The Reasoner.

No. 139.]

EDITED BY G. J. HOLYOAKE.

PROUDHON AND GUIZOT.

[PRICE 2d.

IN M. Guizot's recent essay on Democracy in France, he has presented a synopsis of the philosophy of Proudhon, which he renders in these words:

'All men have a right-and the same right-to happiness. Happiness is the enjoyment (without any limit but that prescribed by the want and the faculty of enjoying) of all the good things existing or possible in this world-whether natural and primitive, or progressively created by the intelligence and the labour of man. 'Certain men, certain families, or certain classes have acquired the exclusive enjoyment of some (indeed the greater part) of the most essential and productive of these good things; or, in other words, these things, or the means of procuring them, are become the special and perpetual property of certain men, families, and classes.

'Such a confiscation of a part of the fund common to mankind, for the advantage of a few, is essentially contrary to justice-contrary to the rights of the men of the same generation, who ought all to enjoy it equally; and contrary to the rights of successive generations, each of which, on its entrance into life, ought to find the good things of life equally accessible, and to enjoy them in its turn like its predecessors.

Therefore, all special and perpetual appropriation of the good things which confer happiness, and of the means of procuring those good things, must be abolished, in order to insure the universal enjoyment and the equal distribution of them amongst all men and all successive generations of men.'

Proudhon, Guizot contends, overlooks the following essential truths, which he gives as his reply:

'Mankind is not merely a series of individuals called men; it is a race which has a common life and a general and progressive destiny. This is the distinctive character of man, which he alone of created beings possesses. The successive generations of men are linked together in unbroken succession.

'The permanent union and progressive development which are the consequences of this unbroken succession of man to man, and generation to generation, characterise the human race. They constitute its peculiarity and its greatness, and mark man for sovereignty in this world, and for immortality beyond it.

'From this are derived, and by this are founded, the family and the state, property and inheritance, country, history, glory, all the facts and all the sentiments which constitute the extended and perpetual light of mankind, amidst the bounded appearance and rapid disappearance of individual men.'

Guizot contends that the tendency of the Social Republic would be to divest human society of this characteristic. It is thus attempted to be shown:

'In the Social Republic all this ceases to exist. Men are mere isolated and ephemeral beings, who appear in this life, and on this earth, the scene of life, only to take their subsistence and their pleasure, each for himself alone, each by the same right, and without any end or purpose beyond. This is precisely the condition of the lower animals. Among them there exists no tie, no influence, which survives the individual, and extends to the race. There is no permanent appro[No. 4, Vol. VI.]

priation, no hereditary transmission, no unity or progress in the life of the species -nothing but individuals who appear and then vanish, seizing on their passage their portion of the good things of the earth and the pleasures of life, according to the combined measure of their wants and their strength, which, according to them, constitute their right.'

This is the same elegant and ingenious reasoning with which the frequenters of South Place have long been familiar, from the lips of W. J. Fox, M.P. It has the merit of being able presumptive argument. But its reliability is no higher.

M. Guizot proceeds to argue that the Social Republic would not only reduce men to the level of the lower animals, but it would banish God from the mind of man.' Let the Social Republic be once established, and

'God and the human race will disappear together. In their place will remain animals still bearing the name of men, more intelligent and more powerful than other animals, but having the same condition and the same destiny, and like them seizing, on their passage through life, their portion of the goods of earth and the pleasures of sense, according to the combined measure of their wants and their strength, which constitute their right.'

It seems a very terrible result to M. Guizot that men should pass through the world only seizing on the goods of the earth and the pleasures of sense.' Under the reign of theology they have never yet done this. The reign of realism will evidently add to the physical happiness of the human family-and we know not why the well-cared-for soul should not be as well fitted for immortality as the neglected one.

M. Guizot is the victim of a cloudy and obsolete metaphysics and a sectarian Christianity. This political blindness cost his master his throne-and his moral and religious errors would cost society its progress did they lend a credulous ear to this brilliant but specious charmer.

GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE.

A FEW WORDS ON THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF

CHRISTIANITY.

It is proposed, in this essay, to consider the proofs adduced in support of the truth—that is, the divine origin of the Christian religion. It is essential to view Christianity in connection with the other forms under which virtue is at this moment professed over the globe, and compare the manner in which its authenticity is endeavoured to be established with the means by which the supposed divinity of the others is supported.

Omitting the lowest form under which religion is practised by barbarous tribes, viz., the worship of images, the creeds now prevailing are Boodhism, the Hindoo belief, the Chinese system of Confucius, the Mahometan scheme, Judaism, and Christianity with its numerous sects and parties.

There is a similarity very remarkable between all these, inasmuch as they have each an ancient and carefully preserved book, said to have been penned under divine inspiration—the standard of the faith, their unfailing resort in all doubts and difficulties; like the Delphiar oracle of old-ever yielding a ready answer to every query, obscure indeed, sometimes, like that—but now as then, quickly cleared up by means of a skilful priesthood and a powerful imagination. There are other resemblances-but let us now examine into their respective claims.

The votaries of Boodh, or the Boodhists, first press on our attention. They have the priority of numbers-nearly half the human race, or four hundred million, profess this creed. Boodh is a general term for divinity. Their last

God-Gandama does not now exist; he, they say, was annihilated 626 B.C., and they expect his successor eight thousand years from the present time. Three Boodhs existed before Gandama; their sayings are lost, but the latter's remain. They were transmitted by tradition till four hundred and fifty years after his decease, when they were reduced to writing. This took place in Ceylon, A.D. 94. They are written in the Pali language, and now constitute their Bible, or, as they term it, Bedagat. Scorned as the faith is in this country, we cannot but allow that it contains many noble institutions-that their disquisitions are drawn out and urged in a manner which would do honour to any casuist;' and 'there is scarcely a prohibition in the Bedagat which is not sanctioned by our Holy Scriptures, and the arguments appended to them are often just and forcible.' This is important, as being an admission from Christians. Lamaism is a branch of the above; it consists in the worship of Dalai-Lama, or the Great Lama-a human God, or rather a species of Pope, who resides at Lassa; at which place alone there are three thousand monasteries.

The Hindoo belief, or Hindooism, professes a vast antiquity-going back a period of four million three hundred and twenty thousand years. It is supported by a most skilful priesthood—the Brahmins, and is allowed to be the most irradicable of any system which prevails. It is professed by the mass of inhabitants of Hindostan. They acknowledge a supreme ruler of the universe-Brahma; two other powers-Vishnu, the Preserver, and Siva, the Destroyer, and three hundred and thirty million minor deities. Their idea of the nature of Brahma is in the highest degree sublime, and equal to that of any other religious party of their God. The Vedas and Shastras, their sacred writings, are unquestionably of great antiquity.

The Chinese boast the most ancient of histories, tracing back the origin of their kingdom nineteen millions of years before the Christian era. Even our own historians have endeavoured to show that the empire was founded 2000 B.C. Confucius is their great sage. He founded a system highly extolled by Europeans, and which is much less intolerantly maintained than Christianity, under any denomination. He flourished 560 B.C. Reducing the maxims of former sages to order, culling all remarkable extracts from popular works, adding prudent maxims and proverbs of his own, and travelling from place to place as an eloquent lecturer, he soon, by the reasonableness of his doctrines, founded a system which speedily became the state religion.

Mahometanism owns Mahomet as its prophet and founder. It is the most recently established creed, yet numbers one hundred million votaries. It is the sole religion which was in the first instance promulgated by force; the Christian, the only other in support of which similar means were resorted to, cannot be said to owe its foundation to what was practised only when the numbers of its votaries gave them the requisite strength. Mahomet, a man of noble family, was born A.D. 567. He founded a creed partly based on Judaism and Christianity, which systems he in some measure acknowledged, but declared himself to be the greatest and last of prophets; and, setting aside all others, founded a new religion, and left behind him the Koran, which developed his views.

The Jews acknowledge one God, who, they say, has been manifested to them by a series of prophets or holy men, whose writings they profess to have carefully preserved without alteration. They consider themselves as the chosen people of this God, and expect his son to come down on the earth, and after conquering all their enemies, restore their own country, of which they have been dispossessed, and finally reign over them as their king.

The Christians' religion is founded on that of this people. It accepts the writings of Jewish prophets as 'inspired,' but differs from the Jews in believing that the Son of God has already come in the person of Jesus Christ-a Jew, born in Bethlehem eighteen hundred years ago, and who, after declaring himself to be the long expected Messiah, and attesting his divinity by miracles or supernatural signs (which the Christians aver really took place, but the Jews emphatically deny), underwent a shameful de: th as a malefactor, in his thirty-third year. The Christians have writings purporting to be letters, &c., written by some of the first proselytes of this man, embodying a scheme of morality in many respects admirable, but abounding with grave accounts of occurrences which leave the most extravagant and incredulous legends of other sects far in the shade. His collection is termed the New Testament, to distinguish it from the writings of the Jews called the Old Testament. The two together form their Bible or sacred book. The system was, as the acute founder must have perceived, admirably adapted, from its comparatively higher tone, to supply the place of the ancient systemwhich he saw was rapidly decaying; and a concurrence of circumstances at the period of its introduction favoured its rapid progress.

I have thus enumerated the chief religions which now prevail, purposely avoiding entering on the consideration of their respective tenets. The system of morality propagated by each is in some respects admirable; one may in this manner be better than another, but that has nothing to do with our question, which is 'Has one more than another a better claim to a divine origin?' It is not 'Do mankind stand in need of a revelation ?'-'Is it not consonant with our ideas of the Almighty that he should give one?' these are the propositions of theologians; but 'Has he given one?' is my question, and the world answers 'Yes.' He has given six, and each party says his is the revelation from God, and the believers in the opposed creeds are labouring under an extraordinary delusion. Are they not all labouring under delusions?

These religions cannot all be true. Differing as they do on so many vital points, they cannot all truthfully claim a divine origin. I apprehend no opposition in this stage of our argument. All parties, all sects, acquiesce here; for say they each, individually, my religion is the true one, the rest are false. It will therefore be unnecessary to dwell on this point, and the next question inevitably forced upon us is—if they are not all true, is any? if so, which one? and signalise its divine origin indubitably from the rest.

I find, on an impartial scrutiny, that however the systems themselves may differ-however they may vary in doctrine, spirit, or forms, the proof on which their authenticity depends is in every case historical or traditionary testimony. 'My father taught me the religion was the true one, his forefathers handed it down to him, history or tradition declares its truth, inspired writers composed the system, and wonderful appearances ushered its advent'-is the answer of both Jew, Turk, and Christian, when pressed for a reason of the faith which is in them. The truth of their respective creeds, from the very fact of its origin being hid in the depths and darkness of an interminable antiquity, acquires new force; and from the dim and reverential feeling of awe with which both the savage and the sage look back into that old by-gone time, and the charm which whatever is ancient too often has over the mind, is the truth of a religion impressed upon the understanding with force proportioned to its hoar antiquity.

The history or tradition peculiar to each religion, contradicting and completely setting aside as it does that of all the others, leads us into a maze of doubts respecting the dependence to be placed on such evidence generally. These histories

clearly cannot all be true: and if not, is any partly or wholly genuine? if so, which history and what part are we to reject, and which unhesitatinly to accept? And there is an immense difficulty here. Satisfactorily to answer this question, vast and profound learning, an almost superhuman discrimination and sagacity, a freedom from bias and prejudice almost unattainable, must be the gift of that man who pretends for one moment to decide in favour of any particular party. What is the nature of the case? It is the ascertainment of the exact character of what took place centuries ago, which perhaps was not recorded till years afterwards, when exaggeration and misrepresentation had had their full play, and then by prejudiced and ignorant men labouring under superstition or insane enthusiasm, It is the absolute and unqualified assertion that it did take place in the face of contradictory accounts, notwithstanding the evidence of the senses, and in spite of absolute assertions to the contrary. And on what does it all depend? On a mere ipse dixit, on the bare assertion of an ignorant multitude, or perhaps tho authority of an epistle, or the word of an interested advocate of the new faith. We cannot often, at the present day, ascertain the precise nature of a circumstance which occurred but yesterday; how immeasurably, then, is the difficulty increased by the interposition of the dense cloud of a dark antiquity, and the contradictory versions of partisan and opposer.

E. L. T.

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION-THE REV. HUGH

STOWELL'S LECTURE ON INFIDELITY.

[THE fifth of the course of lectures, under the auspices of this Association, was delivered on Tuesday evening, December 19th, 1848, by the Rev. Hugh Stowell, M.A., on 'Modern Infidel Philosophy.' J. D. Paul, Esq., occupied the chair. I give large portions of this Lecture for the sake of its racy allusions. Emerson, Dawson, and others, receive Mr. Stowell's polite attentions. A lecture by Hugh Stowell always does more to advance infidelity than many efforts by its ablest friends, as he reaches Christians who, after hearing him, ask themselves-can these things be? and inquiry leads to truth, and truth is infidelity to Stowellism.-ED.]

Modern philosophy had shown itself lately in a more disguised form than it did a few years ago. It then appeared in our own country under a dark and sensual form, under the brute aspect of Socialism, which was nothing more or less than bestiality and brutalism. It would have broken up all social conditions, crushed all moral feeling, stripped man of everything, sunk him lower than the beast that perisheth, made him to wallow in sensuality, and to glory in his shame (hear, hear, and cheers.) In France it had survived under the guise of communism and St. Simonism, transforming its votaries into a compound of the monkey and the tiger, leaving us at a loss whether to laugh at their fantastic tricks, or to weep over their ferocious and sanguinary deeds. But Socialism was too hideous a form of infidelity for Englishmen to tolerate. They had soon found out the fraud; and there was not, so far as he knew, one Socialist Hall, or Scientific Hall, as they called them-there was not, he believed, one of the halls that had not been converted to some useful purpose. It had been his privilege recently to preach in a large Socialist Hall, to about seven hundred persons, amongst whom were some who had helped to build the place for a Socialist Hall, who then stood up with the congregation, and sung that beautiful hymn—