powers the virtues or qualities they possess, and which operate in the production of a result evincing an originally designing mind. Surely this is not logic, to say the least of it. It is a negative conclusion from affirmative premises, which every logician will admit to be faulty in a syllogism. But the argument seems to me most absurd-as absurd as if any one on going into a factory where he should see a vast complicated mass of machinery at work, were to argue thus :-These wheels are moved by ropes and bands passing over them, the ropes and bands are moved by other rotating wheels or cylinders, these latter by a great machine, which is itself set in motion by the expansive force of steam; ergo, No intelligent man planned this arrangement; the cloth or thread 'bears unequivocal marks of design,' but the machinery which produced it was non-intelligent, and, therefore, no intelligence entered into the system. Were any man to reason thus, I should conceive him to have a flaw in his intellect. However, I do not wish to dogmatise, but to argue the point dispassionately. Take the example of a printing-office. We perceive the types set in the form, the form is put into the press, the press is moved by steam, and out comes a newspaper, a result certainly bearing marks of intelligence. Now steam, printer's ink, and press, are not intelligent powers, but can we conclude that there was no compositor and no editor? The same reasoning holds good with regard to the acorn, eggs, and horses of 'Aliquis.' And I would ask 'Aliquis' just this simple question, who 'set the types' of those acorns, eggs, and horses? Could they arise originally of themselves without a directing mind? Could they be produced without a 'compositor and editor' any more than the newspaper alluded to? I shall be curious to hear your correspondent's reply.

While on this point, let me quote a few passages from the works of Dr. Chalmers in reference to the dispute. That eloquent writer says, 'For the purpose of inferring design, it is not necessary that the end of the arrangement in question [that of the watch] should be some certain and specific end. It is enough to substantiate the inference that arrangement should be obviously conducive to some end-to any end. From what the end particularly is, we learn what the particular object was which the artist had in view-but for the purpose of warranting the general inference that there was an artist who had a something in view, it matters not what the end particularly is. It is enough that it be some end or other, and that an end which the structure or working of the machine itself obviously announces. . . . When we in the consequent restrict our attention to what the end particularly is, then we proportionally restrict the antecedent to an intelligent mind bent on the accomplishment of that specific end. But when in the argument we make but a general recognition in the consequent of some end or other, the conclusion is equally general of an intelligent mind bent on the accomplishment of that some end or other. All this might be provided for in the reasoning, by laying proper stress on the distinction between the adaptation of parts for the end, and the adaptation of parts for an end. The latter, in fact, is the only essential consequent to the antecedent of a purposing mind; and from the appearance of the latter, we are entitled to infer this antecedent.' To me this reasoning appears conclusive. I shall be glad to hear what can be said on the other side. FRANK GRANT.

[We have received several other replies to 'Aliquis's' paper, which will appear, including one from Mr. Joseph Barker, one from Mr. B. Hagen, &c. We shall give a list of the eminent defenders of the Christian faith, to whom we have sent copies. Lord Brougham was the first to answer. His lordship replied the same day.-ED.]

Ο

RELIGIOUS DRACOISM.*

'A QUESTION FOR 1850' is the title of a pamphlet aptly described by Mutius, who writes-'I enclose you a small work given me by the Young Men's Christian Association. It has been freely circulated among the young men of the city, and is a pretty specimen of the material with which these pseudo-religious people insult intelligent minds and mislead weak ones. If it teaches anything it teaches this-all of us, good, bad, and indifferent, alike deserve damnation. This is the priest's dogma, he could not do without it. What is his remedy? This: faith in the blood of Christ. Nothing else is required. Good works! Pshaw, they are more likely to damn than save. If I believed and fully relied on the doctrine of this little book, it would undoubtedly have a tendency to make me immoral, and I am sure there are inducements enough to vice without allurements in the name of religion.'

This pamphlet contains this expository instance of religious Dracoism-'No man that seeth himself to be a sinner really, can count himself a small or little sinner. Nor can it ever be, till there be a little law to break, a little God to offend, a little guilt to contract, and a little wrath to incur. All which are impossible to be, blasphemy to wish, and madness to expect.' (Traill., 1690.)

Such are the sentiments reinforced in 1850 to the Young Men of London,' by the Rev. J. C. Ryle, A.M., Rector of Helmingham, Suffolk. G. J. H.

THE EDINBURGH REVIEW'S' ESTIMATE OF THE FOXTON

SCHOOL.

It is not very easy, indeed, to say what Mr. Foxton positively believes, having, like his German prototypes, a greater facility of telling us what he does not believe, in a most impregnable mysticism. He certainly rejects, however, all that which, when rejected a century ago, left, in the estimate of every one, an infidel in puris naturalibis. Like his German acquaintances, he accepts the infidel paradoxiesonly, like them, he will still be a Christian. He believes with Strauss, that a miracle is an impossibility and contradiction-'incredible per se.' As to the inspiration of Christ, he regards it as, in its nature, the same as that of Zoroaster, Confucius, Mahomet, Plato, Luther, and Wickliffe-a curious assortment of heroic souls. With a happy art of confusing the gifts of genius,' no matter whether displayed in intellectual or moral power, and of forgetting that other men are not likely to overlook the difference, he complacently declares the wisdom of Solomon and the poetry of Isaiah the fruit of the same inspiration which is popularly attributed to Milton or Shakspere, or even to the homely wisdom of Benjamin Franklin.' In the same confusion of mind, he thinks that the pens of Plato, of Paul, and of Dante, the pencils of Raphael and of Claude, the chisels of Canova and of Chantrey, not less than the voices of Knox, of Wickliffe, and of Luther, are ministering instruments, in different degrees, of the same spirit.' He thinks that we find, both in the writers and the records of scripture, every evidence of human infirmity that can possibly be conceived; and yet we are to

* Draco was a lawgiver of Athens, who established (says an eminent historian, we believe bishop Thirlwall) a penal code absurdly severe; every crime, great or small, being made capital, on the ground that every breach of a positive law was treason to the state. The necessary consequence was, that few would either prosecute or convict, and all crimes went unpunished except the greatest.'-History of Greece, p. 20. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.

O

believe that God himself specially inspired them with false philosophy, vicious logic, and bad grammar.' He denies both the originality of the Christian ethics (which he says are a gross plagiarism from Plato), as also in great part of the system of Christian doctrine. Nevertheless it would be quite a mistake, it seems, to suppose that Mr. Foxton is no Christian. He is, on the contrary, of the very few who can tell us what Christianity really is, and who can separate the falsehoods and the myths which have so long disguised it; he even talks most spiritually and with an edifying unction. He tells us 'God was, indeed, in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.' And but little deduction need be made from the rapturous language of Paul, who tells us that in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I concede to Christ (generous admission !) the highest inspiration hitherto granted to the prophets of God. Mahomet, it appears, and Zoroaster and Confucius, have also statues in his truly Catholic Pantheon. The position of Christ,' he tells us in another place, is simply that of the foremost man in all the world,' though he soars far above all principalities and powers'-above all philosophies hitherto known-above all creeds hitherto propagated in his name-the true Christian doctrine, after having been hid from ages and generations, being reserved to be disclosed, we presume, by Mr. Foxton. His spiritualism, as usual with the old school of our new Christian infidels, is, of course, exquisitely reûned, but, unhappily, very vague. He is full of talk of 'a deep insight,' of a 'faith not in dead histories, but in living realities-a revelation to our innermost nature.' The true seer,' he says, 'looking deep into causes, carries in his heart the simple wisdom of God. The secret harmonies of nature vibrate on his ear, and her fair proportions reveal themselves to his eye. He has a deep faith in the truth of God.' 'The inspired man is one whose outward life derives all its radiance from the light within him. He walks through stony places by the light of his own soul, and stumbleth not. No human motive is present to such a mind in its highest exultation—no love of praise—no desire of fame-no affection, no passion mingles with the divine afflatus, which passes over without ruffling the soul.' And a great many fine phrases of the same kind, equally innocent of all meaning.-Edinburgh Review, No. 182.

SHAKSPERE

AND BEN JONSON.

BEN JONSON, in 'Every man out of his Humour,' introduces a buffoon, whom he gives the character of being, among the dramatis personæ, ‘a public, scurrilous, and profane jester.' Yet the only speech approaching profanity is upon pork, 'O, its the only nourishing meat in the world. No marvel though that saucy, stubborn generation, the Jews, were forbidden it; for what would they have done, well pampered with fat pork, that durst murmur at their Maker out of garlick and onions?' Ben Jonson thought it was necessary to apologise for this freedom, so often recurring in Shakspere; and in the Merchant of Venice' on this very subject of food forbidden to the Jews. Jonson has a chorus attached to the play, one of whom on this occasion exclaims- This savours too much of profanation.' The 'Humours,' as they were called, were two plays of Ben Jonson, in which he described distinct characters. One of the aramatis porsone was a buffoon in 'Every man out of his Humour.' Shakspere was never without the character in his clown, and there was generally more than one who took the part in his plays. The dash of humour appropriate to the clown extended more or less through all the personages and all the plays, and therefore must be attached to the humour of the author.

B.

DEATH OF JOHN THOMAS SEYMOUR.

WHEN stationed at Sheffield I had the first opportunity of personal intercourse with Mr. Seymour, and many happy hours I spent at his table listening to his eloquent discourses on art. He worshipped art. I first knew him at Birmingham. Though then aged, he was of noble stature. He had the frame of Danton, and the voice of Mirabeau. When he spoke at meetings in his latter days, it was by interjected speeches from the gallery, and they came like a sudden clap of thunder, startling the audience and drowning all other noises, no matter how many or how loud. It was in this tone of voice that I first heard him pronounce that admirable sentence, which I repeated in the Qracle and 'Hand-book :'-' Angelo's greatness lay in searching for untried existence.' By profession he was an artist. By sentiment, a Theological, Political, and Social Reformer. In olden times, he was the friend and companion of the most famous London politicians. Clio Rickman (author of a well-known Life of Paine) and Gale Jones were attached friends of his. The last I heard of him was through Mr. G. Julian Harney, who had lately met him in Nottingham. When I was last with him he was anxious to end his days with me in London. I am indebted to Mr. Samuel Saunders, of New Radford, for the intimation that 'he died on Tuesday, January 22nd, aged between seventy and eighty years, after an illness of five days. The disease was bronchitis. His opinions were similar to those of Hetherington. There was no death-bed recantation.' The idea of Seymour recanting is an intellectual impossibility. He was a king in opinion, who could never abdicate at the clamours of the superstitious mob-whether of priests or people. G. J. H.

'HOPE & CO.'S LITERARY NEWS' AND THE REASONER.'

We shall trouble Zion yet. The correspondency suggested by Mr. Garbutt is likely to prove of new use. Many friends are preparing to deliver a Reasoner every Sunday morning at the residence of every clergyman of every denomination. If this is persevered in and generally imitated, we shall induce general discussion. Mr. Love, of Glasgow, ordered two dozen parts. It has never occurred before that he has ordered so many at once. Mr. Motherwell, of Paisley, informs us that, by the exertion of friends, fifteen new subscribers for Parts were found there -none of which could be supplied. Mr. Heywood, of Manchester, orders more Parts than usual. Of No. 5, containing the article Logic of Death,' we printed 550 more than of the later numbers of the impression of the last volume, yet all have been sold. At the end of the year there will be twenty-five complete volumes made up, all we have been able to save. Those who desire them had better send orders now. To accommodate new readers, our publisher suggests that at No. 13 of this series we should close, and commence No. 1 of another series. This we shall do, and provide for the additional demand for Parts. We should reprint No. 1, but it would involve reprinting all the other numbers, as the stock has within a few dozens been called for.

Mr. Billson, of Leicester, bookseller, wishes the Logic of Death' to be reprinted by subscription. He orders a dozen copies for circulation. In Wigan, a friend informs us that the sale generally is improving.

Aliquis is contemplating the publication of Paley's Natural Theology, with Notes, in which case it will be given, gratis, as weekly Supplements to the Reasoner.

Mr. William Chilton, whose name has long been connected with our advocacy, prepared, some time ago, a complete reply to Mr. Gillespie's well-known 'A Priori Argument.' It will fill at least an eight-paged Supplement, and our friend W. J. B. has instructed us to print and present it to the readers of the Reasoner. This instance, and many others of the same kind we might cite, constitute the best answer to give to the Editor of Hope and Co's. Literary News, from whose February number we make the following extract, forwarded to us by Mr. Spurr, of Liverpool:-'S.—The Reasoner is on its last legs, the discarded child of a wretched infidelity. Socialism does not exist outwardly, it was too hateful a thing for the sight of men to endure for any long period of time. Its former propagators are now eking out a miserable existence, and scraping pence together at penny balls and threepenny tea-parties in different parts of the country; but their trade in selling souls to Satan is over.' We suppose these latter allusions to relate to Mr. Southwell, who being, as we believe, in the neighbourhood, will no doubt go down to the office and answer for himself. G. J. H.

MR. LINTON'S LAND TAX.'

MR. LINTON has issued, in a separate form, the 'Letters on the Land' which recently appeared in this paper, prefaced by this characteristic dedication :—' I dedicate this reprint of Three Letters in the Nation to Benjamin Disraeli-the "Farmer's Friend," and to Richard Cobden-the "Financial Reformer," and commend the proposal therein discussed to their patriotic consideration; I commend the same to the consideration of Lord Stanhope and the like zealous prescribers for agricultural distress; and also to all other tinkers and professional members of our radically vicious system of taxation. Nevertheless, as it is not improbable that so thorough a "revolution" may not find favour among landlords or financial "reformers," I commend it, further, to the consideration of some immediately interested in its success: namely, the head and hand workers, the farmers, and the tradesmen, who compose that befooled and suffering body, the tax-payers and paupers (late tax-payers) of the "United Kingdom." With them I leave it, possibly for their enlightenment and advantage.'

GUIDE TO THE LECTURE ROOM. Literary and Scientific Institution, John Street, Fitzroy Square.-Feb. 22nd, [84] Mr. J. B. O'Brien, The National Reform League.' 23rd [81], Mr. Holyoake's Logic Class. 24th [7]. R. Owen.

Hall of Science, City Road.-Feb. 24th [11 a.m.,] Mrs. Howard, Are the Scriptures Inspired?' [7], Mr. Walter Cooper, Lamartine, Louis Blanc, and the French Revolution of 1848.'

South London Hall, Webber Street, Blackfriars

Road.-Feb. 24th [7], a Lecture.

Farringdon Hall, Snow Hill.-Feb.24th [11 a.m.,] Robert Owen, Esq., will Lecture. [7 p.m.], a Lecture.

Finsbury Hall, Bunhill Row.-Feb. 25th [84], R. T. Webb, M.D., M.R.C.S.L., The Present State and Future Prospects of Europe-War or Peace.'

South Place, Moorfields.-Feb. 24th [11 a.m.], Mr. Travers will Lecture.

Eclectic Institute, 72, Newman Street, Oxford Street.-Feb. 24th (7), J. B. O'Brien, B.A., Principles of Political, Moral, and Social Science.' British Coffee House, Newcastle Place, Edgware Road.-Feb. 20, new Grammar Class, by Mr. Holyoake.