Widnes Examiner. — 1894-01-20 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

COMMON JUSTICE.  A CRITIQUE ON TWO CRITICS. "Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science, as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history recerds that, whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if net annihilated ; scotched, if net slain. But orthodoxy .7 is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and, though at present bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist that tlie first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and the end of sound science ; and to visit, with such petty thunderbolts as its half paralysed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade nature to the level of Primitive Judaism."—Prof. Huxley, in "Lay Sermons." Sir,—Your correspondence columns in last issue show how perversely men will, whether ignorantly or designedly, confuse and confound the simplest issues. Both of my critics in last issue afford abundant evidence of their facility in getting "mixed." To drag in . matters unrelated to the subject is an excellent way to confusion and mental obfuscation; while dialectic, skill is shown by him who keeps the threads of argument clear from entanglement, nor attempts to mix incompatibles. Your correspondent John S. Howell, attempts to disparage, Rationalism—i.e. reasonableness—by the use of what he takes to be" reasons." This is as though an artizan were to curse his own tools, by which alone he can work. Now the botch always blames his tools. The man who sees in Anarchy the "only consistent end of Rationalism" is in this state. He is bungling with unaccustomed tools. Dare Mr. J. S. Howell attempt to champion the "primeval fall of man," and its equally illusive consequence the "imaginary salvation?" If Mr. Howell will do this I will do my best to afford him more "amusement." even though his laugh be on the wrong side of his mouth. With marvellous blindness he drags Prof. Mivart upon the stage to prate about Agnosticism being illogieal! What a witness in such a case! Mivart wrote some papers on "happiness in Hell." He wrote as confident!, as though he had been there on tour personally coouocted by the proprietor, and had come back to tell us all about it. Be this as it may,he told us that he quite believed that there might be happiness in hell. Now it is not so much the leve of God as the fear of hell and the devil, that drives folk into the clutches of the priest, so this illogical babbler had to recant by order of the Pope! A little Agoosticiem would have saved poor Mivart from making this double exhibition of himself. As an Agnostic I know nothing of hell; albeit many of my orthodox friends predict my fuller—if future—knowledge thereof,but up to now I lnow nothing of it. Hearsay is not knowledge. From this position I shall not recant even at the dictation of alien ecclesiastics. Then we are told how much better off—happier and had higher ideals and a" rosier outlook " than now—our forbears were in the dark agts. From this we are led to infer that this superior beatitude arose from their freedom from Rationalism and the prevalence of unreasoning belief. To be happy,then, one ought to be ienorant and credulous. If this be so, what a state of bliss the majority of my countrymen must be iT ! And then the" rosier outlook 5' might be the result of the lurid glow of the auto-da-fe, while, if more intelligent than his neighbours, he might have the outlook—or look out—lest he be burnt as a wizard and his wife as a witch. It requires the bemused intellect of a sectary to find any connection between Rationalism and, as a consequence thereof, Matahele wars, starving thousands, bomb-throwing, or murders and suicides. Would the world be any the better today for believing that Jonah did swallow the whale, or vice versa ? No, sir, even the saline transformation of Mrs. Lot must now be taken wftli a very large grain of salt ; and Joshua's sun has set for ever. " Common Justice" reminds me of the month of March—he came in like a lion aeol now, how lamb-like he is—not to say sheepish. As this is my last word to him, may I recall to his warid,iring mind my original contention. Mr. S. Woods, M Foes an M.P. has no right to incite to intimidation those who look up to him for advice. This he did. As a member of Parliament he was bound to uphold the law as it stands—or constitutionally to amend it. Now the coal owners may be, for aught I know, the biggest villains unhune, but, as two blacks don't make a white, I refuse to temuddle the issues of this debate by setting one immorality against the -ther. Finally, why do nor Woods an Co. introduce a bill for the legalization of intimidation ? Why, they dare not av lw openly what they advocate covertly.— "Yours truly,—