"Spiritualism Vindicated."

n the Garrison Hall, Dunedin, on July 9th, Mr. M. W. Green delivered a lecture in reply to that given in the same place on the previous evening by Mrs. Hardinge-Britten, in criticism of his course of four lectures under the title of "Spiritualism Unveiled," and published under the title of "The Devil's Sword Blunted." The attendance was unusually large, every part of the large hall being crowded.^*

The Rev. Mr. Crump having engaged in prayer, the Rev. L. Moore, who occupied the chair, in introducing Mr. Green, spoke as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen—Before the proceedings are commenced, Mr. Green has requested me to say that opportunity will be given, at the end of his lecture, for any person who desires to do so, to put questions, which he will answer to the best of his ability. I need not do more than mention the name of Mr. Green to secure for him a hearty welcome from those here present. (Applause.)

Mr. Green, who on coming forward, was received with much applause, spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—Before commencing the lecture of this evening, I wish to make one communication in refer-

^* There are two or three pages inserted into the body of the book, naturally forming part of the lecture, but which were unavoidably omitted from the oral lecture, owing to length of time occupied with the other portions.—M. W. G.

page 4 ence to the publication of the four lectures that have been delivered by me. I may say that they are at present in the Press, and will be issued during next week. They will not be published in the form of lectures, but as an ordinary pamphlet, with the various citations grouped under their appropriate headings. The lecture of this evening cannot be added to them, but will be published as a separate pamphlet, and in order to ensure accuracy, I have secured the services of a competent short-hand reporter, from whose notes the present lecture will be printed.

Before proceeding to review the lecture Mrs. Britten delivered in this Hall last evening, I wish to make reference to a remark made by her Chairman, Mr. R. Stout, to the effect that Mr. Green and Mrs. Britten were both Spiritualists, only that whilst Mr. Green believed in the ability of evil spirits to communicate, Mrs. Britten believed in the communications of bad, good, and indifferent spirits. That statement on the part of the Chairman was not at all a correct one, and only shows how unadvisable it is for any person to profess to give the opinions of others, unless he has had an opportunity of hearing them. (Applause.) Those who attended my first lecture in this hall will remember that I stated distinctly that I believed in angel-ministry. Now, the difference between Mrs Britten and myself on this point is this: that I believe the angels of God are aiding God's people, without either sitting in dark circles, or sending their communications through mediums. It is evil spirits alone who are attracted by darkness. (Applause.) I would wish, like the faithful Apostle, to warn everyone against what he terms "the unfruitful works of darkness." (Applause.) May I kindly ask you to restrain your applause as much as possible, because I have much to say to you, and do not wish to detain you longer than I can help. Last night I was guilty of something for which I should like to offer a kind of apology. As I sat listening to Mrs. Britten, I could not help frequently smiling, and I have since thought that possibly I had violated gentlemanly courtesy in so doing. But I must confess that I was amused and astonished at the course pursued by the lady. I was amused that she should page 5 hare thought that her lecture was a reply to the four lectures I had delivered; I was impressed with the self-satisfaction that she manifested with herself—with the exceeding ability she displayed in the art of self-advertising—and with the enormous amount of egotism indicated in sounding her own trumpet to such an extraordinary degree—(Applause)—that I must confess I could not help smiling.

In replying to the statements of Mrs. Britten, I wish to speak in kindness, but at the same time I must speak with all faithfulness, and consequently my task this evening is a delicate one. I would first remind you of the statement of Mrs. Britten that Mr. Green was never likely to be heard of outside of this little city. Now, that is very likely. Two suns of such magnitude as the lady in question could not exist in the heavens together—one must pale before the other; and certainly it would hardly do to have two such in this little city. I am content to continue to shine as far as I am able, whether the city be small or great; and if I am faithful here, I know One who has said that I shall be accounted worthy of much honour in the time to come. (Loud cheers.) I think Mrs. Britten's language in regard to this matter was anything but creditable to her. She seemed to consider it to be an impertinence on my part to have exposed the true nature of Spiritualism. My only reply to that is, I have an anxious desire wherever I see dangers such as those contained in Spiritualism, to raise my voice in warning; and it will not matter whether Mrs. Britten denounce it as an impertinence, and as indicating great imprudence on my part, or whether, as towards the close of her lecture, she pretends to commend the boldness and fearlessness of my course, my duty will remain the same. I am under a solemn obligation to point out what would be the terrible results, both to individuals and to society generally, which must inevitably accrue from a wide-spread adoption of the principles she advocates. The lady further stated, that she would have declined argument with such a gentleman, only that his handbill made it needful to notice his sophistries. I can readily believe that Mrs. Britten would page 6 have been only too pleased to have been able to decline argument, because from her contact with myself she has evidently found certain elements which have disturbed her temper. She has never yet come into contact with me, either here or in Victoria, without using language which certainly I should not like to use respecting her. In her advertisements, and in her lecture, she says that "Mr. Green has grossly slandered the Spiritists of Dunedin, whom he has nicknamed—persons who are so worthy that they have risen to the first rank in the city." I would say first of all in regard to those "worthy persons" who have risen to the "first rank" in the city, that they are not Spiritualists; that of the number who surround Mrs. Britten, not one-third at the outside are Spiritualists. The chairman of last night repudiates the term being applied to himself. He is no Spiritualist, and declares that he has seen nothing calculated to make him believe in spirit intercourse. Mrs. Britten, in assuming that all those who attend her meetings are Spiritualists, is making a very great mistake.

Then, Mrs. Britten charges me with having made "slanderous charges" against the Spiritualists; with having told "deliberate untruths;" and with having "violated" the ninth commandment. A gentleman who is a stranger to me said to me to-day, "Really, Mr. Green, I believe Mrs. Britten is actionable for language such as that." And I think probably if I were as litigious as that lady has given evidence that she is, I might threaten that if she did not take back these statements I might do something very severe. However, I will make no such threat. She may continue piling up epithets to any length she pleases, I will not threaten her with law, or anything of that kind. But, in reply to her charge, I wish to point out to you this—Mrs. Britten is opposed to myself. It is always possible that an opponent may fail to understand the mind of the individual to whom he is opposed. In this world there are many ways of being misunderstood, and the person who makes a statement that appears to us to be incorrect may make it believing it to be true; to charge a person with a deliberate falsehood, is certainly a very page 7 grave matter. Now, supposing an enemy to make such a charge, it may possibly arise from some misunderstanding. I am sure I should be able to bear such a statement coming from opponents with composure; but I should feel very much concerned if it came from friends, because my friends are more likely to know my character, and to understand my mind and habits, than my enemies are. Now, let me say, that I am not going to charge Mrs. Britten with deliberate falsification. I should be sorry to make such a charge against any person, even my greatest enemy; but I shall produce evidence that not Mrs. Britten's enemies, but her friends, charge her with deliberate lying (cheers)—with deliberate falsification. I have here in my hand the Melbourne Harbinger of Light for the month of May of the present year. In this paper is an account of a very pretty quarrel which Mrs. Britten had with the Melbourne Spiritualists. The correspondence which passed between them is here recorded, and in this paper there is a report of a meeting of the Victorian Association of Spiritualists which was presided over by Mr. Deakin, and taking part in which were Mr. Stowe, Mr. H. J. Browne, and others, all prominent persons in Melbourne. Mr. Deakin is a lawyer, and is at present a member of the Victorian Parliament; Mr. H. J. Browne is a man of independent means, and Mr. Stowe is a chemist. These gentlemen acted as the committee for Mr. Walker during our debate there, so that for several weeks, during the progress of that debate, I came into contact with these gentlemen. I know them to have been ardent admirers of Mrs. Britten, upholding her with their presence and means, and doing everything they could to sustain her. My intercourse with these gentlemen led me to the conviction that, although large numbers of the Spiritualists were persons of no character, there were amongst them some most excellent people. I am glad to be able to say that by personal contact with Spiritists I am convinced that there are truthful men amongst them, and, moreover, that there are not more honorable men amongst the entire body of Spiritualists than those three whom I have named. At this meeting the secretary read the correspondence which had passed page 8 between him, and Dr. and Mrs Britten, since the last general meeting. Some portions of the letters provoked expressions of indignation from the audience. In the next paragraph there is this resolution, moved by Mr. Lang and seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried with only two dissentients :—"That this meeting, having considered the correspondence between Dr. and Mrs. Britten and the committee of the Association, is satisfied that Dr. and Mrs. Britten have not behaved with courtesy, kindness, or good taste in their transactions with the committee." In this meeting, which the report says was composed of ninety persons, only one person was found to say a word in defence of Mrs. Britten's conduct, and that one is well-known in Melbourne to be a man of most unworthy character. Mind, I do not hold Mrs. Britten responsible for that—not at all—but I say that this man, who is there mentioned, as defending the lady is known to be a man of bad reputation, and was expelled from the Wesleyan body for very grave sin. Yet in that body of Spiritualists that man was the only defender Mrs. Britten had on that occasion. (Cheers.) As showing the unanimity of these gentlemen in their judgment on Mrs. Britten, I may state that it is confirmed by a resolution which was moved by Mr. H. J. Browne:—"That this Association unanimously condemns the action of Mrs. Britten in the indiscreet and unjustifiable remarks made by her at her last public lecture here, and considers the enmity shown by her to this Association, merely because it refused to be dictated to by her, and withdrew its support from her during her last lectures, totally opposed to that spirit of charity which characterizes the true Spiritualist." I have no hesitation myself in quite believing, from the lady's manner last night, that she has a very austere and autocratic spirit, and that she would want to have her own way. (Laughter.) I don't think there can be any doubt about that. I should mention in fairness that this resolution was not carried, because Mr. Browne added remarks which by mistake were supposed to be included in the resolution, and which the meeting thought it would be better not to include, as they had no desire to injure Spiritualism while condemning her. In his remarks, Mr. page 9 Browne charges Mrs. Britten with stating what she knew to be untrue at the time she made the statement. On page 159 of the same paper Mr. A. Van Alkemade says :—"As regards the division in our ranks, Mrs. Britten utters that which she knows to be false . . . . . Dr. Britten let no opportunity pass by to plead his cause, based on private letters from Messrs. Terry and Deakin (which letters however, were only alluded to as testifying Dr. and Mrs. Britten's course of action) when politely called upon for copies of these so compromising letters (with the consent of the parties interested), Dr. and Mrs. Britten, for reasons of their own, judged it better to take no notice of this just request." And in the latter part of this letter the writer says :—"I have no wish to enlarge on this subject, my sole object being to enter my individual protest against Mrs. Britten's untruthful statements, which are as uncharitable and spiteful as they are unjustifiable."

Of course I cannot endorse these remarks, because I know nothing of the matter. But here, mark you, is the fact, that Mrs. Britten's own friends—those who were at first captivated with her charms as a lady lecturer—have so turned round upon her now that they charge her with deliberate falsification. On the first; page of this paper the editor himself, Mr. W. H. Terry, speaks to the same effect. Of the excessive egotism of the lady we had evidence last evening, and we have another specimen here. Mr. Terry says :—"We are but an 'humble' soldier in the ranks of which she calls herself a 'noble' one." Do you not think, friends, it would have been much better if Mrs. Britten had allowed them to call her "a noble" champion, and not to call herself one? (Cheers.) Mr. Terry says :—"We cannot but deplore the evident animus shown by Mrs. Britten against a body of ladies and gentlemen who have worked earnestly, disinterestedly, and hitherto harmoniously, for the advancement of Spiritualism. It is a painful task for us to condemn the utterances of one for whom, as a public speaker and teacher of the truths of Spiritualism, we have the highest respect, but if either from personal or external inspiration her lips speak falsehood, it is incumbent upon us to do our part in correcting page 10 it . . . . . It is with this view alone we have written."

Here is one speaking with an entire knowledge of the matter, and he points out what, in his judgment, he considers the "untruthful statements" the lady has made. I will pass this by now, merely adding this, that when a person's opponents call him untruthful, there is room for supposing that there may be a misunderstanding, and that whilst even his friends may say that he is untruthful, it is not always true, yet there is a far greater appearance of truth in the charge than when it comes from one's enemies. It certainly ill becomes a lady, whose own friends charge her with deliberate falsification in saying what she knew to be false, to make charges of that kind against an individual against whom it is utterly impossible to prove them. (Cheers.)

Mrs. Britten says that I have nick-named the Spiritualists, "Spiritists." I am tempted to ask if I may not, in all fairness, use of her the language she applied to me—that she must have been saying what she knew not to be the fact, or that she shows herself to be ignorant of the matter in question—because if she will take Allan Kardec's book to which she has referred, she will find that he does not take the name of Spiritist exclusively, but that the two terms are used by him interchangeably. I could give you page after page wherein that appears : on pages four and five of his introduction in particular; and there is the clearest evidence in other instances. "Spiritism" is the more correct term to apply to a system that affirms that disembodied spirits come back and have intercourse with human beings here. Why should they take what is more especially a Bible term and apply it to this debasing system, and thus rob us of a purely Biblical word?

You are aware that Mrs. Britten said that "Mr. Green slandered in generalities merely; that he has not dared to breathe it openly by giving special cases." You remember how, on last night, she again asked me to give special cases. The lady may possibly in the first instance have been under a misapprehension when she urged me to give special cases. Had she been at either of my lectures, page 11 or had she been correctly informed of what I said, she would have known that I had avoided personalities, and had simply given general statements culled from Spiritist writers, in order to present a fair representation of the system out of the mouths of its own advocates, and I stated that I considered it was neither right nor gentlemanly on my part to give personal cases—sufficiently personal to injure anyone in his worldly circumstances. (Applause.) Therefore, it was because of this, and because I wished to keep out of my lectures everything which might be regarded as offensive or personal that I did not give any such special cases. Now, let me ask why Mrs. Britten should so strongly urge me to give special cases? I may tell you—while I do not wish to be uncharitable—that I fear the lady had an ulterior design. She is of a litigious disposition. Whilst I was residing in Melbourne, I took the liberty of criticising the report of one of her lectures which appeared in the Melbourne Age. I pointed out that her statements with regard to Christianity—its effects and what it is intended to accomplish—were altogether wide of the truth. Our correspondence appeared to have ended, when a Mr. Oliver took up the matter, and became Mrs. Britten's champion. The lecture which I criticised, was one that she professed was purely improvised; that it was an inspirational lecture upon a theme selected by the audience. In his letter, Mr. Oliver admitted that he was the writer of the subject of the lecture. In my reply I said that Mr. Oliver's admission would give countenance to the impression, which some persons had taken, that all these subjects of lectures and questions, which were presented to Mrs. Britten, were presented by her friends." That was all that I said. Should any doubt my statement, their doubts may be removed by consulting the files of the Melbourne Age of June, 1878, where what I am now about to read will also be found. I would observe that I spoke of it as an "impression." Certainly that is a very mild charge. Now see what Mrs. Britten said in the very next issue of the Age, the 27th of June, 1878 :—"In your issue of this morning, Mr. Green says : His (Mr. Oliver's) admission that he was the writer of page 12 Mrs. Britten's subject, will confirm the impression which some have taken that all the subjects suggested and questions offered are emanations from Mrs. Britten's friends.' This is only an insinuation, it is true, but it is one which, if repeated, will oblige me to make Mr. Green prove, or retract, his words, in Public Prosecution, and teach him how well it becomes a Christian minister to slander his neighbours, and promulgate deliberate falsehoods." With the recollection of this, I say that there was the conviction in my mind, when Mrs. Britten was so persistently urging me to give special cases, that she was seeking to lay a trap for me. I know quite well what is the law of the land, and as a Christian I hold that I am bound to be a law-abider. Even although I am able to make statement after statement, if the law says : "If you say anything that may injure a man's position—no matter how true it is—it is libel, and you are punishable," as a Christian I am bound to submit to that law. Nothing but an imperative sense of duty to God would justify any Christian in violating any law of the government under which he lives. It was because I am a law-abider, and because I saw the trap laid for what was supposed to be an unsuspecting victim, that I declined to fall into it. (Laughter and applause.)

Mrs. Britten said that her task was not a very pleasant one. I can very well believe it. I am certain of this; it is quite a new role from that which she has been in the habit of undertaking. Christians have been far too quiet (applause), as Mrs. Britten seemed to realise when she said that the ministers had not taken notice of this matter. It is something new to have the war carried right into her own camp. Would to God the ministers did it oftener. (Loud cheers.) But passing by these personal matters, I may say that of her lecture the only portion, so far as I am able to judge, that could possibly be called argument, was that when she endeavoured to destroy the reliability of the authorities I had cited during my lectures. She, by the fact that she did not attempt to refute any of the testimonies presented, admitted that I had dealt fairly with these testimonies. Her only effort was to prove that those persons whose authority I had cited were not persons page 13 representing Spiritualism. In connection with this matter, I wish to remark that the course which I have pursued in taking my arguments from the Spiritualists themselves, has attained the object with which I began these lectures, which was simply from Spiritist writings themselves to enable the public of Dunedin to understand what this system is. Now I shall take her criticism upon these authors, and if I do not show that her remarks in reference to them are utterly unreliable, I shall willingly consent to be adjudged to have failed in this lecture.

First, with regard to Judge Edmonds, from whose volumes I have quoted in my previous lectures, she affirmed with great emphasis and positiveness, that Judge Edmonds regretted that he had published them; and that he had recanted his statements that they were actually spirit revelations. Now, I dare not say that the lady has told "deliberate untruths," but I will say that that statement itself is positively untrue. (Some expressions of disapproval from the body of the hall.) I will also say that there is reason to believe that she stated what she knew to be untrue. (More dissent.) I see that my arguments are telling; our friends cannot bear to hear them. (Loud cheers.) My lecture will be published, and if I have made any statements which can be rebutted, the public of Dunedin will be able to judge me. Now, with regard to that recantation of Judge Edmonds, I challenge Mrs. Britten to produce it. (Cheers.) I repeat, that I challeng her to produce it. In this work, which has been published since his death—a later edition of his letters and tracts, published by J. Burns—at page 163 there is this statement by the Judge himself in reference to the spirit revelations. He says :—"Next I beheld spirit scenes, which I was told were the actual living realities of the spirit world; scenes in which individuals and members were moving, acting, thinking, as we do in this life, and conveying to me a vivid idea of life in the next stage of existence. During all these steps of progress, I could converse with the spirits whom I saw, as easily as I could talk with any living mortal, and I held discussions and arguments with them as I have with mortals." In addition to this, in the page 14 preface to this work, written after his death, but in the same year—1874—there is such a declaration as warrants me in affirming that that book goes forth declaring that Judge Edmonds's first, as well as his second volume, has never been recanted by him. (Cheers.) Not only so, but I may mention that in the Medium and Daybreak, which I have here, and which I would read had I time to do so, there are long statements in numbers of that paper for this present year, month after month, exactly similar to those in Judge Edmonds's volumes, coming from a spirit named Herbert, who is said to have made periodical visits to the lower world. His descriptions exactly tally with those of Judge Edmonds; but whether they are borrowed from him or not I cannot say. But I have to bring this matter even a little closer home to Mrs. Britten. She delivered in Melbourne, in the month of June of last year, a lecture in reply to the strictures of the Melbourne Daily Telegraph. She entitled that lecture, "Spiritualism : Is it a savage superstition." Now, let us see how she has advanced in her statement of last night from that made by her in that lecture. She says: The visions of Judge Edmonds, like those of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, and other famous vision-seers of olden time, may or may not be purely allegorical, or absolutely real." p. 22. It "may or may not" be so; thus, for at least four years after Judge Edmonds's death, she was ignorant of any recantation. Then, further on, she says : "As we don't believe Ezekiel's 'wheels' and 'living creatures,' Daniel's 'man of metals and clay,' or John's 'Apocalyptic serpents, scarlet women, black and white horses,' &c., &c., have any actual existence in heaven, so it is quite possible . . . Judge Edmonds's wanderings in the spheres may be representations of just such scenes as we behold nightly in our dreams." It is still "may be," you see. Then, further down the page, she says :—"Making all allowance, then, for the possibility that the visions of Judge Edmonds may have been allegorical representations of the spirit world only, our next question is—What do the returning spirits of humanity tell us of the soul's condition hereafter." For "the possibility," mark you. Now, I think page 15 taking the statements of this lecture altogether, that I am justified in inferring, that last year, when she delivered this lecture in Bourke street, Melbourne, she knew that Judge Edmonds had not made any such recantation; and that therefore, there is reason to believe that last night she made a statement for which she knew she had not any foundation in fact. (Cheers.) So much, then, for Judge Edmonds.

I now pass on to Allan Kardec. She said that though Kardec taught the theory of re-incarnation, few persons—that is few Spiritualists—believed in that theory. Let me ask you this question: Suppose that there are very few who believe in Kardec's theory—suppose I say it were so—yet you are told that Allan Kardec's spirits are the most august you can imagine: John the Evangelist, St. Augustine, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Louis, Socrates, Plato, Fénélon, Franklin, Swedenborg, and the Spirit of Truth—surely the Spirit of Truth cannot lie. (Much laughter.) Therefore, if re-incarnation be taught by them, it is just as likely to be true as anything taught by spirits through any other person. Now, in his work, Kardec only professes to give the statements of the spirits; and these spirits, with one consent, declare that re-incarnation is a fact. I would ask you : Is not the testimony of the spirits who communicate this fact, quite as worthy of receiving credence as that spirit, which Mrs. Britten says revealed to her her ten commandments. (Laughter.) What makes that spirit more credible than those august spirits, who take the names I have just mentioned? Let me say, further, that Mrs. Britten suppressed part of the truth. I showed in my lectures that not alone in France, where this doctrine of Kardec was principally taught, but in America and in England these things were also held. If I had time I could give you many quotations to show this, culled from "Flashes of Light from the Spirit-Land," which contains communications given through the mediumship of Mrs, Conant, whose name is of equal power and eminence among the Spiritualists of America as is that of Mrs. Britten. On page 71 of "Flashes of Light" this answer is given by the spirits in regard to the question of re-incarnation :—"That the page 16 spirit will return to earth again and become re-incarnated in a human body there is much evidence; indeed, all that we have been able to gain is largely in its favour." Then again, on pages 78 and 79, in reply to another question, they return this answer :—"In one sense it (the spirit) does enter other bodies and acts through other bodies than the human . . . . . .The ancients grappled with a very great truth in their theory of the transmigration of souls. They intuitively perceived the power of the soul over all matter, and perceiving its power, they very naturally were led to conclude that it would use the power, and therefore become incarnated in other forms than the human." Another spirit, on page 294 of the same work, says :—"Judging from the experience of others, predicating our faith upon their experience, we are as sure of it (re-incarnation) as we are of our immortality." So that you see the American spirits, as well as these spirits which Kardec mentions, declare that they were as certain of this re-incarnation as of their own immortality. Then in the Medium and Daybreak of November 15, 1872, the spirit of a Dr. Forbes, speaking through a lady medium, says :—"Re-incarnation, while it is a phenomenal fact, is an economical absurdity." Another spirit, speaking in the same paper, says :—"The elevation of the spirit would have been better accomplished by its surrendering itself to the operation of the elevating forces of the spirit spheres, ana thus re-incarnation, while a phenomenal fact, is an economical absurdity." Thus much for Allan Kardec. You will see that both the American and the English spirits agree with him; and that they are spirits who take very eminent names. I wish now to ask you this question : If Mrs. Britten tells us that her ten commandments and ten laws of right are given through the inspiration of a spirit—and we have heard her say that they are of such weight because they were so communicated to her—why not accord to these statements of Allan Kardec equal weight, when the spirits communicated them to him. (Cheers.)

Passing by Kardec and coming now to A. J. Davis; when I heard Mrs. Britten say that the latter was not a page 17 Spiritualist, I was simply astounded at the lady's boldness in making such an affirmation. If any disinterested person will only read two of his smaller works, the "Penetralia," and "The Philosophy of Spirit Intercourse," and rises from their perusal with the impression that Davis denounces Spiritualism, or that he says he is not a Spiritualist, or that he does not claim to be a Spiritualist, or that he does not agree with the generality of Spiritualists, then I will consent to forfeit my reputation for accuracy as a speaker. (Cheers.) "With regard to this matter, the only possible colour for this affirmation of Mrs. Britten is this : that following out logically the statements of immense numbers of spirits, he denies that there is any such thing as evil in the world, calling sin simply misdirection, or undeveloped good, and as a consequence of this view, he denies the existence of evil spirits, affirming that it is possible to harmonise all their apparently conflicting and contradictory teachings. His system to harmonise these he calls the "Harmonial Philosophy." He believes in the power of the spirits to communicate, and seeks for their communications as earnestly as Mrs. Britten; how then can it be said of him that he is not a Spiritualist? One thing is very clear : that the four points which Mrs. Britten says make a man a Spiritualist take in not only A. J. Davis, but an immense number of others. If they do not, I have not yet seen wherein he differs from them. (Applause.) Now last year, when I was debating with Mr. Walker, in Melbourne, he claimed that he himself was not debating, but a spirit through him; and this spirit debating through him claimed A. J. Davis as one of the most prominent leaders in the Spiritualistic ranks. (Cheers.) Not only so, but in the number of the Harbinger of Light for May of the present year, is a letter from Mr. Tyerman—a gentleman who was formerly a minister of the United Methodist Free Church at Christchurch, in this Colony—then went to Melbourne and there labored first as a Congregationalist minister, and afterwards as a Church of England lay-reader, and subsequently adopting the principles of Spiritualism. Having made the tour of America and England, in a letter dated March 30th, 1879, in page 18 speaking of the persons he had met with, he says :—"In New York I had a pleasant interview with Andrew Jackson Davis, Professor S.B. Brittan, Professor Buchanan, and other distinguished Spiritualists." Would you not understand by that statement that A. J. Davis was regarded as a "distinguished Spiritualist?" But I have even more conclusive testimony than this. In the Medium and Daybreak for May 3rd, 1878, there is an article entitled "Spiritual Organisation," and under the special heading of "Organisation of Spiritualists," we have this :—"Where can there be found a more perfect organisation than that which enabled Andrew Jackson Davis to give to the world his library of Spiritual Philosophy to which all the committees, conventions, and parties, with their artificial efforts have never been able to add a single idea?" Now, mark that, neither Mrs. Britten nor all the leaders in the ranks of the Spiritualists have been able to add a single idea to the library of "Spiritual Philosophy" that has emanated from the brain of A. J. Davis. And this is a leading spiritualistic paper in England that makes this affirmation, and yet Mrs. Britten in the face of this declares that A. J. Davis is not a Spiritualist! Hear how the writer in this paper further speaks of Mr. Davis :—"That most marked of all organizations in connection with our cause, consisted of the organic structure of A. J. Davis, aided in its functions by the surroundings given off by two or three select friends." Thus, the most marked organization connected with "our cause" is that of A. J. Davis. Now, what cause is hero meant? Certainly that of Spiritualism with which this writer so emphatically identifies Mr. Davis. This article goes on further in its eulogy, but I have not time to read it. That Mr. Davis is a representative man among Spiritualists is clear from this statement—that there is not one, of all the Spiritualists besides, who has been able to add one idea to his teachings of the "Spiritual Philosophy." In the estimation of this writer, there can be no danger of A. J. Davis losing his laurels; but in the face of the evidence presented, what can be thought of the statement of Mrs. Britten that Davis is not a Spiritualist?

I next pass on to consider "Flashes of Light," which I page 19 have quoted from. Mrs. Britten casts a slur on that work also. I should remark that the "Flashes of Light" is a re-publication from the Banner of Light, one of the leading publications of the Spiritualists in America. I may tell you also that these communications come through a Mrs. Conant; that it was by the direct requirement of the spirits that this book was issued; and that its compiler, Allan Putnam was specially selected by the spirits for the purpose of sending this book out into the world. Now, if the spirits selected Mrs. Britten to give those ten commandments and ten laws of right, might not the spirits have equally well selected A. Putnam to be the one to select from The Banner of Light these quotations, and to send them forth to the world? Yet she endeavours to cast a slur on them. Now, I have acted rather a strange part in those lectures. I have actually been using books that I have borrowed from the Spiritualists themselves (laughter)—books that have been kindly loaned to me by them—thus turning their own artillery upon themselves, and preventing the statement that these works are obsolete and of no authority. I told the gentleman from whom I borrowed the books for what purpose I required them, and they were most cheerfully lent. Now, these works form part of the current and standard literature of Spiritism of the present day, and I am astonished that Mrs. Britten should attempt to ignore them as though of no weight. From the manner in which Mrs. Britten puts herself forward—a manner which I cannot help thinking ill becomes a lady—one would suppose that she considers herself the highest and the only embodiment of spiritualistic literature and teaching. But I pass this by.

We come now to J. M. Spear, author of "The Educator," and Moses Hull. "John M. Spear," she says, "was a Universalist minister, whose tendencies, even while a minister, were towards Freelove; that he was rebuked by his people, and afterwards became a Spiritualist; but that he found no sympathy with his views, and was denounced by Mr. Partridge in the Spiritual Telegraphy With regard to this man I may say now, what I said last night, that the fact of his being a Freelover—taking for page 20 the moment Mrs. Britten's statement to be true of his being rebuked and rejected by his congregation, and of his finding an affinity to his own views amongst the Spiritualists—speak against rather than for Spiritism. I wish to say hero that I am not prepared to accept the statement of Mrs. Britten as to J. M. Spear, that he was a Freelover and had been rebuked by his congregation at the time he joined the Spritualistic ranks. I cannot believe without evidence, and I ask Mrs Britten for evidence of the truth of her statement as to Spear. In my lecture, I gave evidence for every statement I made. My experience is, that Christians are not the credulous persons that Freethinkers and Spiritualists so often represent them; that the credulity is really on the opposite side. For my own part, I. cannot believe without evidence, and I ask the lady for the proof of this statement she has made. Mrs. Britten indulges far too much in generalities. She seems utterly unable to give the page, number, or year of the paper that would establish her position. But she says that this man was denounced in the Spiritual Telegraph. I will give you a specimen of the denunciation that this man received in this paper, which was so highly eulogised. Let me ask your indulgence while I read this extract. This man, while occupying a most prominent position among Spiritists was guilty of a great moral wrong, and became the father of an illegitimate child. A few persons denounced his conduct, and were thus guilty of what A. J. Davis calls "moral atheism," of which he was determined not to be guilty. But while a few denounced the conduct of this man, he found many defenders, among whom was a Mr. Stearling, who wrote two articles to the highly eulogised Spiritual Telegraph in his defence, and in one of which the following choice writing occurs :—"Suppose, then, Miss H. has become a mother. Does that fact warrant you in calling Mr. Spear a libertine or debauchee? May he not, after all, have acted in this affair in perfect consistency with all his past life, a pure, good man? Again, does this fact of Miss H.'s maternity necessarily imply wrong or corruption in the movement? She desired to be the mother of a child, but she was not willing to become a page 21 legal wife, in which relation she might he compelled, not only to give birth to unwelcome children, but also to yield her body to the gratification of unhallowed passion. Now, sir, will you, believing this, condemn such conduct. I cannot, will not! I deem it a matter with her own soul, and the one she loved, and her God, with whom she is at peace. The smiles of Heaven have been upon her; her religious nature has been greatly blessed; her spiritual vision has been unfolded; and her prospects of health and happiness, and especially of usefulness to her race, greatly augmented, and she feels to bless God that strength and courage have been given her to walk thus calmly, deliberately, and peacefully, in a path ignored by a corrupt and inappreciative world." That is the kind of denunciation that J. M. Spear received in the Spiritual Telegraph, which Mrs. Britten so eulogised last night. And as to Miss H., listen to her bold and impudent effrontery, as she speaks for herself, in the same paper :—"I will exercise that dearest of all rights, the holiest and most sacred of all Heaven's gifts—the right of maternity—in the way which to me seemeth right; and no men or set of men, no church, no state, shall with old me from the realisation of that purest of all inspirations inherent in every true woman, the right to re-beget myself when, and by whom, and under such circumstances, as to me seems fit and best." Ladies and gentlemen, kindly pardon my reading to you such disgusting matter as that. I do so under protest, and in order that you may judge of the reliance to be placed upon the statement as to Spear being denounced.

I now come to Moses Hull. Mrs. Britten affirmed that he was another minister, was a freelover, and was universally denounced when he became a Spiritualist. Now, I have simply to affirm to-night, that Mrs. Britten, in stating what she did, made a statement which, with the utmost stretch of charity I can possibly use, I must say she could not but have known was incorrect—the statement is utterly devoid of truth, for he never was denounced when he became a Spiritualist.

Dr. Britten : He was denounced.

Mr. Green : Will Dr. Britten tell me when? (Inter- page 22 ruption.) Pray be calm, friends. The interruption does not disturb me, because I have a full reply on this point. I am not speaking of what I do not know. (Loud cheers.) I again ask when Moses Hull was denounced? (Interruption.) Ladies and gentlemen, a great deal has yet to be said; therefore do not let your attention be taken away from the subject. You well remember that when Mrs. Britten made that statement last night, I asked her for the paper in which Moses Hull was denounced. She replied : "The Religio-Philosophical Journal." I then asked : "What number and what year?" She replied : "I don't know." You also heard her chairman—Mr. Stout, say: "I can give you the papers—The Religio-Philosophical Journal—in which Moses Hull was denounced." I knew that the chairman was stating what was really—well I will put it very mildly, and say that I believe he placed himself in a false position. (Cheers.) Mrs. Britten affirmed that when Moses Hull came to be a Spiritualist, he was denounced. Mr. Stout knew that he had seen denunciations of Moses Hull some two or three years ago; and therefore it was that he said "I have the papers." Now I knew very well that they could not prove that Moses Hull had been denounced when he joined the Spiritualists, because he was a good man at that time. I have here on this table the testimony of one who knew him well—that he was a good man. From fifteen to twenty years he has been a Spiritualist; and was a Freelover more than ten years ago, but you cannot find any denunciation of him prior to five or six years ago. Then the Woodhull Scandal, with which he was so greatly concerned, came out, and the Spiritualists, because of the blackness of the thing, were compelled to denounce him as a matter of policy. That was when he was denounced, and I say that Spiritualism has made Moses Hull a Freelover and a villain. (Loud cheers.) I may tell you that I went to Mr Stout's early this morning, because I believe in looking into matters fully, and Mr. Stout had to admit that he I had not the papers. (Loud cheers.) He said that he thought Mr. Logan could show them to me, and he gave me a letter to Mr. Logan. I asked Mr. Logan for them, but he could not put his fingers page 23 on them, but he promised to let me have them if he could. I received this evening a letter from Mr. Stout, containing a number of references to the papers, but not the papers themselves. Nor have I yet received those papers in which Moses Hull is said to have been denounced. In this note, Sir. Stout makes the admission, that this denunciation took place in 1873, and as this was quite ten years after Hull became a Spiritist, Mr. Stout withdraws from a false positon, into which he had rushed with a want of caution not usually characteristic of his profession. Thus, away to the winds, or like the morning mists before the rising sun, go all the statements about Moses Hull having been denounced. (Cheers.) Let me give you a statement of his character by one who knew him well. When persons leave one society of religionists to unite with another it is too often the case that disparaging remarks are made as to the character or ability of the person leaving. When the opposite is the case, it may be regarded as an evidence of a conscientious regard for truth, and as being a high testimony to the character of the person commended. Elder W. H. Waggoner, who was a minister of the same church with which Hull was formerly connected, thus speaks of him :—"There is one name we must mention in this connection, and we do it with especial regret. It is that of Moses Hull. Having associated with him on fraternal terms, having loved him as a brother, and esteemed him as a Christian, we can but lament the course he has pursued and the position he occupies. Eccentric and impulsive, he needs the restraining influences of Christianity to be useful to society. We have intimately known him when he believed the Bible, and loved and defended its truths; then he highly honored and appreciated the institution of marriage. But he embraced Spiritualism, and where is he now? Let his own words answer." Then follows a quotation from his book. This is the testimony of one who intimately knew Moses Hull. In the face of what I have said, and of this testimony, I have again to ask for the production on the part of Mrs. Britten of the evidence against Moses Hull. (Cheers.)

Then there is the testimony of Dr. A. B. Child, whom page 24 she represented as a "kind, good-natured optimist," but whom she described as of no weight as a representative Spiritualist. It is a singular thing that Mrs. Britten should have so well learned the art of the lawyer : "If you have no case, of course abuse the opposite side." If you can only pull to pieces a man's character, or show that he is of no weight, you have done all that you need to invalidate his testimony. Individually I know nothing of A. B. Child, and many other writers upon Spiritualism. If Mrs. Britten pulls her own people to pieces, it is not for me to bolster them up. I have here a quotation in reference to Dr Child, and a commendation of a work he had recently published, and which I will now read to you. It is from a paper by Moses Hull, the Monthly Clarion, of which he was editor in 1866, when he was a very "light" amongst the Spiritualists, and, so far from being denounced, was highly honoured, and accepted universally amongst them as a talented lecturer and debater. In speaking of Dr. Child's work, "Christ and the People," he says :—"Everybody knows that Dr. Child never speaks without saying something worth hearing. In this book he has thrown out some of his best thoughts." In the Banner of Light—one of the most important Spiritist papers in the United States—there is an office advertisement, in which the editor gives his opinion of this work of Dr. Child's, in which not only Freelove-ism, but many other enormities are inculcated. The commendation runs thus :—"This book should find its way to every family. . . . Its liberality reaches the very shores of infinity. It is born of Spiritualism, and reaches for the manhood of Christ. It is the most fearless presentation of the folly of the present moral and religious systems of the land of any book yet written. It is free from fault-finding; but its truthful descriptions of self-conceived goodness everywhere, in morals and religion, are withering. Through sacrifice and sin it shows the open gate of heaven for every human being." Now it would be difficult to conceive of higher eulogy than this. This book is said to be free from fault-finding, but for what could fault be found, seeing that every person has liberty to do [unclear: just] what page 25 seems right in his own eyes? But I would ask what weight can be placed upon Mrs. Britten's depreciation of Dr. Child, when not only the Monthly Clarion, but the Banner of Light—the leading Spiritualist newspaper of America—speak of him and his book in such eulogistic language? Surely, under such sponsorship, his teachings are as truly representative of Spiritualism as those of Mrs. Britten. (Cheers.) Let us hear a little of Spiritualistic teaching as found in this highly-commended book. On page 27 he says :—"The present laws of marriage, that now give birth to regrets and sorrows unnumbered, to prostitution, with its long train of curses and agonies, will be abandoned for a holier, purer, diviner revelation, that will ere long be given to the people." Thus marriage is to be laid aside, its necessary restraints are to be broken down, and something which is here called "holier and purer," but which is really license, is to take its place. On pages 28 and 29 Dr. Child says :—"A religion more spiritual will be discovered and acknowledged . . . . a religion without written laws, without commandments, without creeds"—thus leaving every man to make his own law, and without any restraint, save that which the strong arm of the law affords, to do just what may be pleasing in his own sight. Is this not the very essence of lawlessness. (Cheers.) But he proceeds :—"A religion too sacred to be spoken, too pure to be defiled, too generous to be judged, resting upon no uncertain outside standard of rectitude, upon no dogma of another, no purity of earthly life, no glory of earthly perfection—a religion that every soul possesses by natural endowment—not one more than another This religion is simply desire." Now, what kind of religion must that be that is "too sacred to be spoken, too pure to be defiled, and too generous to be judged?" Must it not be a religion the very mention of which would pollute the soul? How can it be "too pure to be defiled," unless it is so impure in its nature that impurity can sink no lower? Too sacred to be spoken! Is anything too sacred to be spoken that is of a pure kind? Is not the full meaning of such language clearly apparent? The religion of desire is the doing of that which our own heart prompts, no matter page 26 how evil in itself. The religion of desire may well be described in the language I have quoted, for were it "spoken," its language would fill the world with foulness and pollute the very air. (Cheers.) Such is a part of the language of Dr. Child, and he as fairly represents the true nature of Spiritism as does Mrs. Britten.

I have taken all those authors that Mrs. Britten examined. Seven of those I quoted from she has examined, but the others she has passed by. I have shown you what weight there is to be placed upon her statements. And in so doing, and in establishing the credibility of my authorities, I have really overturned all her arguments. There is not another particle of argument in her lecture on which she can stand, because having proved the reliability of my authorities; seeing that she did not call in question the statements that I had quoted from them, my position is thus so much more firmly established as to be absolutely invulnerable against all the assaults that she or her friends may make against it.

"Why?" asked Mrs. Britten, "did Mr. Green not quote from Adin Ballou, Lizzie Doten, the pure and noble-minded William and Mary Howitt," &c., &c., &c. I may remark that Adin Ballou is one of the most excellent of the Spiritualists; one of those men who would no more go the lengths that Mrs. Britten does, than be guilty of grave crime, and because of this he is not held in high estimation by many Spiritists. In one of the works I have on this table, Warren Chase, one of the most smooth and insinuating advocates of Spiritism, speaks of him in sneering and scornful language. He says :—"He goes as far as the creed he has set up will allow, but dare not step one point over. He is not like a convict, with ball and chain, but like a martyr, tied to a stake, from which he cannot escape." "Life Line, p. 217." While he has no good word for the conscientious Ballou, Chase speaks in the most glowing terms of the adulterer J. M. Spear, whom he represents as "highly eccentric, and devotedly honest and philanthropic of all mediums," speaks of being greatly pleased with, and strongly attracted to him, and as receiving through him certain highly prized communications. page 27 In the estimation of the great bulk of American Spiritualists, Warren Chase, John M. Spear, and men of this class, are far more highly thought of than such as Ballou, who, while believing in Spirit Communion, will not countenance the excesses to which many of them go. Ballou, therefore, as a representative of what Spiritism really is, does not rank so high as many of those from whom I have quoted. In regard to Lizzie Doten I may say that she is another very characteristic representative of Spiritualism. I have here an invocation which she uttered before a Boston audience prior to one of her so-called inspirational addresses, and which is reported in the Banner of Light of December 21, 1861. She uttered it in the Lyceum Hall, Boston, on December 8, 1861. You will remember that Mrs. Britten stated last evening that the Spiritualists, prior to their addresses, invoked the Deity in as pious and reverent language as any ministers did. Now, I would ask, What kind of Deity do they invoke? Possibly they may invoke a Deity if the Devil be one. Now this Lizzie Doten, whom Mrs. Britten has cited, invokes the Devil! I will read to you her invocation; and mark you, it is no caricature. It was uttered as a solemn invocation, prior to her address in the Lyceum Hall :—"O Lucifer, thou son of the morning, who fell from thy high estate, and whom mortals are prone to call the embodiment of evil, we lift our voices unto thee! We know that thou canst not harm us unless by the will of the Almighty, of whom thou art a part and portion, and in whose economy thou playest thy part, and we cannot presume to sit in judgment over Deity! Prom the depths of thine infamy streams forth the divine truth! Why should we turn from thee? Does not the same inspiration rule us all? Is one, in God's sight, better than another?" You will perceive that she does not claim to be better than the Devil, (Roars of Laughter.) Friends, when I think of the folly of these persons, I cannot help smiling myself, though from my heart I pity them. But you will please to remember, to borrow Mrs. Britten's own phrase, that "they are not my words, but those of Lizzie Doten." (More laughter.) She continues, "We know thou art yet to came up in His expanded creation, purified page 28 by the influence of God's love, for His love is not perfected while one of His children withers in misery. So, O Lucifer! do we come up and stand before the throne of the Ancient of Days, hand in hand with thee! As thou hast been the star of the morning, thou wilt become again an angel of light. O Satan, we will subdue thee by our love, and thou wilt kneel humbly with us at the throne of God!" So much for this lady to whom Mrs. Britten has referred us.

Now with regard to William and Mary Howitt. Let me tell you that William Howitt is a believer, not in Mrs. Britten, but in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the divine Son of God; and is a believer in His atonement for man's sins. In the Christian World newspaper of last year was a letter in which William Howitt denounces the great majority of the Spiritualists of England, because of their outrage upon Christianity, and their general infidel tendencies; and severed his connection entirely with that class of Spiritualists who take up the same position as Mrs. Britten. Do you suppose that William Howitt, who, with his wife, is called by Mrs. Britten "the noble and pure minded," think as does Mrs. Britten? Nothing of the kind. He was as much opposed to Mrs. Britten as I am, and would have denounced her as strongly. (Cheers.) Not only so, but in the Medium and Daybreak for May 7, 1878, is a long letter, which I am sorry I have not time to read to you, wherein he has rebutted the statements of certain Spiritualists who said that he had not protested against these matters at the time when they were first apparent, and he again declares his entire severance from that class.

Now, let me say that I quoted from no less than 34 authorsd uring my four lectures, and Mrs. Britten has only noticed seven of them; so that there remains the balance of that number—27—which she has not touched. Is not 34 a fair number of authors to quote in four lcetures? (Applause.) You will find them all given in the published report of the lectures, and I may remark that it is not a long string of names repeated simply to catch the ear, but from whom substantial citations were given. In addition to those she has named, I quoted from, Joel Tiffany, J. L. page 29 Morse, Dr. Gridley, Dr. Potter, Dr. Hare, Dr. Randolph, Dr. Hatch, Hudson Tuttle, T. L. Harris, Dr. R. J. Halleck, H. J. Browne, Mr. Woodman, A. P. Coombes, Wheeler, Perry, McDonald, J. H. Whitney of the New York Pathfinder, Medium and Daybreak, Spiritual Magazine, Religio-Philosophical Journal, Herald of Progress, Harbinger of Light, Healing of the Nations, Age of Freedom, Kingdom of Heaven, Banner of Light, Spiritual Telegraph, &c., and from Mrs. Britten herself. But of all these she takes not the slightest notice, but cries out, "Why did Mr. Green not quote from me." (Laughter.) "Why did he not quote my 'Facts and Frauds.'" (More laughter.) If she had made me a present of her work, I would gladly have done so, and thus have shown more fully how her admissions often damage her cause. (Laughter.) But let me just say this to the lady's friends, that I do not think that Spiritualists generally will justify Mrs. Britten in her assumption of being the very embodiment of all Spiritualistic excellence and teaching in her own person. I was very sorry to see the egotism she manifested in sounding her own praises so loudly in her lecture. Persons listening to her would imagine that she considered the whole Spiritualistic fabric rested upon her shoulders, and that she was its high priestess. Her statement as to her ten commandments and her laws of right having been translated into so many languages, and framed and hung up in the chambers of so many great personages, was especially distressing, and showed that she ignored the wise saying, "Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth." Whatever other graces may adorn the lady's character, that of humility is most evidently absent. (Cheers.)

Let me now notice the lady's review of my lectures, although, having replied to her criticisms upon the authors I have cited, this might be regarded as a work of supererogation.

In reference to my statement that "Spiritism is unworthy of confidence," and that it is impossible to identify [the spirits, Mrs. Britten says that the very existence of Spiritualism gives a blank denial to my statement, and that millions have identified the spirits to their page 30 own satisfaction. In reply to this, I have but to refer her to an authority whom she most highly eulogised last evening, and who declares that it is impossible to identify the spirits. Mr. Partridge, in the Spiritual Telegraph of June 11, 1857, says "that spirits unquestionably can, and often do personate other spirits, and that, too, often with such perfection as, for the time being, To Defy Every effort to detect the deception."^* In the paragraph from which these sentences are taken he so fully admits the impossibility of satisfactorily identifying the spirits that he gravely advises that identification should never be sought, and that the inquirer should be content with the assurance that it is really a spirit that is communicating. The discrepancy between Mrs. Britten and this editor I must leave for them to settle. I have only further to say, that even supposing spirits could be identified, where is the comfort derivable from that fact, seeing that, as I so conclusively showed in my lectures, upon Mrs. Britten's principle that "there is no forgiveness," and "no escape from the penalty of sin, either here or hereafter except by personal atonement," every human being, upon their entrance into the spirit-world, must pass through a period of intense and agonising suffering, as an atonement for wrong-doing here. Mrs. Britten candidly admitted last evening that many of the spirits were deceivers, thus granting my position; for if many of the spirits are deceivers, seeing that this class is the one most anxious to, and most capable of communicating, and bearing in mind the impossibility of identification, the worthlessness and unreliability of Spiritism is at once demonstrated.

In regard to my second lecture, in which I affirmed that Spiritism is opposed to all law, and is destructive of the distinction between right and wrong, and consequently of morality also, Mrs. Britten asked—what all these laws are? and she proceeded to enunciate four points of agreement which she affirmed constituted a Spiritualist.

^* The full quotation may be seen in "The Devil's Sword Blunted," pages 24 and 25.

page 31 But what are these four points? Simply four bare walls which would admit within their circumference characters of every imaginable kind. But. Mrs. Britten again makes a fatal admission when she says that Spiritism "has no creed, no rules, no authoritative teaching "; for if there are no rules, and no authority, then what is this but that every one is left to do just what seems good in their own eyes, and when a principle of this kind is enunciated, thoughtful persons well know what will be the result. By its denial of a superior being to whom man is responsible, and its affirmation that man is alone his only law and judge, Spiritism does emphatically place itself against all law, both human and divine; and by its denial of the existence of sin, and calling it simply "misdirection" and "undeveloped good," it does unquestionably, as I have most fully shown in the lectures, destroy all distinction between right and wrong.

My statements as to the danger of spirit mediumship in my third lecture appear to have greatly excited Mrs. Britten, and in disproof of my statements, she not only affirms that the opposite is the case, but cites herself as a living proof of her assertion, and also adduces cases where persons have been cured of blindness and other ailments by direct spirit agency. I can only reply to this, that as there are many Spiritists in Dunedin who profess to be in communication with spirits, some of whom claim to be "spirit doctors," that it is a pity they are not sufficiently benevolent to relieve some at least of the many cases of blindness and other infirmities that are so abundant around us. If these spirits claim the power, but have it not, they are impostors; and if they possess it and do not exercise it, they are lacking in that benevolent desire for the welfare of man which they so loudly claim; and in either case are utterly unworthy of notice. As to the dangers of mediumship, I may mention, in addition to the numerous instances cited in my lectures, that on pages 454, and 455 of Mrs. Britten's work, "American and Modern Spiritualism," is a most fearful representation of the horrors and dangers to which voluntary mediums are subject. The medium is there represented as passing through most fearful agonies, and to page 32 have been besmeared with clots and patches of fresh blood. In Dr. Eugene Crowell's work on "Modern Spiritualism," is a case on pages 331, and 333, in which a medium, by direct spirit incitation was led to take an axe, and chop off the head of an inoffensive man while sleeping, against whom he had not the slightest ill-feeling; and on page 334, the Doctor cites a case from a work of Mrs. Britten's in which she speaks of a young girl who was incited to commit the most horrible wickedness by direct spirit influence. As to Mrs. Britten's statement that mediumship does not injure, and her request that I would give twenty special cases in which injury has resulted, I would refer the meeting to the cases given by me in the lectures; and also to the statements made by Dr. Potter, Dr. Randolph, Hudson Tuttle, J. F. Whitney, and others—all of whom were Spiritualists—and who affirm that not twenty cases merely could be cited, but hundreds upon hundreds. I myself have personally known a number of cases in which these results have been present.

In reviewing my fourth lecture, Mrs. Britten charges me with misrepresenting the paragraph I quoted from her book, and with gravely misunderstanding the title of her lecture. I have not time now to defend my quotation, and to show that I have not really misrepresented her, but leave those wishing to further look into the matter to do so. They will find the quotation on page 331 of "Modern American Spiritualism." Supposing, however, that Mrs. Britten had been misunderstood in this, there still remain the numerous quotations given, and which clearly establish the charge that Spiritism is atheistical. Those quotations were given from Spiritists of the greatest eminence, whose words Mrs. Britten has not attempted to question. Hudson Tuttle stands in the front rank of Spiritists, and as the quotations have been given from him and others, the charge cannot be overturned until Spiritualism repudiates the whole of its literature. Of the same character is her review of my statement that "Spiritism is the enemy of marriage, and the forerunner of social and political anarchy." The remark that "Probably to Mr. Green's views the present marriage relations are all perfect," is no page 33 answer to the numerous quotations which I gave showing that Spiritism is the deadly foe of marriage, and would introduce social and political anarchy. As this matter was fully demonstrated in my lectures, I shall not here enlarge upon it further than to say, that Mrs. Britten's own words are the strongest condemnation upon the matter; for she has openly declared, that not only was opposition to the marriage institution, and the advocacy of Freelove-ism associated with Spiritualism over the length and breadth of the United States, but that the Spiritualists were the only sect and the only people who openly taught this abomination of Freelove. While Mrs. Britten's own admission remains, further proof of the truthfulness of my charge is not required In my published lectures, however, further evidence is given in abundance.

I wish now to notice a few points which Mrs. Britten mentioned towards the close of her lecture last night. She spoke of the number of Christians confined in prison, and of there being so few mediums there; that there was only 1 per cent, of mediums to about 80 per cent, of Christians. It is possible she may be under a wrong impression in regard to who are Christians, and may imagine that all those not calling themselves infidels are Christians. Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The only Christian kingdom in existence is the one composed of all those who thoroughly believe in and love the Lord Jesus Christ, and are seeking to do His will. I say that those, and those only, are Christians in the Scriptural sense, and that the title of every other person to the name is altogether an untrue claim. (Cheers.) No matter though Mrs. Britten calls these persons in the gaols by the name of Christians, their title is not that which the Scriptures approve, nor their morality that which they inculcate. With regard to the morality of Spiritualism, if time were not so far advanced I would read you a number of statements from Spiritist writers showing clearly the character of the system, from a moral point of view; but you will find sufficient of them quoted in the published lectures. There is a vast difference between Spiritualism and Christianity in this matter of morality. Suppose every Chris- page 34 tian were vile and wrong in his conduct, his only standard—the Bible—condemns him in the most unmeasured terms, and gives not the slightest countenance to his conduct. It is not according to the professions he may make, but according to his conduct, that the Lord Jesus Christ is his guide and leader. For every crime which so-called Christians may commit, I will show the strongest condemnation in the Bible; but for every crime in the calendar, and for every deed of infamy which a Spiritualist may commit, I will find sanction after sanction from the spirits and from Spiritist writers. I repeat, that whilst Christians are condemned for their wrong-doing in the strongest possible terms, Spiritualists are upheld in theirs; it being declared that they alone are the proper judges of the righteousness of their conduct, and that no one, other than themselves, has the slightest right to judge them, or to say that they have done wrong.

Mrs. Britten said that Christianity has burned alive, slain, and tortured large numbers of its own ranks for questioning the teachings of its priests. I emphatically deny that Christianity has done this, although I am compelled painfully to confess that some taking its name have done it. For three centuries, Christianity won many bloodless victories, save that which was shed by its martyrs in attestation of their faith in Christ. (Applause.) Luring those three hundred years the triumphs of Christianity were greater than at any other time, so that the Pagan temples were closed, the priests left unemployed, and the sacrifices remained in the markets unsold. But when Constantine, seeing the large numbers of the most respectable of his subjects who were Christians, and in order to secure their co-operation, pretended to become a convert to Christianity by a miracle, then external Christianity lost its beauty in its marriage with the State, and from that day to the present, the history of the scarlet lady mentioned in the Revelations has been identified with corruption, and with the persecution of some of the holiest and purest who have ever trodden the earth. (Applause.) To charge this upon Christianity, however, would be to be guilty of a grave error.

Then, further, Mrs. Britten affirmed, that the golden rule of Christianity is acknowledged by many a profound scholar to be a plagiarism from the sacred writings of the Hindoos, and Chinese. I am not a profound scholar, therefore my statement is not of much weight; but I would venture to ask Mrs. Britten,—just as I previously asked her through the public press to give the name of the author upon whose evidence she affirmed that the facts of the Gospel history had been found in rock inscriptions which were known to have existed 2,000 years before the Jesus of the Gospels was born, but which evidence she never gave—will she give me the evidence that the Hindoo and Chinese philosophers did not get their half truths from this very book? for I admit that there are half truths in these ancient writings, but the whole truth is only to be found in the Scriptures. Had there been time, I would like to have presented evidence from Josephus in his argument against Appion, which would clearly show that Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, and others, were all well acquainted with the Jews and their sacred writings, and that they admit that they were greatly indebted for much valuable knowledge to them. Aristotle himself freely admits, that he was far more indebted for knowledge to a Jewish instructor, than the Jew was indebted to him, so that much of that which is accredited to heathen sages may really have a Biblical source. I cheerfully admit, that in some of the early writings there are approaches to the pure moral teaching of the Scriptures; because, the nearer you go to original sources, the more pure is the stream of teaching found to be. If, for example, the Hindoo Vedas are taken, among much that is very simple and childish, you find in them teachings greatly in harmony with scriptural sentiments, and indications of a consciousness of sin and need of pardon, such as are to be found in the Bible itself. This statement, that the golden rule of Christianity as plagiarised from the Hindoo and Chinese writings, and others of similar character, need to be received with great caution, because mere statements are of no weight, and there is far too great a fondness on the part of the opponents of the Bible to indulge in vague generalities. I page 36 had a special instance of this only recently, during my residence in Melbourne. A number of Spiritualistic and Freethought tracts were distributed about the door of the place of worship where I was labouring, in which tracts it was asserted that the Gospel narrative of the life of Christ was a plagiarism of the life of the Hindoo deity, Krishna, who, it was affirmed, among other coincidences with the Gospel narrative, had been crucified between two thieves. The statements of these tracts startled me greatly because they were given forth with such positiveness, and there was such an air of truth about them, seeing that the Bhagavad Gita, which contains the Hindoo history of Krishna's life, was given as the authority for these statements. I spent many hours in the Melbourne Public Library looking through the Hindoo literature, and found that there was no real foundation for the statement made, and that instead of Krishna being crucified, he was shot by a hunter in the heel in mistake for a gazelle. (Loud laughter.) So it is in regard to many of the statements found in infidel writers; when they come to be examined they are found to have no basis in fact.

With Mrs. Britten's remarks as to the book on the Confessional, and which was endorsed by seven hundred ministers of the Church of England, I am not in the slightest degree concerned, and would join Mrs. Britten in the strongest condemnation of the work, as would also multitudes of Christians. Such things are condemned by Christianity in a far stronger manner than Mrs. Britten's words would condemn them, and they belong, not to the religion of Jesus, but to Papal Rome. I take my stand simply upon the Word of God, without any creeds or additions made by men. However excellent a creed may be, whether it be the Westminster, the Augsburg, or any other, it is an unnecessary thing, and too often proves an obstacle in the way of the advancement of truth. Not until Christians throw aside their creeds utterly, and stand by the Bible alone, without any of the additions of men, shall we have that power in the defence of truth, which truly belongs to Christianity. And if the prevailing unbelief, and the consequent need of true union in order page 37 to the defence of the truth, should lead to this closer clinging to the simple and pure records of the the religion of Jesus, then will a great service have been rendered to the whole Christian world by what at first seemed to be only a calamity.

As my previous lectures will be obtainable in pamphlet form, and contain so much corroborative evidence of the statements I have made, and as the time is so far advanced, I think it will be wise of me not to trespass further on your attention now, except to notice one thing. You heard Mrs. Britten say last night that there could be "no forgiveness," and that every person must render "personal atonement' for all sins committed. Now, atonement to whom? 'Is it to the person to whom the wrong has been done? And, further, what is the nature of this atonement, and what is its object? Mrs. Britten's theory is, that if a man has been murdered he is prevented, because of that fact, from progressing as he otherwise would have done, until the murderer comes and helps him on. Because a man suffers an injury in this life, he has to suffer hereafter; or, at least, to wait on the will of the wretch who injured him for his sufferings to cease! Now, is there comfort in this view? And then, further, every person must pay the full penalty of their wrongdoing and sins committed, or there can be no forgiveness, neither here nor hereafter. Now, what comfort is to be derived from this view, unless we are in the same desirable position that Mrs. Britten represents herself as being in when she says that she will not be hypocrite enough to call herself "a miserable sinner," nor "allow any other person to do so." (Laughter.) However, as we have seen, some other person does call her "a miserable sinner." (Cheers.) The Melbourne Spiritualists charge her with deliberate falsification. Who is to be the judge? Mrs. Britten or they? If she is a "miserable sinner," must she make atonement to them? What is to be her condition in the spirit world? One of misery, because, in her own language, she must make personal atonement for the wrong she has done? But the question remains—who is to judge? I can see that there is a very difficult point here. page 38 The Melbourne Spiritualists say she committed a wrong; she says she did not. Who is to be the umpire? I would like that delicate problem solved. (Cheers.)

There is another matter which I ought not to pass by. Her theory is that if a man has been a liar, a thief, and everything that is bad, say for twenty years, and suppose that he has done persons injury in this world during those twenty years, in the spirit world he will have to make atonement to all those persons for the wrongs done to them, because, you see, right living afterwards will not remedy the wrongs themselves without atonement being made; and the consequence is, that by this theory, all such persons must look forward to years and years of absolute misery. Now, Mrs Britten professes to have a great deal of love for these poor creatures, for she says : "We believe they will progress, and get through it all." But it seems to me that it is very poor comfort to persons to know that there may be 500, or 1,000, or 10,000 years of misery for them before they may get out of it. I confess that I could not derive much comfort from it. I am also at a loss to understand where this "kind, merciful, tender, and loving parent" is, if he can provide no means whereby the wrongs of men may be put right, and the innocent victims of those wrongs prevented from suffering their consequences for years and years in the spirit world. I cannot conceive of the existence of a just God, if those who have been injured in this world by others are compelled to suffer a continuance of injury in the next world, merely because of the injurer's unwillingness to remedy the evil, and to render the help necessary in order to their deliverance.

But let us compare the comfort which Christianity provides, with the so-called comfort of the Spiritualistic theory, and further notice Mrs. Britten's sarcastical remarks as to the murderer being forgiven if he will only believe. Suppose I take the case of a man who has lived for fifty years, and a life of sin during nearly the whole of that time. He has been a liar, a thief, a swearer, and so on. Now, if at fifty years of age, I can convince him, by representing to him the loving character of God as shown in the Gospels, that God has been loving him all page 39 his life, and is anxious to save him from the consequences of his own wrong-doing; if I tell him that God is infinitely just and pure and compassionate; and I can convince him that whilst he has been acting wickedly in sinning against God, God has been loving him with a perfect love; if, I say, I can produce in his mind, by this representation of the love of God as shown in the gospel, the conviction that sin is hateful, injurious in its consequences, both now and hereafter, that it is an abomination in the sight of God, and that he—the sinner—justly deserved all the punishment that he might receive because of his sins—if I can make that man resolve that he will sin no more—and I lead this man—who has been so bad a man in the past—to become a penitent and humble-minded man, earnestly desirous of doing right, would it not be in harmony with what we as parents would do in regard to our children, and be in accordance with what we would suppose God would do to His creatures, were He to say, "Though you have sinned in the past very grievously, yet I do not reproach you, go and sin no more, and I will banish the recollection of your sin from my mind, and I will freely pardon you." Would not that be much more like the character of a God of Love, and more in accordance with our truest conceptions of the fitness of things, and infinitely better than this theory of the Spiritualists, of no forgiveness? Whilst I do not believe that, in the murderer professing to believe in Christ, there is always evidence of real change, because death-bed repentances are very often found to be unreliable in the event of recovery. Yet, still—when there is a thorough change of heart, an utter forsaking of sin, without which there can be no salvation—if the murderer, at the last moment, can be brought into a right feeling and to see his true position, and thus have a new direction given to his moral faculties, and be turned into a path of moral and spiritual progress : is there any injustice, anything contrary to the truest love, or out of harmony with the character of the Deity in that man being forgiven and saved? Let me appeal to you who are parents. Suppose a son of yours goes into a course of wrong-doing, and leaves the parental home; would you page 40 not do everything in your power to bring him back to the paths of virtue? And if he comes back and says, "Mother or Father, I am truly sorry for what I have done in the past; I know I have been ungrateful, and have not acted as a son, but forgive me and I will try by my life to show how truly sorry I am;" would you not fall on his neck and and say : "My son, name it no more; it is all past, and I shall not think of it again; it shall be as though it had never been?" Would you not actually give to that so increased evidences of your love in order to let him see how thoroughly you had forgiven him and cast from your memory all recollection of his wrong-doing? I know that you would do so. And that is what God is now willing to do in the case of every repentant sinner. Will any man stand up and say that to act thus is to be guilty of "violation of justice?" Would it not be in harmony with the truest love, and our highest conception of the Deity, and be adapted to the deepest needs of the human heart? This is the true Christian philosophy. The more I understand of Christianity the more I am ravished with its beauty. I am carried away with the conception of the infinite wisdom, the grandeur, the sublimity, and yet the surpassing simplicity of the scheme. God could not pardon sin without satisfaction being rendered to His broken laws. As our Creator and common Parent He loved us and sought our salvation, but as the moral Governor of the Universe, it was needful that he should vindicate his laws by the punishment of the wrong-doers. As one man could not die for his brother, because all lives were forfeited on account of personal sin, and as God loved us with an intense love, and desired our salvation, therefore, to harmonize the requirements of Justice, Mercy, and Love, God Himself, in the person of Christ—the God-Man—bore the chastisement due on account of sin, so that God might be manifestly just and yet the justifier of those who believe in Jesus.

There are a number of other questions I should like to have touched upon, but these I must now leave. I think I have presented sufficient to-night to show that Christians have nothing of which to be ashamed in this page 41 matter. I would say to those who profess the name of Christ—Be bold; do not be afraid of making an open profession of your faith in Christ. Let no scoffs and sneers ever make you ashamed of owning Jesus as your Saviour. In this matter, we have nothing to gain but everything to lose by relinquishing Christ. Whether Spiritism be true or not, we are safe while we cling to Christ; while, should it prove to be a device of Satan—as I am persuaded it is—sad indeed will be the condition of those who have been resting upon so broken a reed. Individually, I claim no special right to speak upon this matter, but as a servant of the Lord Jesus I dared not keep silence, I must speak. I feel in my heart such a conviction of the fearful dangers of Spiritualism that out of the abundance of my heart I must speak. (Cheers.) I dare not be silent. Although men may sneer—although Mrs. Britten may sneer, as she did very freely last evening, almost to perfection (laughter)—I say that I cannot refrain from speaking. (Applause.) If, for his advocacy of truth, and his denunciation of error and sin, our Master was called Beelzebub, the prince of the devils, and everything that was vile, we who profess to be his servants must be prepared to bear a portion of that reproach which was heaped in such abundance upon him. As watchmen upon the towers of Zion, our Master calls upon us to sound the clarion notes of danger as we see it drawing so near. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the very patient hearing you have given to me. Though charged by Mrs. Britten with various misdemeanours, I am conscious of having spoken that only which I believe in my heart to be true. (Cheers.) If I have not given abundant proof of the truth of my assertions in reference to Spiritism, you are capable of judging for yourselves, and to you, therefore, I leave the judgment in this case, with the fullest confidence that your judgment will be in accordance with truth. (Prolonged applause.)

I have now to intimate that Mr. Green will answer any questions, but they must be relevant and within reason.

I wish to ask Mr. Green a question. Will he take the Harbinger of Light in his hand, and state to this audience whether he knows anything of the question referred to in that paper, and in which he charges Mrs. Britten with untruth?

Friends, you will remember that I prefaced my remarks by saying, that if a person's enemies said he was untruthful, there might possibly be a misunderstanding, but if one's friends said he was so, whilst there still might be a misunderstanding, the likelihood of it was less than in the previous case. Now, I said that Mrs. Britten, who is an opponent, had charged me with deliberate untruths, but I showed from this paper that her friends, and not her enemies, had charged her with deliberate untruths. (Cheers.) I did not charge her with that. Far be it from me to so charge anyone. I have merely said that certain statements she made are not true. I would not say that she has told deliberate untruths, though I cannot see how she could be ignorant that her statements were not true, but there I leave the matter. I do not know the merits of that controversy in Melbourne. She may be as free from blame in the matter as an angel, for anything that I know personally. I only adduce it to show how very unwise it is for her to charge me with delibrate lying, and which charge it is impossible for her to prove, when her own friends have charged her with the same thing.

You have made statements so bold, and have read letters calculated to injure Mrs. Britten's character and her pursuit; do you not think that you are bound to show that there is some foundation for your assertions, and to give this audience an opportunity of judging? (To the audience) He has had ample opportunity of doing so by the Age he has referred to.

This paper is one——

What is it?

It is the Harbinger of Light. Have you not seen it?

I have.

Then you know its contents. (Loud cheers.) Just let me say in connection with this matter, that I have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Then you have no right to use it.

I am sorry that Dr. Britten cannot see that what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. (Laughter and cheers.) Mrs. Britten has charged me with deliberate untruth——

No, she does not.

In her letter in the Daily Times, in her hand-bills, and in her lecture last evening, she charged me with telling deliberate falsehoods.

What she charged you with was that you had denounced people in Dunedin as Spiritualists. If I am not (Interruption)——

Is Dr. Britten prepared to affirm, on his honour as a man, that his good-wife did not affirm that I told deliberate false page 43 hoods? (Loud cheers.) A copy of the Daily Times of last Friday (July 11) will settle the matter.

You have got hold of a wrong charge. (Interruption.)

She says that I have told deliberate falsehoods, Dr. Britten; these are her own words.

If Mrs. Britten said so—if there is a charge of deliberate falsehood brought forward (Interruption)——

I leave Mrs. Britten's friends to charge her. It is not my business to do so. Ladies and gentlemen, is it not a fair position that I have taken up in this matter? (Cries of "yes" and "no," and loud cheers.) I say that I am not untruthful. (Prolonged cheering.) I have tried to give you proof of every proposition I have presented. I do not wish to be uncharitable to the lady. I would not charge her with untruth; but I do say this—and the matter, to use a mild phrase, presses heavily on her—it is her friends, those who know her, who charge her with deliberate falsehood. (Loud cheers.)

[A number of other questions were presented by other gentlemen, but as they were not relevant to the subject of the lecture, they are not inserted.]

I have to ask you, friends, to award with acclamation a hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Green for his lecture to-night. (Prolonged applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I have to thank you sincerely for your kind appreciation of my feeble effort to expose error and advocate the truth. (Applause.)

The meeting then terminated.