 CAPTAIN EDWARD TEACH, ALIAS BLACKBEARD, FROM THE PIRATES WHO'S WHO, by Phillip Goss. A Bristol man who settled in Jamaica, sailing in privateers, but not in the capacity of an officer. In 1716 Teach took to piracy, being put in command of a sloop by the pirate Benjamin Hornigold. In 1717 Hornigold and Teach sailed together from Providence towards the American coast, taking a bill up from Havana and several other prizes. After careening their vessels on the coast of Virginia, the pirates took a fine French guinea man bound to Martinico, this ship they armed with forty guns, named her the Queen Anne's Revenge, and Blackbeard won aboard as captain. Teach now had a slip that allowed him to go for larger prizes, and he began by taking a big ship called the Great Allen, which he plundered and then set fire to. A few days later Teach was attacked by HMS Scarborough, of thirty guns, but after a sharp engagement lasting some hours, the pirate was able to drive off the king's ship. The next ship he met was the sloop of that amateur pirate and landsman, Major Steed Bonnet. Teach and Bonnet became friends and sailed together for a few days, when Teach, finding that Bonnet was quite ignorant of maritime matters, ordered the Major in the most high-handed way to come aboard his ship, while he put another officer in command of Bonnet's vessel. Teach now took ship after ship, one of which, with the curious name of Protestant Caesar, the pirates burnt out of spite, not because of her name, but because she belonged to Boston, where there had lately been a hanging of pirates. Blackbird now sailed north along the American coast, arriving off Charleston, South Carolina. Here he lay off the bar for several days, seizing every vessel that attempted to enter or leave the port, striking great terror to the whole of the province of Carolina, the more so since the colony was scarcely recovered from a recent visit by another pirate, Vane. Being in want of medicines, Teach sent his lieutenant, Richards, on shore, with a letter to the governor demanding that he should instantly send off a medicine chest, or else Teach would murder all his prisoners, and threatening to send their heads to government house, many of these prisoners being the chief persons of the colony. Teach, who was unprincipled even for a pirate, now commanded three vessels, and he wanted to get rid of his crews, and keep all the booty for himself, and a few chosen friends. To do this he contrived to wreck his own vessel and one of his sloops. Then, with his friends and all the booty, he sailed off, leaving the rest marooned on a small sandy island. Teach next sailed to North Carolina, and with the greatest coolness surrendered with twenty of his men to the governor, Charles Eden, and received the royal pardon. The ex-pirate spent the next few weeks in cultivating an intimate friendship with the governor, who no doubt shared Teach's booty with him. A romantic episode took place at this time at Bathtown. The pirate fell in love, not by any means for the first time, with a young lady of sixteen years of age. To show his delight at this charming union, the governor himself married the happy pair, this being the captain's fourteenth wife. Though certain Bathtown gossips were heard to say that there were no fewer than twelve Mrs. Teach, still alive at different ports, up and down the West India Islands. In June 1718, the bridegroom felt that the call of duty must be obeyed. So, kissing good-bye to the new Mrs. Teach, he sailed away to the Bermuda, meeting on his way half a dozen ships, which he plundered, and then hurried back to share the spoils with the governor of North Carolina and his secretary, Mr. Knight. For several months Blackbeard remained in the river, exacting a toll from all the shipping, often going ashore to make merry at the expense of the planters. At length things became so unbearable that the citizens and planters sent a request to the governor of the neighboring colony of Virginia for help to rid them of the presence of Teach. The governor, Spotswood, an energetic man, at once made plans for taking the pirate, and commissioned a gallant young naval officer, Lieutenant Robert Maynard, of HMS Pearl, to go in a sloop, the ranger, in search of him. On November 17, 1718, the lieutenant sailed for Kikatan in the James River, and on the twenty-first arrived at the mouth of Ochrecock Inlet, where he discovered the pirate he was in search of. Blackbeard would have been caught unprepared, had not his friend, Mr. Secretary Knight, hearing what was on foot, sent a letter warning him to be on his guard, and also any of Teach's crew whom he could find in the taverns of Bathtown. Maynard lost no time in attacking the pirate's ship, which had run aground. The fight was furious, Teach boarding the sloop, and a terrific, hand-to-hand struggle taking place. The lieutenant and Teach fighting with swords and pistols. Teach was wounded in twenty-five places before he fell dead, while the lieutenant escaped with nothing worse than a cut over the fingers. Maynard now returned in triumph in his sloop to Bathtown, with the head of Blackbeard hung up to the bull spit end, and received a tremendous ovation from the inhabitants. During his meteoric career as a pirate, the name of Blackbeard was one that created terror up and down the coast of America, from Newfoundland to Trinidad. This was not only due to the number of ships Teach took, but in no small measure to his alarming appearance. Teach was a tall, powerful man, with a fierce expression, which was increased by a long Blackbeard which grew from below his eyes and hung down to a great length. This he plaited into many tales, each one tied with a colored ribbon and turned back over his ears. When going into action, Teach wore a sling on his shoulders with three pairs of pistols, and struck lighted matches under the brim of his hat. These so added to his fearful appearance as to strike terror into all beholders. Teach had a peculiar sense of humor, and one that could at times cause much uneasiness amongst his friends. Thus we are told that one day, on the deck of his ship, being at that time a little flushed with wine, Blackbeard addressed his crew, saying, Come, let us make a hell of our own, and try how long we can bear it. Whereupon Teach, with several others, descended to the hold, shut themselves in, and then set fire to several pots of brimstone. For a while they stood it, choking and gasping, but at length had to escape to save themselves from being asphyxiated, but the last to give up was the captain, who was wont to boast afterwards that he had outlasted all the rest. Then there was that little affair in the cabin, when Teach blew out the candle and in the dark fired his pistols under the table, severely wounding one of his guests in the knee, for no other reason, as he explained to them afterwards, then, if he did not shoot one or two of them now and then, they'd forget who he was. Teach kept a log or journal, which unfortunately is lost, but the entries for two days have been preserved, and are worth giving and seem to smack of Robert Louis Stevenson in Treasure Island. The entries, written in Teach's handwriting, run as follows. Seventeen, eighteen, rum all out, our company somewhat sober, a damned confusion amongst us, rogues applauding, great talk of separation, so I looked sharp for a prize. Seventeen, eighteen. Took one, with a great deal of liquor on board, so kept the company hot, damned hot, then all things went well again. End of Captain Edward Teach, alias Blackbeard, from the Pirates Who's Who by Philip Goss. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. I can easily conceive, most holy father, that as soon as some people learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected. For I am not so much in love with my conclusions as not to weigh what others will think about them. And although I know that the meditations of a philosopher are far removed from the judgment of the laity because his endeavor is to seek out the truth in all things, so far as this is permitted by God to the human reason, I still believe that one must avoid theories altogether far into orthodoxy. Accordingly, when I consider it in my own mind how absurd a performance it must seem to those who know that the judgment of many centuries has approved the view that the earth remains fixed as center in the midst of the heavens, if I should on the contrary assert that the earth moves, I was for a long time at a loss to know whether I should publish the commentaries which I have written in proof of its motion, or whether it would not be better to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and some others, who were accustomed to transmit the secrets of philosophy not in writing but orally and only to their relatives and friends as the letter from Lysus to Hipparchus bears witness. They did this, it seems to me, not as some think because of a certain selfish reluctance to give their views to the world, but in order that the noblest truths, worked out by the careful study of great men, should not be despised by those who were vexed at the idea of taking great pains with any form of literature except such as would be profitable, or by those who, if they are driven to the study of philosophy for its own sake by the admonition and example of others, nevertheless, on account of their stupidity, hold a place among philosophers similar to that of drones among bees. Therefore, when I considered this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear because of the novelty and apparent absurdity of my view nearly induced me to abandon utterly the work I had begun. My friends, however, in spite of long delay and even resistance on my part, withheld for me this decision. First among these was Nicholas Schoenberg, Cardinal of Capua, distinguished in all branches of learning. Next to him comes my very dear friend, Tideman Giza, Bishop of Combe, a most earnest student as he is, of a sacred and indeed of all good learning. The latter has often urged me, at times even spurring me on with reproaches, to publish and at last bring to light the book which has lain in my study not nine years merely, but already going on four times nine. Not a few other very eminent and scholarly men made the same request, urging that I should no longer, though fear, refuse to give out my work for the common benefit of students of mathematics. They said, I should find that the more absurd most men now thought the theory of mind concerning the motion of the earth, the more admiration and gratitude it would command after they saw in the publication of my commentaries the mist of absurdity cleared away by the most transparent proofs. So, influenced by these advisors and this hope, I have at length allowed my friends to publish the work, as they had long besought me to do. But perhaps your holiness will not so much wonder that I ventured to publish these studies of mine, after having taken such pains in elaborating them that I have not hesitated to commit to writing my views of the motion of the earth. As you will be curious to hear, how it occurred to me to venture, contrary to the accepted view of mathematicians, and well-nigh contrary to common sense, to form a conception of any terrestrial motion whatsoever. Therefore, I would not have it unknown to your holiness that the only thing which induced me to look for another way of reckoning the movements of the heavenly bodies was that I knew that mathematicians by no means agree in their investigations thereof. For, in the first place, they are so much in doubt concerning the motion of the sun and the moon that they cannot even demonstrate and prove by observation the constant length of a complete year. And in the second place, in determining the motions both of these and of the five other planets, they fail to employ consistently one set of first principles and hypotheses, but use methods of proof based only upon the apparent revolutions and motions. For some employ concentric circles only, others eccentric circles and epicycles, and even by these means they do not completely attain their desired end. For although those who have depended upon concentric circles have shown that certain diverse motions can be deduced from these, yet they have not succeeded thereby in laying down any sure principle corresponding indisputably to the phenomena. These, on the other hand, who have devised system of eccentric circles, although they seem in great part to have solved the apparent movements by calculations which by these eccentric are made to fit, have nevertheless introduced many things which seem to contradict the first principles of the uniformity of motion. Nor have they been able to discover or calculate from these the main point, which is the shape of the world and the fixed symmetry of its parts, but their procedure has been as if someone were to collect hands, feet, a head, and other members from various places, all very fine in themselves, but not proportionate to one body, and no single one corresponding in its turn to the others so that a monster rather than a man would be formed from them. Thus, in their process of demonstration which they term a quote method, they are found to have omitted something essential, or to have included something foreign and not pertaining to the matter in hand. This certainly would never happen to them if they had followed fixed principles, for if the hypotheses they assumed were not false, all that resulted therefrom would be verified indubitably. Those things which I am saying now may be obscure, yet they will be made clearer in their proper place. Therefore, having turned over in my mind for a long time this uncertainty of the traditional mathematical methods of calculating the motions of the celestial bodies, I began to grow disgusted that no more consistent scheme of the movements of the mechanism of the universe, set up for our benefit by that best and most law-abiding architect of all things, was agreed upon by philosophers who otherwise investigate so carefully the most minute details of this world. Wherefore, I undertook the task of re-reading the books of all the philosophers I could get access to, to see whether anyone ever was of the opinion that the motions of the celestial bodies were other than those postulated by the men who taught mathematics in the schools. And I found first indeed in Cicero that Niceta performed that the earth moved, and afterward in Plutarch I found that some others were of this opinion, whose words I have seen fit to quote here, that they may be accessible to all. Some maintain that the earth is stationary, but phyla loss the Pythagorean says it revolves in a circle about the fire of the ecliptic, like the sun and moon. Heraclitus of Pontus and Necfantis the Pythagorean make the earth move, not changing its position, however, confined its falling and rising around its own center in the manner of a wheel. Taking this as a starting point, I began to consider the mobility of the earth, and although the idea seemed absurd, yet because I knew that the liberty had been granted to others before me to postulate all sorts of little circles for explaining the phenomena of the stars, I thought I might easily be permitted to try whether postulating some motion of the earth, more reliable conclusions could be reached regarding the motion of the heavenly bodies than those of my predecessors. And so, after postulating movements, which farther on in the book I ascribe to the earth, I have found by many and long observations that if the movements of the other planets are assumed for the circular motion of the earth and are substituted for the revolution of each star, not only do their phenomena follow logically therefrom, but the relative positions and magnitudes both of the stars and all their orbits and of the heaven themselves become so closely related that in none of its parts can anything be changed without causing confusion in the other parts and in the whole universe. Therefore, in the course of the work I have followed this plan, I describe in the first book all the position of the orbits together with the movements which I ascribe to the earth in order that this book might contain, as it were, the general scheme of the universe. Thereafter, in the remaining books, I set forth the motion of the other stars and of all their orbits together with the movement of the earth in order that one may see from this to what extent the movement and appearances of the other stars and their orbits can be saved if they are transferred to the movement of the earth. Nor do I doubt that ingenious and learned mathematicians will sustain me if they are willing to recognize and weigh not superficially, but with that thoroughness which philosophy demands above all things, those matters which have been induced by me in this work to demonstrate these theories. In order, however, that both the learned and the unlearned equally may see that I do not avoid anyone's judgment, I have preferred to dedicate these lucubrations of mine to your holiness rather than to any other, because, even in this remote corner of the world where I live, you are considered to be the most eminent man in dignity of rank and in love of all learning and even of mathematics, so that by your authority and judgment you can easily suppress the bites of slanderers. Albeit the proverb have it that there is no remedy for the bite of a sycophant. If perchance there shall be idle talkers who, though they are ignorant of all mathematical sciences, nevertheless assume the right to pass judgment on these things, and if they should dare to criticize and attack this theory of mine because of some passage of Scripture which they have falsely distorted for their own purpose, I care not at all. I will even despise their judgment as foolish. For it is not unknown that Lactanches, otherwise a famous writer but a poor mathematician, speaks most childlessly of the shape of the earth when he makes fun of those who said that the earth has the form of a sphere. It should not seem strange then to zealous students if some such people shall ridicule us also. Mathematics are written for mathematicians, to whom, if my opinion does not deceive me, our labours will seem to contribute something to the ecclesiastical state whose chief office your holiness now occupies. For when not so very long ago, under Leo the Tenth and the Lateran Council, the question of revising the ecclesiastical calendar was discussed. It then remained unsettled, simply because the length of the years and months and the motions of the sun and moon were held to have been not yet sufficiently determined. Since that time I have given my attention to observing these more accurately, urged on by a very distinguished man, Paul, Bishop of Fossumbrone, who at that time had charge of the matter. But what I may have accomplished herein, I leave to the judgment of your holiness in particular, and to that of all other learned mathematicians. Unless I seem to your holiness to promise more regarding the usefulness of the work that I can perform, I now pass to the work itself. End of Dedication of the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies to Pope Paul III by Nicholas Copernicus. Read by M.L. Cohen. MojoMoo411.com. That's M-O-J-O-M-O-V-E-411.com. Irish Home Rule by William E. Gladstone. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Irish Home Rule by William E. Gladstone. I may without impropriety remind the House that the voices which usually pleaded the cause of Irish self-government in Irish affairs have within these walls during the last seven years been almost entirely mute. I returned therefore to the period of 1886, when a proposition of this kind was submitted on the part of the government, and I begged to remind the House of the position then taken up by all the promoters of these measures. We said that we had arrived at a point in our transactions with Ireland where the two roads parted. Quote, you have, we said, to choose one or the other. End quote. One is the way of Irish autonomy. According to the conceptions I have just referred to, the other is the way of coercion. What has been the result of the dilemma as it was then put forward on this side of the House and repelled on the other? Has our contention that the choice lay between autonomy and coercion been justified or not? What has become of each and all of these important schemes for giving Ireland self-government in provinces and giving her even a central establishment in Dublin with limited powers? All vanished into thin air, but the reality remains. The roads are still there, autonomy or coercion. The choice lay between them and the choice made was to repel autonomy and embrace coercion. In 1886, for the first time, coercion was imposed on Ireland in the shape of a permanent law added to the statute book. This state of things constituted an offense against the harmony and tradition of self-government. It was a distinct and violent breach of the promise on the faith of which union was obtained. The permanent system of repression inflicted upon the country a state of things which could not continue to exist. It was impossible to bring the inhabitants of the country under coercion into sympathy with the coercion power. It was then prophesied, confidentially, that Irishmen would take their places in the cabinet of the United Kingdom. But it has been my honoured destiny to sit in cabinet with no less than 60 to 70 statesmen, of whom only one, the Duke of Wellington, was an Irishman, while Castleray was the only other Irishman who has sat in the cabinet since union. Pitt promised equal laws when the union was formed, but the broken promises made to Ireland are unhappily written in indelible characters in the history of the country. It is to me astonishing that so little weight is attached by many to the fact that Irish wishes of self-government were represented only by a small minority. Now what voting power are the 80 members to have? Ireland is to be represented here fully. That is my first postulate. My second postulate is that Ireland is to be invested with separate powers, subject no doubt to imperial authority. Ireland is to be endowed with separate powers over Irish affairs. Then the question before us is, is she or is she not to vote so strongly upon matters purely British? There are reasons both ways. We cannot cut them off in a manner perfectly clean and clear from these questions. We cannot find an absolutely accurate line of cleavage between questions that are imperial questions and those that are Irish questions. Unless Irish members vote on all questions, you break the parliamentary tradition. The presence of 80 members with only limited powers of voting is a serious breach of that tradition, which ought to be made the subject of most careful consideration. Now come the reasons against the universal voting powers. It is difficult to say everything on that side Irish, everything on this side imperial, that I think you cannot do. If you ask me for a proportion, I say nine-tenths, perhaps nineteen-twentieths, of the business of parliament can, without difficulty, be classed as Irish or imperial. It would be a great anomaly if these 80 Irish members should come here continually to intervene in questions purely and absolutely British. If some large question or controversy in British affairs should then come up, causing a deep and vital severing of the two great parties in this house. And the members of those parties knew that they could bring over 80 members from Ireland to support their views. I am afraid a case like that would open a possible door to dangerous political intrigue. The whole subject is full of thorns and brambles, but our object is the autonomy and self-government of Ireland in all matters, properly Irish. I wish to supply the key note to the financial part of the legislation. That key note is to be found in the provision included in our plans from the first, and wisely and generously acceded to by Ireland through her representatives. That there is to be but one system of legislation as far as external things are concerned. That will be found to entail very important consequences. It has guided us to the conclusion at which we arrived of unity of commercial legislation for the three kingdoms. By adopting this key note, we can attain to the most valuable results and will be likely to avoid the clashing of agents of the Imperial and agents of the Irish government. We can make under cover of this proposal a large and more liberal transfer to Ireland in the management of her own affairs than we could make if we proceeded on any other principles. The principle to which we are bound to give effect in Ireland is Ireland has to bear a fair share of Imperial expenditure. I will now release the House from the painful consideration of details, which it has pursued with unexampled patience. I must say, however, for my own part, that I never will and never can be a party to be queuing to my country the continuance of this heritage of discord, which has been handed down from generation to generation, with hardly momentary interruption through seven centuries. This heritage of discord, with all the evils that follow in its train, I wish no part in that process. It would be misery for me if I had foregone or omitted in these closing years of my life any measure it was possible for me to take toward upholding and promoting the cause which I believe to be the cause not of one party or one nation, but of all parties and all nations. To these nations viewing them as I do, with their vast opportunities under a living union for power and happiness. To these nations I say, Let me entreat you. If it were my last breath I would so entreat you. Let the dead bury their dead, and cast behind you former recollections of bygone evils. Cherish love and sustain one another through all the vicissitudes of human affairs in times that are to come. End of Irish Home Rule by William E. Gladstone Recording by Robert Scott MojoMove411.com September 10, 2007 The Murder of Lovejoy, Wendell Phillips This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org On November 7, 1837, Elijah P. Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor, was shot by a mob at Alton, Illinois while defending his printing press from destruction. Prominent citizens of Boston called a meeting on December 8 to condemn the act of the mob. The Attorney General of Massachusetts opposed the resolutions of condemnation, defended the mob, and declared that, quote, Lovejoy died as the fool dyeth, end quote. Wendell Phillips said to a friend, quote, Such a speech made in Fanuel Hall must be answered in Fanuel Hall, end quote. He made his way to the platform and spoke in part as follows. Mr. Chairman, we have met for the freest discussion of these resolutions and the events which gave rise to them. I hope I shall be permitted to express my surprise at the sentiments of the last speaker. Surprise not only at such sentiments from such a man, but at the applause they have received within these walls. A comparison has been drawn between the events of the Revolution and the tragedy at Alton. We have heard it asserted here in Fanuel Hall that Great Britain had a right to tax the colonies. And we have heard the mob at Alton, the drunken murderers of Lovejoy, compared to those patriot fathers who threw the tea overboard. Fellow citizens, is this Fanuel Hall doctrine? The mob at Alton were met to rest from a citizen his just rights, met to resist the laws. We have been told that our fathers did the same, and the glorious mantle of revolutionary precedent has been thrown over the mobs of our day. To make out their title to such defense, the gentleman says that the British Parliament had a right to tax these colonies. It is manifest that without this his parallel falls to the ground, for Lovejoy had stationed himself within constitutional bulwarks. He was not only defending the freedom of the press, but he was under his own roof, in arms with the sanction of the civil authority. The men who assailed him went against and over the laws. The mob, as the gentleman terms it, mob forsooth. Certainly, we sons of the tea-spillers are a marvelously patient generation. The, quote, orderly mob, which assembled in the Old South to destroy the tea, were met to resist not the laws, but illegal exactions. Shame on the American, who calls the Tea Tax and the Stamp Act laws. Our fathers resisted not the King's prerogative, but the King's usurpation. To find any other account, you must read our revolutionary history upside down. Our state archives are loaded with arguments of John Adams to prove the taxes laid by the British Parliament unconstitutional beyond its power. It was not till this was made out that the men of New England rushed to arms. The arguments of the council chamber and the House of Representatives preceded and sanctioned the contest. To draw the argument of our ancestors into a precedent for mobs, for a right to resist laws we ourselves have enacted, is an insult to their memory. The difference between the excitements of those days and our own, which the gentleman in kindness to the latter has overlooked, is simply this. The men of our day went for the right as secured by the laws. They were the people rising to sustain the laws and constitution of the province. The rioters of our day go for their own wills right or wrong. Sir, when I heard the gentleman lay down principles which place the murderers of Alton side by side with Otis and Hancock, with Quincy and Adams, I thought those pictured lips would have broken into voice to rebuke the Recreant American, the slanderer of the dead. The gentleman said that he should sink into insignificance if he dared to gainsay the principles of these resolutions. Sir, for the sentiments he has uttered on soil consecrated by the prayers of Puritans and the blood of Patriots, the earth should have yawned and swallowed him up. The gentleman says lovejoy was presumptuous and imprudent. He, quote, died as the fool dyeth, end quote. And a reverend clergyman of the city tells us that no citizen has a right to publish opinions disagreeable to the community. If any mob follows such publication on him rests the guilt. He must wait for sooth till the people come up to it and agree with him. This libel on liberty goes on to say that the want of right to speak as we think is an evil inseparable from Republican institutions. If this be so, what are they worth? Welcome to the despotism of the Sultan, where one knows what he may publish and what he may not, rather than the tyranny of this many-headed monster, the mob. Where we know not what we may do or say till some fellow citizen has tried it and paid for the lesson with his life. This clerical absurdity chooses as a check for the abuses of the press, not the law, but the dread of the mob. By so doing it deprives not only the individual and the minority of their rights, but the majority also, since the expression of their opinion may sometimes provoke disturbance from the minority. A few men may make a mob as well as many. The majority have no right as Christian men to utter their sentiments if by any possibility it may lead to a mob. Shades of Hugh Peters and John Cotton save us from such pulpits, imprudent to defend the liberty of the press. Why? Because the defense was unsuccessful? Does success gild crime into patriotism, and the want of it change heroic self-devotion into imprudence? Was Hampton imprudent when he drew the sword and threw away the scabbard? Yet he, judged by that single hour, was unsuccessful. After a short exile, the race he hated sat again upon the throne. Imagine yourself present when the first news of Bunker Hill Battle reached a New England town. The tale would have run thus. Quote, the Patriots are routed, the Redcoats victorious, Warren lies dead upon the field. And, quote, with what scorn would that Tory have been received, who should have charged Warren with imprudence, who should have said that, bred as a physician, he was, quote, out of place in the battle. And, quote, died as the fool dyeth. How would the intimation have been received that Warren and his associates should have waited for a better time? Presumptuous to assert the freedom of the press on American ground. Is the assertion of such freedom before the age so much before the age as to leave one no right to make it because it displeases the community? Who invents this libel on his country? It is this very thing that entitles lovejoy to greater praise. The disputed right which provoked the revolution, taxation without representation, is far beneath that for which he died. As much as thought is better than money, so much is the cause in which lovejoy died nobler than a mere question of taxes. James Otis thundered in this hall when the king did but touch his pocket. Imagine if you can, his indignant eloquence had England offered to put a gag upon his lips. Lips, footnote 33, appears in the body of this audio recording at five minutes and thirty-three seconds, quote, I thought those pictured lips. At this point, Phillips points to the portraits in the hall. And footnote. End of The Murder of Lovejoy by Wendell Phillips. Recording by Robert Scott, mojo move 411.com. M-O-J-O-M-O-V-E 411.com. September the 9th, 2007. The Ninety-Five Theses by Martin Luther. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Leon Meyer. The Ninety-Five Theses by Martin Luther. Translated by R. S. Greenyon. Introductory note by R. S. Greenyon. Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant Reformation, was born at Ice-Laban, Prussian Saxony, November 10th, 1483. He studied jurisprudence at the University of Erfurt, where he later lectured on physics and ethics. In 1505 he entered the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt, two years later was ordained priest, and in 1508 became professor of philosophy at the University of Wittenberg. The starting point of Luther's career as a reformer was his posting on the church door of Wittenberg, the Ninety-Five Theses, on October 31st, 1517. These formed a passionate statement on the true nature of penitence, and a protest against the sale of indulgences. In issuing the Theses, Luther expected the support of his ecclesiastical superiors, and it was only after three years of controversy, during which he refused a summons to Rome, that he proceeded to publish those works that brought about his expulsion from the church. The year 1520 saw the publication of the three great documents which laid down the fundamental principles of the Reformation. In the address to the Christian nobility of the German nation, Luther attacked the corruptions of the church and the abuses of its authority, and asserted the right of the laymen to spiritual independence. In concerning Christian liberty, he expounded the doctrine of justification by faith, and gave a complete presentation of its theological position. In the Babylonish captivity of the church, he criticized the sacramental system, and set up the scriptures as the supreme authority in religion. In the midst of this activity came his formal excommunication, and his renunciation of allegiance to the Pope. He was prescribed by the Emperor Charles V, and taken into the protection of prison in the Wartburg, by the friendly elector of Saxony, where he translated the New Testament. The complete translation of the Bible, issued in 1534, marks the establishment of the modern literary language of Germany. The rest of Luther's life was occupied with a vast amount of literary and controversial activity. He died at Isleben, February 18, 1546. Introductory Letter Jesus To the most reverent Father in Christ, and most illustrious Lord Albert, Archbishop and Primit of the Churches of Magdeburg, and Mince, Marquis of Brandenburg, etc., his Lord and Pastor in Christ, most gracious and worthy of all fear and reverence. The grace of God be with you, and whatsoever it is and can do. Spare me, most reverent Father in Christ, most illustrious Prince, if I, the very dregs of humanity, have dared to think of addressing a letter to the eminence of your sublimity. The Lord Jesus is my witness that, in the consciousness of my own pettiness and baseness, I have long put off the doing of that which I have now hardened my forehead to perform, moved there to most especially by the sense of that faithful duty which I feel that I owe to your most reverent Fatherhood in Christ. May your Highness then, in the meanwhile, deign to cast your eyes upon one grain of dust, and in your pontifical clemency to understand my prayer. People indulgences are being carried about, under your most distinguished authority, for the building of St. Peter's. In respect of these, I do not so much accuse the extravagant sayings of the preachers, which I have not heard, but I grieve at the very false ideas which the people conceive from that, and which are spread abroad in common talk on every side. Namely, that unhappy souls believe that, if they buy letters of indulgences, they are sure of their salvation. Also, that as soon as they have thrown their contribution into the chest, souls forthwith fly out of purgatory, and furthermore, that so great is the grace thus conferred, that there is no sin so great, even as they say if by an impossibility anyone had violated the mother of God. But that it may be pardoned, and again, that by these indulgences a man is freed from all punishment and guilt. O gracious God, it is thus that the souls committed to your care, most excellent Father, are being taught unto their death, and a most severe account, which you will have to render for all of them, is growing and increasing. Hence I have not been able to keep silence any longer on this subject, for by no function of a bishop's office can a man become sure of salvation, since he does not even become sure through the grace of God infused in him, but the apostle bids us to be ever working out our salvation in fear and trembling, Philippians 2.12. Even the righteous man, says Peter, shall scarcely be saved, 1 Peter 4.18. In fact, so narrow is the way which leads into life, that the Lord, speaking by the prophets Amos and Zechariah, calls those who are to be saved, brand snatched from the burning, and our Lord everywhere declares the difficulty of salvation. Why, then, by these false stories and promises of pardon, do the preachers of them make the people to feel secure and without fear, since indulgences confer absolutely no good on souls as regards salvation or holiness, but only take away the outward penalty which was want of old to be canonically imposed? Lastly, works of piety and charity are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet they do not preach these with such display or so much zeal, nay, they keep silence about them for the sake of preaching pardons. And yet it is the first and sole duty of all bishops that the people should learn the gospel and Christian charity, for Christ nowhere commands that indulgences should be preached. What a dreadful thing it is, then, what peril to a bishop, if, while the gospel is passed over in silence, he permits nothing but the noisy outcry of indulgences to be spread among his people, and bestows more care on these than on the gospel. Will not Christ say to them, straining at an at, and swallowing a camel? Besides all this, most reverent father in the Lord, in that instruction to the commissaries, which has been put forth under the name of your most reverent fatherhood, it is stated, doubtless without the knowledge and consent of your most reverent fatherhood, that one of the principal graces conveyed by indulgences is that inestimable gift of God, by which man is reconciled to God, and that all the pains of purgatory are done away with, and further, that contrition is not necessary for those who thus redeemed souls were by confessional licenses. But what can I do, excellent primates and most illustrious prince, save to entreat your reverent fatherhood, through the Lord Jesus Christ, to deign to turn on us the eye of fatherly care, and to suppress that advertisement altogether, and impose on the preachers of pardons another form of preaching, lest, perchance, someone should at length arise, who will put forth writings in confutation of them, and of their advertisements, to the deepest reproach of your most illustrious highness. It is intensely abhorrent to me that this should be done, and yet I fear that it will happen, unless the evil be speedily remedied. This faithful discharge of my humble duty I entreat that your most illustrious grace will deign to receive in a princely and bishop-like spirit, that is, with all clemency, even as I offer it with a most faithful heart, and one most devoted to your most reverent fatherhood, since I too am part of your flock. May the Lord Jesus keep your most reverent fatherhood forever and ever. Amen. From Wittenberg, on the eve of all saints, in the year 1517. If it so please your most reverent fatherhood, you may look at these disputations, that you may perceive how dubious a matter is that opinion about indulgences, which they disseminate as if it were most certain. To your most reverent fatherhood, Martin Luther. Disputation of Dr. Martin Luther concerning penitence and indulgences. In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth, a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the reverent father Martin Luther, monk of the Order of St. Augustine, master of arts and of sacred theology, and ordinary reader of the same in that place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and discuss the subject with us orally to do so by letter in their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. 1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying Repent ye, etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be penitence. 2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed under the ministry of priests. 3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence. Nay, such inward penitence is not, unless it outwardly produces various mortifications of the flesh. 4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of self, that is, true inward penitence, continues, namely, till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven. 5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties except those which he is imposed by his own authority, or by that of the cannons. 6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt except by declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God, or at most by remitting cases reserved for himself, in which cases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly remain. 7. God never remits any man's guilt without at the same time subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his representative, the priest. 8. The penitential cannons are imposed only on the living, and no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them. 9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us, in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity. 10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for purgatory. 11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while the bishops were asleep. 12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition. 13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them. 14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the greater the fear it brings. 15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself to say nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair. 16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair, almost despair, and peace of mind differ. 17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be that, as horror diminish, so charity increases. 18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any scriptures that they are outside of the state of merit, or of the increase of charity. 19. Nor does this appear to be proved that they are sure and confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them, though we may be very sure of it. 20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but only of those imposed by himself. 21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are an error who say that by the indulgences of the Pope a man is loosed and saved from all punishment. 22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which they would have had to pay in this life according to the canons. 23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to any one, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most perfect, that is to very few. 24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be deceived by this indiscriminate and high sounding promise of release from penalties. 25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his own parish in particular. 26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys, which is of no avail in this case, but by the way of suffrage. 27. They preach mad who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles. 28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the church depends on the will of God alone. 29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be redeemed from it, according to the story told of St. Severanus and Pascal. 30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of the attainment of plenary remission. 31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys indulgences, that is to say, most rare. 32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they are made sure of their own salvation will be eternally damned along with their teachers. 33. We must especially beware of those who say that these pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God. 34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment. 35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of purgatory or by confessional licenses. 36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of pardon. 37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church given him by God, even without letters of pardon. 38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the divine remission. 39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true contrition. 40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment, while the ampleness of pardons relaxes it and causes men to hate it, or at least gives occasion for them to do so. 41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution, lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed before other good works of charity. 42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the Pope that they buying a pardons is to be in any way compared to the works of mercy. 43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor man or lends to a needy man does better than if he bought pardons. 44. Because by a work of charity, charity increases and the man becomes better, while by means of pardons he does not become better but only freer from punishment. 45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in need and passing him by gives money for pardons is not purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope but the anger of God. 46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary for the use of their own households and by no means to lavish it on pardons. 47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so. 48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer should be made for him than that money should be readily paid. 49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are useful if they do not put their trust in them but most hurtful if through them they lose the fear of God. 50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons he would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to ashes than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep. 51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty, so it would be the wish of the Pope even to sell, if necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter and to give of his own money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons extract money. 52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon, even if a commissary, nay, the Pope himself were to pledge his own soul for them. 53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope who, in order that pardons may be preached, condemn the Word of God to utter silence in other churches. 54. Wrong is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is spent on pardons than on it. 55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that if pardons, which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single bells, single processions and single ceremonies, the Gospel, which is a very great matter, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies. 56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named, nor known among the people of Christ. 57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures, for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated by many of the preachers. 58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to the inner man, in the cross, death, and hell to the outer man. 59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the Word in his time. 60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of the Church bestowed through the merits of Christ are that treasure. 61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases. 62. The true treasure of the Church is the holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God. 63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, because it makes the first to be last. 64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most acceptable, because it makes the last to be first. 65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of old they fished for the men of riches. 66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now fished for the riches of men. 67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards the promotion of gain. 68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the grace of God in the piety of the cross. 69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries of apostolic pardons with all reverence. 70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their eyes and take heed with all their ears that these men do not preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission. 71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons let him be anathema and accursed. 72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the wantonness and license of speech of the preachers of pardons, let him be blessed. 73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons. 74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the injury of holy charity and of truth. 75. To think that papal pardons have such power that they could absolve a man even if, by an impossibility, he had violated the mother of God is madness. 76. We affirm, on the contrary, that papal pardons cannot take away even the least of venal sins as regards its guilt. 77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could grant no greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope. 78. We affirm, on the contrary, that both he and any other Pope have greater graces to grant, namely the gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc. 1 Corinthians 12-9. 79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia the papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ is blasphemy. 80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such discourses to have currency among the people will have to render an account. 81. This license in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope against the calamities or, at all events, the keen questionings of the laity. 82. As, for instance, why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of souls, this being the most just of all reasons? If he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal thing, money, to be spent on building a basilica, this being a very slight reason. 83. Again, why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for the deceased continue? And why does not the Pope return or permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already redeemed? 84. Again, what is this new kindness of God in the Pope in that, for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not redeem that same pious and beloved soul out of free charity on account of its own need? 85. Again, why is it that the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact, and not only by usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting of indulgences, as if they were full of life? 86. Again, why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with that of poor believers? 87. Again, what does the Pope permit or impart to those who, through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission and participation? 88. Again, what greater good would the Church receive if the Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one as a faithful? 89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money, that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally efficacious? 90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the Lady by force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy. 91. If then, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with ease. 92. Away then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, peace, peace, and there is no peace. 93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, the cross, the cross, and there is no cross. 94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ their head through pains, deaths, and hells. 95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations rather than in the security of peace. Prottestation 96. I, Martin Luther, Doctor of the Order of Monks at Wittenberg, desire to testify publicly that certain propositions against pontifical indulgences, as they call them, have been put forth by me. 97. Now, although, up to the present time, neither this most celebrated and renowned school of ours, nor any civil or ecclesiastical power, has condemned me, yet there are, as I hear, some men of headlong and audacious spirit who dare to pronounce me a heretic, as though the matter had been thoroughly looked into and studied. 98. But on my part, as I have often done before, so now, too, I implore all men, by the faith of Christ, either to point out to me a better way, if such a way has been divinely revealed to any, or at least to submit their opinion to the judgment of God and of the Church. 98. For I am neither so rash, as to wish that my soul opinion should be preferred to that of all other men, nor so senseless as to be willing that the Word of God should be made to give place to fables devised by human reason. 9. To the respected and worthy Nikolas von Amstorf, licentiate in the Holy Scriptures and canon of Wittenberg, my particular and affectionate friend, Dr. Martinus Luther, The grace and peace of God be with you, respected, worthy sir, and dear friend. 10. The time for silence is gone, and the time to speak has come, as we read in Ecclesiastes 3.7. 11. I have, in conformity with our resolve, put together some few points concerning the reformation of the Christian estate, with the intent of placing the same before the Christian nobility of the German nation, in case it may please God to help his church by means of the laity, and as much as the clergy, whom this task rather befitted, had become quite careless. 12. I send all this to your worship, to judge and to amend where needed. I am well aware that I shall not escape the reproach of taking far too much upon me and presuming, insignificant and forsaken as I am, to address such high estates on such weighty and great subjects, as if there were no one in the world but Dr. Luther, to have a care for Christianity and to give advice to such wise people. 13. Let who will blame me, I shall not offer any excuse. Perhaps I still owe God and the world another folly. This debt I have now resolved honestly to discharge, as well as maybe, and to be courtful for once in my life. If I fail I shall at any rate gain this advantage, that no one need buy me a fool's cap or shave my pole. 14. But it remains to be seen which shall hang the bells on the other. I must fulfill the proverb, when anything is to be done in the world a monk must be in it, where it only is a painted figure. 15. I suppose it has often happened that a fool has spoken wisely, and wise men have often done foolishly, as St. Paul says, if any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 16. Now inasmuch as I am not only a fool, but also a sworn doctor of the holy scriptures, I am glad that I have an opportunity of fulfilling my oath, just in this fool's way. 17. I beg you to excuse me to the moderately wise, for I know not how to deserve the favor and grace of the supremely wise, which I have so often sought with much labor, but now for the future shall neither have nor regard. 18. God help us to seek not our glory, but his alone. Amen. 19. Wittenberg in the monastery of St. Augustine on the eve of St. John the Baptist in the year 1520. Jesus. End of The Ninety-Five Theses by Marcin Luther On Applauding Preachers by St. John Chrysostom All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org St. John Chrysostom On Applauding Preachers It is a mischief when one who teaches will in words impugn the teachings by his deeds. This has been the cause of many evils in the churches. Wherefore, pardon me, I beseech you if my discourse dwells long on this evil affection. Many take a great deal of pains to be able to stand up in public and make a long speech. And if they get applause from the multitude, it is to them as if they had gained the very kingdom of heaven. But if silence follows the close of their speech, the defection that falls upon their spirits from the silence is worse than hell itself. This has turned the churches upside down. Because you desire not to hear a discourse calculated to lead to compunction, but one that may delight you from the sound and composition of the words, as though you were listening to singers and minstrels. When we idly busy ourselves about beautiful expressions and the composition and harmony of our sentences in order that we might not profit. When we make it our aim to be admired, not to instruct. To delight, not prick to the heart. To be applauded and depart with praise, not to correct men's manners. We do wrong. Believe me, I speak what I feel. When as I discourse I hear myself applauded, at that moment I feel it as a man. I am delighted and give way to the pleasurable feeling. But when I get home, and rethink me, that those who applauded received no benefit from my discourse. But whatever benefit they ought to have got, they lost it while applauding and praising. I am in pain, and groan, and weep, and feel as if I had spoken all in vain. I say to myself, what profit comes to me from my labors, while the hearers do not choose to benefit by what they hear from me. Even the heathen philosophers, we hear of their discoursing, and nowhere do we find that noisy applause accompanied their words. We hear of the apostles making public speeches, and yet nowhere do the accounts add that in the midst of their discourses the hearers interrupted the speaker with loud expressions of approbation. Christ spoke publicly on the mount, yet no one said ought until he had finished his discourse. How shall the hearer be otherwise than ridiculous? Nay, he will be deemed a flatterer and his praise no better than irony, when he declares that the teacher spoke beautifully. But what he said, this he cannot tell. This has all the appearance of adulation. For when indeed one has been hearing minstrels and players, it is no wonder if such has been the case with him, seeing he looks not how to utter the strain in the same manner, but where the matter is not an exhibition of song or of voice, but the drift and purport of thoughts and wise reflections. And it is easy for everyone to tell and report what was said. How can he but deserve the accusation who cannot tell what the matter was for which he praised the speaker? Nothing so becomes the church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theaters and baths and public processions and marketplaces, but where doctrines and such doctrines are the subject of teaching there should be stillness and quiet and calm reflection and a haven of much repose. These things I beseech and entreat. For I go about in quest of ways by which I shall be enabled to profit your souls. And no small way I take this to be. It will profit not you only, but us also. So shall we not be carried away with pride, not be tempted to love, praise, and honor, not be led to speak those things which delight, but those things that profit. So shall we lay the whole stress of our time and diligence, not upon arts of composition and beauties of expression, but upon the matter and meaning of the thoughts. Is not all nature decked with stillness and silence? Overall the face of heaven is scattered the charm of repose. On this account we are evil spoken of, even among the Gentiles, as though we did all for display and ostentation. But if this be prevented the love of the chief seats will also be extinguished. It is sufficient if anyone be enamored of praise that he should obtain it after having been heard. When all is gathered in, yea I beseech you that doing all things according to God's will we may be found worthy of the mercy which is from Him through the grace and compassion of His only Son. End of Unapplauding Preachers by St. John Chris Ostom Recording by Robert Scott MojoMove411.com September 12, 2007 On Francis Bacon From Letters on the English or Lectures Philosophique Circa 1778 by Voltaire This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org On the Lord Bacon It is not long since Detroit and Frivolous Question Following was debated in a very polite and learned company, that is, who was the greatest man, Caesar, Alexander, Tamerlane, Cromwell, etc. Somebody answered that Sir Isaac Newton excelled them all. The gentleman's assertion was very just. The true greatness consistent having received from heaven a mighty genius and in having employed it to enlighten our own mind and that of others. A man like Sir Isaac Newton, whose equal is hardly found in a thousand years, is the truly great man and those politicians and conquerors, and all ages produce some, were generally so many illustrious wicked men. That man claims our respect who commands over the minds of the rest of the world by the force of truth. Not those who enslave their fellow creatures. He who is acquainted with the universe, not they who deface it. Since, therefore, you desire me to give you an account of the famous personages whom England has given birth to, I shall begin with Lord Bacon, Mr. Locke, Sir Isaac Newton, etc. Afterwards, the warriors and ministers of state shall come in their order. I must begin with the celebrated Viscount Virulum, known in Europe by the name of Bacon, which was that of his family. His father had been Lord Keeper and himself was a great many years Lord Chancellor under King James I. Nevertheless, amidst the intrigues of a court and the affairs of exalted employment, which alone were enough to engross his whole time, he yet found so much leisure for study as to make himself a great philosopher, a good historian, and an elegant writer. And a still more surprising circumstance is that he lived in an age in which the art of writing justly and elegantly was little known, much less true philosophy. Lord Bacon, as is the fate of man, was more esteemed after his death than in his lifetime. His enemies were in the British court and at his mires were foreigners. When the Marquis de Fiat attended in England upon the Princess Heriata Maria, daughter to Henry IV, whom Charles I had married, that minister went and visited the Lord Bacon, who, being at that time sick in his bed, received him with the curtains shut closed. You resemble the angels, said the Marquis to him. We see those beings spoken up perpetually and we believe them superior to men, but are never allowed the consolation to see them. You know that this great man was accused of a crime very unbecoming a philosopher. I mean bribery and extortion. You know that he was sentenced by the House of Lords to pay a fine of about 400,000 French leavers to lose his peerage and his dignity of Chancellor. But in the present age the English revere his memory to such a degree that they will scarce allow him to have been found guilty. In case you should ask what are my thoughts on this head, I shall answer you in the words which I heard the Lord Bolingbroke use on another occasion. Several gentlemen were speaking in his company of the avarice with which the Lake Duke of Marlborough had been charged. Some examples were of being given the Lord Bolingbroke was appealed to. Who, having been in the opposite party, might perhaps without the imputation of indecency, had been allowed to clear up that matter. He was so great a man, replied his lordship, that I have forgotten his vices. I shall therefore confine myself to those things which so justly gain Lord Bacon the esteem of all Europe. The most singular and the best of all his pieces is that which, at this time, is the most useless and the least read. I mean his Novum Scientarium Organum. This is the scaffold with which the new philosophy was raised. And when the edifice was built, part of it at least, the scaffold was no longer of service. The Lord Bacon was not yet acquainted with nature, but then he knew and pointed out the several paths that lead to it. He had despised in his younger years the thing called philosophy in the universities, and did all that lay in his power to prevent those societies of men instituted to improve human reason, from depraving it by their quiddities, their horrors of the vacuum, their substantial forms in all those impertinent terms which not only ignorance had rendered venerable, but which had been made sacred by their being ridiculously blended with religion. He is the father of experimental philosophy. It must indeed be confessed that very surprising secrets had been found out before his time, the sea compass, printing, engraving on copper plates, oil painting, looking glasses, the art of restoring, in some measure, old men to their sight by spectacles, gunpowder, etc. had been discovered. A new world has been sought for, found and conquered. Would not one suppose that these sublime discoveries had been made by the greatest philosophers and in ages much more enlightened than in the present? But it was far otherwise. All these great changes happened in the most stupid and barbarous times. Chance only gave birth to most of those inventions, and it is very probable that it was as called Chance contributed very much to the discovery of America. At least it has always been thought that Christopher Columbus undertook his voids merely on the relation of a captain of a ship which a storm had driven as far westward as the Caribbean islands. Be this as it will, men had sailed round the world and could destroy cities by an artificial thunder more dreadful than the real one. But then they were not acquainted with the circulation of the blood, the weight of the air, the laws of motion, light, the number of our planets, etc., and a man who maintained a thesis on Aristotle's categories on the universal's apart ray or such like Nothenance was looked upon as a prodigy. The most astonishing, the most useful inventions are not those which reflect the greatest honor on the human mind. It is to a mechanical instinct which is found in many men and not to true philosophy that most arts owe their origin. The discovery of fire, the art of making bread, of melting and preparing metals, of building houses, and the invention of the shuttle are infinitely more beneficial to mankind than printing or the sea compass, and yet these arts were invented by uncountivated, savage men. What a prodigious use the Greeks and Romans made afterwards of mechanics. Nevertheless, they believed that there were crystal heavens, that the stars were small lamps which sometimes fell into the sea, and one of their greatest philosophers, after long researches, found that the stars were so many flints which had been detached from the earth. In a word, no one before the Lord Bacon was acquainted with experimental philosophy, nor with the several physical experiments which have been made since his time. Scarce one of them but is hinted at in his work, and he himself has made several. He made a kind of pneumatic engine by which he guessed the elasticity of the air. He approached, on all sides as it were, to the discovery of its weight, and had very near attained it but some time after Torricelli seized upon his truth. In a little time experimental philosophy began to be cultivated on a sudden in most parts of Europe. It was a hidden treasure which the Lord Bacon had some notion of, and which all the philosophers encouraged by his promises endeavored to dig up. But that which surprised me most was to read in his work and express terms the new attraction, the invention of which is ascribed to Sir Isaac Newton. We must search, says Lord Bacon, whether there may not be a kind of magnetic power which operates between the earth and heavy bodies, between the moon and the ocean, between the planets, etc. In another place he says either heavy bodies must be carried towards the center of the earth, or must be reciprocally attracted by it, and in the latter case it is evident that the nearer bodies in their falling draw towards the earth, the stronger they will attract one another. We must, says he, make an experiment to see whether the same clock will have faster on the top of a mountain or at the bottom of a mine. Whether the strength of the weights decreases on the mountain and increases in the mine, it is probable that the earth has a true attractive power. This forerunner in philosophy was also an elegant writer, a historian, and a wit. His moral essays are greatly esteemed, but they were drawn up in the view of instructing rather than a pleasing. And, as they are not a satire upon mankind, like Roushifold's Maxim, nor written upon a skeptical plan, like Montan's essays, they are not so much read as those two ingenious authors. His history of Henry VII was looked upon as a masterpiece. But how is it possible that some persons can presume to compare so little of work with the history of our illustrious throughness? Speaking about the famous imposter Perkin, son to a converted Jew who assumed boldly the name of Richard IV, King of England, at the instigation of the Duchess of Burgundy, and who disputed the crown with Henry VII, the Lord Bacon writes as follows. Quote, At this time the king began again to be haunted with sprites by the magic and curious acts of the Lady Margaret, who raised up the ghost of Richard, Duke of York, and the King Henry IV to walk and vex the king. After such time as she, Margaret of Burgundy, thought he, Perkin Warbeck, was perfect in his lesson, she began to cast with herself from what coasts blazing stars should first appear, and at what time it must be upon the horizon of Ireland, for there had the like meteor strong influence before. End quote. Me thinks our sagacious throughness does not give in to such fustion which formerly was looked upon as sublime, but in this age is justly called nonsense. End. Voltaire, Letter XII. On the Lord Bacon. Read by M. L. Cohen. MojoMoo411.com That's M-O-J-O-M-O-V-E-411.com. Cleveland, Ohio, September 2007. On withdrawing from the Union. Jefferson Davis, 1861. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi by a solemn ordinance of her people and convention assembled has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say, but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument, and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise. And yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here represent on an occasion so solemn as this. It is known to Senators who have served with me here that I have for many years advocated as an essential attribute of State sovereignty the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause, if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think that she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before the act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention meant, they should take the action which they have now adopted. I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union and to disregard its constitutional obligations by nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession so often confounded are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union and against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision. But when the States themselves and when the people of the States have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights then and then for the first time arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application, a great man who now reposes with his fathers and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be a peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment. Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time will come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our government and the inalienable rights of the people of the States will prevent anyone from denying that each State is a sovereign and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whom so ever. I therefore say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise, and this brings me to the important point which I wish on this last occasion to present to the Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of the great man whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded State. The phrase, quote to execute the laws, was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now presented. The laws are to be executed over the United States and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation to any foreign country. It is a perversion of terms. At least it is a great misapprehension of the case which cites that expression for the application to a State which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a foreign State. If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the Union. But there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a seceded State. A State finding herself in a condition in which Mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union, surrenders all the benefits, and they are known to be many, deprives herself of the advantages, they are known to be great, severes all ties of affection, and they are close and enduring, which have bound her to the Union, and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States within her limits. I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same as it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own. I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to goers her back, nor say to her, Godspeed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other states. It has been a conviction of pressing necessity. It has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeath to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard pro-claim that the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions, that the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence. The people of those communities were asserting that no man was born to use the language of Mr. Jefferson, booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind, that men were created equal, meaning the men of the political community, that there was no divine right to rule, that no man had inherited the right to govern, that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced. These were the purposes for which they made their declaration. These were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave. One of how it happened that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what North had been endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves. Had the Declaration announced that the Negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property. They were not put upon the footing of equality with white men, not even upon that of porpoise and convicts, but so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths. Then, senators, we recurred to the compact which binds us together. We recurred to the principles upon which our government was founded, and when you deny them and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a government which, thus perverted, threatened to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence and take the hazard. This is done, not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, in which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children. I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours. I am sure I feel no hostility to you, senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say in the presence of God, I wish you well. And as such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent towards those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutual beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country, and if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers who delivered them from the power of the lion to protect us from the ravages of the bear, and thus putting our trust in God, and in our firm hearts and strong arms we will vindicate the right as best we may. I see now around me some with whom I have served long. There have been points of collision, but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here. I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been denanded, I have senators in this hour of our party to offer you my apology for any pain which in the heat of discussion I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered. Mr. President and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu. And, on withdrawing from the Union, Jefferson Davis, before Congress 1861, read by M. L. Cohen, mojo-move411.com, M-O-J-O-M-O-V-E-411.com, Cleveland, Ohio, September 2007. Response to a letter entitled, The 100 Greatest Men. Response by Samuel Clemens. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Response to a letter entitled, 100 Greatest Men. Response by Samuel Clemens. From a gentleman in Buffalo, Clemens one day received a letter enclosing an incompleted list of the world's 100 greatest men. Men who had exerted the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race. The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names. Adding, quote, Would you include Jesus as the founder of Christianity in the list? To the list of statesmen, Clemens added the name of Thomas Payne. To the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail to Buffalo, New York. Private, Reading Connecticut, August 28, 1908. Dear sir, by private I mean don't print any remarks of mine. I like your list. The quote, Largest Visible Influence. These terms require you to add Jesus and they doubly and trebly require you to add Satan. From AD 350 to AD 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. 99 hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan. The remaining fraction of it from Jesus. During those 1500 years the fear of Satan and Hell made 99 Christians where love of God and Heaven landed one. During those 1500 years Satan's influence was worth very nearly a hundred times as much to the business as was the influence of all the rest of the Holy Family put together. You have asked me a question and I have answered it seriously and sincerely. You have put in Buddha a God with a following at one time greater than Jesus ever had. A God with perhaps a little better evidence of his Godship than that which is offered for Jesus's. How then in fairness can you leave Jesus out? And if you put him in how can you logically leave Satan out? Thunder is good. Thunder is impressive. But it is the lightning that does the work. Very truly yours, S.L. Clemens. And of Samuel Clemens's response to a letter the 100 greatest men. Recording by Robert Scott MojoMove411.com S.L.C.M.O.J.O.M.O.V.E.411.com