
do not justify your disbelief.

     S. -- But does your absolute inability to explain what you
mean by "soul" justify your requiring me to believe that which to
me is meamingless, and with you is inexplicable?

     C.M. -- But what explanation do you give of life and
intelligence?

     S. -- It is rather on those who assert that the onus of
explanation should rest. Functional ability is inherited, and
depends on the parents and their surroundings, meaning by parents
much more than the immediate father and mother. Functional ability
may be developed under good conditions; may be checked and arrested
under hostile conditions. Individual life waxies according to 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               17



heredity and life surroundings. The sensative abilities are results
of heredity, the scope and intensity of their exercise varying; the
ability to remember sensations differing: the brain, as to
quantity, quality, and convolutions, peculiar to each individual;
the nervous centres and nerve system different, though like. Life
and intelligence are the word-labels of physical states and
results. When the man dies, it is absurd to describe him as living.

     C.M. -- But your argument would make consciousness a mere
attribute of matter, and we all know matter cannot think.

     S. -- By matter, if I use the word, I mean the totality of all
phenomena and of all that is necessary for the happening of any
phenomenon; that is = existence = everything. By totality I only
mean infinite -- that is, indefiffite -- quaiitity. The material
phenomenon iron pot, or granite block, does not think. The material
phenomenon man, or cat, does think. There is no general
consciousness in any animal, there is an ever varying state of mind
as long as the animal lives and thinks.

     C.M. -- But surely there is a vital principle in man.

     S. -- Why more than a digesting principle?

     C.M. -- But the huge majority of mankind believe that there is
a vital principle in man, and that the soul is that principle.

     S. -- It would be as conclusive and relevant to say that the
huge majority in every nation have at some period believed as true
some proposition which at another period the huge majority have
rejected as false. And the "huge majority" scarcely ever believe:
they acquiesce, and drift with the stream; having much the same
effective relation to the creed of the day that the clay has to the
river which, holding it in suspension, carries it towards the sea.

                          ****     ****

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

     The Bank of Wisdom is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --

                 The Free Market-Place of Ideas.

     The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books, magazines,
newspapers, pamphlets, etc. please send us a list that includes
Title, Author, publication date, condition and price desired, and
we will give them back to America.

                          ****     ****

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               18