O

we feel for the prisoner in his chains. He may have lost, as tyranny's captives in the Bastile did, all sense of liberty, all care for freedom. Still carry kind words of intelligence and love to them--place liberty before them, that it may be ready for them in that happy moment when nature shall inspire them with the choice. We mean not to censure all Unitarians or Pantheists as indifferent to the emancipation of others. The Unitarian minister,' whose generous letter we lately published, is an evidence of the exceptions we are ready to make. We make these exceptions. We always make exceptions in general accusations. He who does not believe in exceptions in such cases, is an exception himself.

The Edinburgh Review, No. 182, for October, gives an allegory on Reason and Faith, the happiest passage in an article on 'Reason and Faith-their Claims and Conflicts.' The writer Bunyanizes thus: Reason and Faith are twin-born beings-the one, in form and feature the image of manly beauty—the other, of feminine grace and gentleness; but to each of whom, alas! was allotted sad privation. While the bright eyes of Reason are full of piercing and restless intelligence, his ear is closed to sound; and while Faith has an ear of exquisite delicacy; on her sightless orbs, as she lifts them towards heaven, the sunbeam plays in vain. Hand in hand the brother and sister, in all mutual love, pursue their way, through a world on which, like ours, day breaks and night falls alternate; by day the eyes of Reason are the guide of Faith, and by night the ear of Faith is the guide of Reason. As is wont with those who labour under these privations respectively, Reason is apt to be eager, impetuous, impatient of that instruction which his infirmity will not permit him readily to apprehend; while Faith, gentle and docile, is ever willing to listen to the voice by which alone truth and wisdom can effectually reach her.'

Now it happens that Faith being only able to hear-being beetle-blind, takes every sound for that of the truth. Buddhist, Pagan, Catholic, Protestant, Ranter, all are to her credulous ears equally divine. Faith has believed in them all. Nothing, therefore, can more urgently admonish us of the necessity of keeping the eye of Reason ever open and vigilant to scrutinise the reports of Faith. G. J. HOLYOAKE.

GLEANINGS FROM GODFREY HIGGINS.

Il.

Confucius. Sir W. Jones says: Of the religious opinions entertained by Confucius and his followers we may glean a general notion from the fragments of their works, translated by Couplet. They professed a firm belief in the Supreme God, and gave a demonstration of his being an of his providence from the exquisite beauty and perfection of the celestial bodies, and the wonderful order of nature in the whole fabric of the visible world. From this belief they deduced a system of ethics, which the philosopher sums up in a few words at the close of the Lunyn. He (says Confucius) who shall be fully persuaded that the Lord of Heaven governs the universe, who shall in all things choose moderation, who shall perfectly know his own species, and so act among them that his life and manners may confirm to his knowledge of God and man, may be truly said to discharge all the duties of a sage, and to be exalted above the common herd of the human race.'-Page 47,

Geeta.-The Rev. Mr. Maurice says: Whoever will read the Geeta will perceive in that small tract the outlines of nearly all the various systems of theology in Asia.' That curious and ancient doctrine of the Creator being both male and

female, mentioned in a preceding page, to be designated in Indian temples by a very indecent exhibition of the masculine and feminine organs of generation in union, occurs in the following passages: I am the father and mother of this world I plant myself upon my own nature, and create again and again this assemblage of beings; I am generation and dissolution, the place where all things are de posited, and the inexhaustible seed of all nature; I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all things.' In another part he more directly says, 'The great Brahma is the womb of all those various forms which are conceived in every natural womb, and I am the father that soweth the seed.'-Page 48.

Origin of Gods.-Sir W. Jones's dissertation on the gods of Greece and India says, 'We must not be surprised at finding, that the characters of all the pagan deities, male and female, melt into each other, and at last into one or two; for it seems a well-founded opinion, that the whole crowd of gods and goddesses in ancient Rome and modern Sávánes, mean only the powers of nature, and prin. cipally those of the Sun, expressed in a variety of ways, and by a multitude of fanciful names,'-Page 50.

Thus, we see, (says Higgins) there is in fact an end of all the multitude of heathen gods and goddesses, so disguised in the pantheons and books of various kinds, which the priests have published from time to time to instil into the minds of their pupils that the ancient heathen philosophers and legislators were the slaves of the most degrading superstition; that they believed such nonsense as the metamorphoses described by Ovid, or the loves of Jupiter, Venus, &c., &c. That the rabble were the victims of a degrading superstition, I have no doubt. This was produced by the knavery of the ancient priests, and it is in order to reproduce this effect that the modern priests have misrepresented the doctrines of their predecessors. By vilifying and running down the religion of the ancients, they have thought they could persuade their votaries that their new religion was necessary for the good of mankind: a religion which, in consequence of their corruptions, has been found in practice much worse and more injurious to the interests of society than the old one. For, from these corruptions the Christian religion-the religion of purity and truth, when uncorrupted-has not brought peace, but a sword.-Page 50.

M. Dupuis, in his first chapter, has shown that probably all nations first worshipped, as we are told the Persians did, without altars or temples, in groves and high places. After a certain number of years, in Persia, came temples and idols, with all their abuses; and these, in their turn, were changed or abolished, and the worship of the sun restored, or perhaps the worship of the sun only as emblem of the Creator. This was probably the change said to have been effected by Zoroaster.-Page 51.

Our chronology is in so very vague and uncertain a state, that very little dependence can be placed upon it. And it will never be any better till learned meu search for the truth and fairly state it, instead of sacrificing it to the idle legends or allegories of the priests, which cannot by any possible ingenuity be made colsistent even with themselves.-Page 57.

Vegetarianism. The use of animals for food being clearly not allowed to man (Genesis, chap. 1.) is a circumstance which bespeak the book of Buddhist origin. It is probably either the parent of the Buddhist religion, or its offspring. And it is different from the next book, which begins at the fourth verse of the second chapter, and ends with the last verse of the fourth; because, among other reasons in it, the Creation is said to have been performed by a different person from that named in the first-by Jehovah Alim, instead of Aleim. Again, in the first book, man

and woman are created at the same time; in the second, they are created at different times. Again, in the first book, the fruit of ALL the trees is given to the man; in the second, this is contradicted, by one tree being expressly forbidder. These are in fact two different accounts of the creation.-Page 61.

The beginning of the fifth chapter, or third tract, seems to be a repetition of the first, to connect it with the history of the flood. The world is described as being made by God (Aleim), and not as in the second by Jehovah, or the God Jehovah, or Jehovah Aleim; and, as in the first, the man and woman are made at one time, and not, as in the second, at different times. The account of the birth of Seth, given in the twenty-first verse of the fourth chapter, and the repetition of the same event in the third verse of the fifth chapter, or the beginning of the third tract, are a clear proof that these tracts are by different persons; or, at least, are separate and distinct works. The reason why the name of Seth is given here, and not the names of any of the later of Adam's children, is evidently to connect Adam with Noah and the flood, the object of the third tract. The permission, in the third tract, to eat animals, implying that it was not given before, is strictly in keeping with the denial of it in the first.-Page 61.

The histories of the creation, both in the first and in the second book of Genesis, in the sacred books of the Persians, and in those of the Chaldeans, are evidently different versions of the same story. The Chaldeans state the world to have been created, not in six days, but in six periods of time-the lengths of the periods not being fixed. The Persians, also, divide the time into six periods. -Page 61.

Among the Persians and all the oriental nations it has been observed, that the Creator or God was adored under a triple form-in fact, in the form of a trinity. In India this was Bramah, Christna or Vishnu, and Siva; in Persia it was Oromasdes, Mithra, and Ahrimanius; in each case the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer.- Page 62.

Abraham a Polytheist.-The fact that Abraham worshipped several Gods, the same as those of the Persians, namely, the Creator, Preserver, and the Destroyer, has been long asserted, and the assertion has been very unpalatable both to Jews and many Christians; and to obviate or disguise what they could not account for, they have had recourse, in numerous instances, to the mistranslation of the original, as will presently be shown.- Page 62.

Many Christians, no doubt, will be much alarmed and shocked at the idea of the word ale being of the feminine gender. But why should not the Hebrew language have a feminine to the word al, as the English have a feminine to the word God in Goddess, or the Romans in the words Deus and Dea? And why should not God be of the feminine gender as easily as of the masculine? Who knows what gender God is of? Who at this day is so foolish as to fancy that God is of any gender? We have seen that all the Gods of the Gentiles were of both genders. We find God called Al, Ale, Alue, Alim, and Aleim-more frequently Aleim than any other name. It must be observed, that God nowhere calls himself by any of those names, as he does by the name Je or Jah, or Jeue, which is the only name by which he has ever denominated himself.-Page 67. Parkhurst says-But AL or El was the very name the Heathens gave to their God Sol, their Lord or Ruler of the hosts of heaven.-Page 67.

The 26th verse of the first chapter of Genesis completely establishes the plurality of the word Aleim. And then said Aleim, we will make man in OUR image according to our likeness. To rebut this argument it is said, that this is nothing but a dignified form of speech adopted by all kings in speaking to their subjects,

to give themselves dignity and importance, and on this account attributed to God. This is reasoning from effect to cause, instead of from cause to effect. The oriental sovereigns, puffed up with pride and vanity, not only imitated the language of God in the sacred books; but they also went farther, and made their base slaves prostrate themselves before them in the same posture as they used in addressing their God. In this argument God is made to use incorrect language in order that he may imitate and liken himself to the vainest and most contemptible of human beings. We have no knowledge that God ever imitated these wretches; we do know that they affected to imitate and liken themselves to him. This verse proves his plurality; the next, again, proves his unity: for there the word bara is used whence it is apparent that the word has both a singular and plural meaning.-Pages 68, 69.

Dr. Alix, on Genesis 1, v. 10, says, that the Cabalists constantly added the letter jod, being the first letter of the word Jeue to the word Aleim for the sake of a mystery. The Rabbi Bechai says, it is to show that there is a divinity in each person included in the word. This is, no doubt, part of the Cabala, or esoteric religion of the Jews. Maimonides says, the vulgar Jews were forbidden to read the history of the creation, for fear it should lead them into idolatry; probably for fear they should worship the Trimurti of India, or the Trinity of Persia. The fear evidently shows that the fearful persons thought there was a plurality in Genesis.

It is a very common practice with the priests not always to translate a word, but sometimes to leave it in the original, and sometimes to translate it as it may suit their purpose: sometimes one, sometimes the other. Thus they use the word Messiah or anointed as they find it best serves their object. Thus, again, it is with the word EL in numerous places. For instance, in Genesis 28, v. 12— And he called the name of the place Beth-el, instead of he called the place the House of the Sun. The word Beth means House, and El Sun.

Ai was situated between Bith-Avon (read Bith-On) and Beth-El; and these were temples of the Sun, under his different titles of On and El.

Speaking of the word Jabneel, Sir W. Drummond says-El, in the composition of these Canaanite names, does not signify Deus but Sol. This confirms what I have before observed from Parkhurst.

Thus Kabzeel literally means-The Congregation of the Sun.

Messiah-El a manifest corruption of the word Messiah—the anointed of El, or the Sun.

Carmel, the Vine of El, or of the Sun.

Migdal-El Horem, the Station of the Burning Sun.

Amraphel, Ammon, or the Sun in Aries, here denominated Amraphel, Agnus Mirabilis.

El-tolad signifies the Sun, or The God of Generation.

In all the above-named examples the word El ought to be written Al. In the original it is Al; and this word means the God Mithra the Sun, as the Preserver or Saviour.-Page 71

THE DUTY OF THEOLOGICAL REFORMERS.

SIR,-Among the readers of the Reasoner I yield to none in a heartfelt desire that the cause of truth should triumph, and that a bright day should succeed the night of ignorance in which mankind have been designedly kept by too many of our governors, and our spiritual pastors and masters. It has been a source of great gratification to find that the Reasoner (a publication established for the

avowed object of disseminating those views studiously excluded from discussion in all other parts) was not to be given up, but, on the contrary, has commenced the new year with a certain prospect of being a permanent and efficient organ. The pleasure I experience does not, however, exclude from my view the difficulties with which you, sir, will have to contend. The Reasoner will have a duty to perform, onerous enough in ordinary works, but in the case of this work, designed to be the vehicle of communication of parties differing in views as wide as the polesmost onerous and most difficult. It has been said by a quaint author that Timotheus, an ancient teacher of rhetoric, always demanded a double fee from those pupils who had been instructed by others, for in such cases he had not only to implant his principles, but to uproot those opposed to his views. Now the Reasoner (though not charging an extra fee) will have to re-enact what Timotheus had to do -not only to inculcate principles, but to uproot error, prejudice, or falsehood, in whatever shape it may be manifested; for it is most clear that time and labour are worse than useless, if consumed in laying up stores of false knowledge which it will be necessary some day to unlearn, and which hereafter must be only remembered to be avoided. Now, sir, it will be the office of the Reasoner, as I have said, to unmask error, and, at the same time, the duty of the friends of truth to support an organ that will fearlessly and unflinchingly execute such a duty, even though occasionally they may find some of their own long cherished notions turned inside out. Those who love truth should do so under all circumstances; it is only a fancied love if we chafe at it when in collision with our own opinions or conduct. They must be firm in the midst of temptation, remembering there will be attacks from the prejudiced on those who are above prejudices-sneers from the venal will be the certain reward of those who cannot be purchased. The ignorant will boast that had our opinions been worth anything, they would have been promulgated by themselves. Still the friends of truth must keep firm to their faith, and make it their continual glory and boast that any opinions that will not bear discussion full, free, unfettered, and unpunishable, are beneath the contempt of a reasonable being. I feel persuaded genuine religion need not apprehend an enemy in the Reasoner, but, on the contrary, its best interests will be consulted by stripping it of its false assumptions, and by humanising it so that it may exert its proper office in teaching mankind how to live as well as how to die. Rational enjoyments, and the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number, it should be the object of religion to realise; and were knowledge and science to hold the theologic scales, it would soon be decided that he (though he hold no creed or ism) is a religious man who lives a life of virtue. Real religion would soon, if properly understood, cease condemning to endless torments a brother who may happen, from education, or conviction, to take a different view from himself; and all creeds would be viewed alike as a subject neither of praise nor censure. As an individual, I rejoice that the publication is intended to be eminently and specially one devoted to theological investigation, because it is one of our first duties to be able to give not only to ourselves, but to our fellow men, a clear and definite statement of what we do believe-in what we doubt, and why we believe or doubt, as the case may be-and there is no mode more likely to lead to such a result than by means of a print devoting itself to be the vehicle to promulgate the results of the studies of all sects or parties.

It is my opinion that no more important subject than theology can occupy the attention of mankind. And if the truth be the compass to direct us in our investigations, then it becomes us most carefully and dispassionately to examine all religious systems in order to test which appears to us to be the divine one.