Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

discourteous to yourself, and I hope not to be betrayed into this even in reply to what borders on provocation. You reprove "the tone I assume" in the two preceding letters, but what if I had complained of your extraordinary question: on what information and with what view I began this correspondence ?" Such forgetfulness on your part, and such questioning of my object, was as unfortunate as it was inappropriate nor is it the most respectful method, after our long correspondence, to defer to a leisure hour a reply to arguments and inquiries which alone have to do with the subject, and turn off to personal condemnation, which had better have been postponed to a convenient season-that famed leisure hour which, on various occasions, has been the reserve fund to defray what should have been paid on demand.

You declare that you 66 are not unaccustomed to the tone I assume in my last two letters, but when an opponent chooses to take upon himself the imperative, you feel disposed to leave him to pursue his own course, and wait to see what he will do."

I sent you word what I intended to do, namely, to publish our correspondence for public information, which you might have completed, by something definite, either in agreement or refusal, and not in the wide terms of "not being possible this year." Nor need you be in any doubt as to what I shall do further: first, I shall not take offence, nor willingly give just cause for it; whilst, secondly, I shall give more attention to the pretensions of the Secularists than hitherto, and omit no opportunity of placing its advocates in a logical dilemma; dealing with you and your class as you have dealt with Christianity-only in a fairer spirit-returning the war into your own camp; examining carefully every paper you issue, and every step you take; and demonstrate the necessity of greater care, accuracy, and consistency in your statements than have been hitherto displayed. The only weapons I shall use will be fair argument, and comparison of quotations from your accredited writings. I shall not ask, in derision-Who is Mr. Holyoake, "that, after" not "six years" but eighteen hundred, the teachers of Christianity, who have steadily won their way, and are now more powerful than ever all over the world, should now surrender that banner before which all other forms of opposition have fallen into decay, like old fashions, to be succeeded by a "new development of the principles of Free Inquirers ?" The imperative tone attributed to my letters is, I hope, only imaginative; since I only stated clearly my own convictions of what was due to your own position; which was not to dictate your duties, but to discharge mine by pointing out what appear to be yours; and though you are "the proper judge" (which I did not question, since I appeal to your judgment,) you may still not always judge properly; and therefore are open to honest criticism and friendly suggestion, which may be offered without exposing one to the kind of observations contained in your note. I fear it has not occurred to you to examine your own tone of remark, and that you are apt to regard forcible argument as obtrusive insolence. Please to remember your own observations on all the clergy; your defiances, challenges, invectives, and charges.

You say, those of them who deserve "admiration are the exceptions," (Cabinet of Reason, vol. II., p. 17;) their declining discussion is from

want of serious belief in their creeds, (pp. 11-12;) the clergy who refuse discussion "ought to loose their influence;" and this warning is done in capitals: "Men, beware how you trust your eternal interests to those who dare not trust their principles to public discussion," (p. 20;) they are men "who trade on the name of Christ;" Paul is "rude and intolerant," (p. 1;) Christ and his Apostles are examples of rudeness, &c., (p. 12.) This tone, in your Cabinet of Reason, by no means places you in the position of a moral censor on courtesy of style; especially since many of the above observations are as untrue as they are ill-mannered; but if you compare them with my respectful correspondence, it may suggest the inquiry, whether there may not be an unconscious tendency to break off in a heat from an engagement that promises warm work? Read again your directions for discussion, in the same book, the generous vantages you urge to be allowed us, the forbearance in listening without emotion to unpleasant observations, and compare this with your shortness of forbearance in these preliminary stages, and then say whether, after all, you have not as much need of self-discipline as occasion to sermonise to parsons on their illiberality. Be assured I want no more than frank and explicit advocacy of opinion in the pursuit of truth. I am no man's adversary, least of all yours, in whose course I have felt an interest, in whose trials I have sympathised, and in the warping influence of unwise and un-Christian treatment have lamented those occasions which have knit your affections to scepticism, as the supposed asylum of freedom.

ad

I am hostile only to what seems to me error, those distortions of Christianity which have turned you from it, and those further distortions by which you mislead others, and, therefore, I accepted this apparent opportunity of a fair and generous contention for truth, in which courtesy should no more be wanting than such plain and honest rebuke as occasion may seem to require and justify.

Let this letter, then, with your last (evidently written in excitement,) be regarded as an episode in our correspondence, and let our attention for the future be confined to the comparison of Christianity, practical and doctrinal, with practical and doctrinal Atheistic Secularism.

I shall accordingly expect your best attention to the inquiries and arguments already sent, and still unreplied to, relating to a clear definition of your distinctive principles, and a plain statement of the public good they will confer, and shall hold myself in readiness, whenever you are sposed and at liberty to engage in the discussion of the proposition already agreed upon by us. In the meantime, I remain, yours, very truly,

BREWIN GRANT.

Mr. G. J. Holyoake.

Another letter was addressed to Mr. Holyoake, to the following effect:

MY DEAR SIR,

Birmingham, October 15, 1852.

A friend has been good enough to forward to me a copy of The Black

burn and East Lancashire Guardian of Saturday, October 9, in which the following paragraph is marked :

[ocr errors]

"MR. HOLYOAKE'S LECTURES.-On Wednesday and Thursday evenings last, Mr. G. J. Holyoake, of London, delivered lectures in the Mutual Instruction Association Room, to crowded audiences, on Why do the Clergy AVOID discussion, and the Secularists SEEK IT?" and "Confucius, or morality independent of revealed religion."

Would you be good enough to inform me whether this can be true? The account fixes your lecture for the sixth of this month; did you tell your audience that on the 22nd of last month you concluded a correspondence with one of these clergy, by declining to discuss with him this year, and without fixing any other year? Did you tell them that several clergy have discussed with you, that you could not print the last discussion, and that you hang back from meeting one whom you acknowledge to be a fair and intelligent defender of Christianity? How, then, can you go and lecture on the Clergy avoiding and the Secularists seeking discussion?

Whether this be the morality of Confucius, I know not; but certainly it is not found in "revealed religion," nor in common life.

You are very nearly concerned to explain this passage in your method of advocacy. I shall endeavour to secure the same room next Wednesday evening, when it will behove you to defend this particular course, by your presence, if possible, and if not possible, by a letter containing such explanations as you may think fit; for I cannot allow this conduct to pass without examination. I am sorry to be obliged to this undertaking, but feel bound in conscience to appeal to your late audiences, and shall put it to them whether your conduct is appropriate.

To Mr. G. J. Holyoake.

Yours, very truly,

BREWIN GRANT.

P.S.-Any letter, addressed Birmingham, will find me till Tuesday morning. A letter written on Tuesday should be addressed to the care of E. Kenion, Esq., Hanover-square, Manningham-lane, Bradford. Or, you could send your explanation to any secular friend in Blackburn, who can read it to the meeting.

III.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN NATURE.

The Nature of Man as Spiritual, Immortal, and Responsible, will be the most frequent topic of this department: though sometimes we shall introduce MISCELLANEOUS Subjects.

THE JEWISH LAND SCHEME; OR, JEHOVAH'S FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETY.

[blocks in formation]

To the enquiry respecting the expulsion of the Canaanites, we may examine the method of settlement in the distribution of the land adopted by Moses under Divine guidance. The planting of the Jews in Canaan affords a grand political lesson, and we shall endeavour to intimate how it may be applied in modern times. We have had misapplications and misapprehensions of Judaism in tythes compulsorily levied, and in priests' dresses, incense, &c., but we have not understood its true application,the meaning of that lesson," HE DIVIDED UNTO THEM THEIR LAND BY LOT."

This does not teach, that we should violently disturb property already acquired by industry, or settled by long possession in a permanent nation, as some of the sentimentalists, clerical, and Christan socalists seem to dimly imagine; least of all, as red republican revolutionaries may intend : but it applies exclusively to the settling of a people in newly-acquired territory.

The division in the case of the Jews was to every tribe and every family; the larger tribes having a proportionately larger territory, but its position to be decided by lot, whilst the portion of each family in this tribe was decided in the same manner.

To

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of them. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few."-(Num. xxvi. 52-56.)

Thus was the land mapped out into so many larger allotments, to be

divided amongst so many companies or tribes, in proportion to their size; the relative position of the respective tribes in the newly acquired territory, being decided on the fair method of balloting, which the family allotments within these larger divisions were distributed on the same impartial and equitable principles.

The modern freehold land societies have adopted the Mosaic method of balloting for the distribution of the personal shares in any larger purchase: in this way then the land was divided amongst the whole people, AND IT IS THE ONLY INSTANCE OF THE KIND we are aware of; other conquerors give the broad acres to barons, chief warriors, &c., but Moses was commanded to divide the acquired territory fairly among the people.

"So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.”(Joshua xi. 23.)

"And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eliazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them. By lot was their inheritance, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half tribe. For Moses had given the inheritance of two tribes and an half tribe on the other side Jordan: but unto the Levites he gave none inhe ritance among them. As the Lord commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did, and they divided the land."-(Joshua xiv. 1—2, 5.)

The divisions were not merely to tribes but families, in every case we read a description of this kind-the lot of such a tribe" according to their families."-(Joshua xv. 12.)

Nor must we forget here again to remind the reader, that the method of acquiring this territory, (whilst a judgment of the former inhabitants,) was not extermination, but expulsion; besides proofs from other history of the migration of the Canaanites, which we have not now at hand to quote, it is plain from many passages, that in general the inhabitants were driven out; this is manifest from the exception,

"And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt at Gezar: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute." "As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day."-(Joshua xvi. 10; xv. 63.) "Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only; but the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine; for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong." (Joshua xvii. 12, 17, 18.)

"All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misre

« ForrigeFortsæt »