Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

heaven, with the greatest nonchalance looking out of heaven's windows at his son nailed on the cross, "like a dead rat on a barn door." as a wag the other day observed. We have "three gods in one," all almighties, all infinites, which puts to flight every rule of arithmetic, and laughs at proportional mathematics! Is there many true believers in this think you? If there is, they must have a strange notion of the word infinite. It is impossible for two infinites to exist, much less three; therefore Messrs. Holy Ghost and Son must go naked, if no other clothing can be obtained for them. In truth, it good for the human race that their every day experience proves their practical disbelief of this dogma of christianity. It has, however, been destructive of man's moral nature, nor could we believe that superstition could so degrade the human mind, did not the fact stare us in the face.

Where we to believe what Christians say, there could have been no morality before their sect sprung into existence; that all was dark, dismal, and gloomy before Christ's appearance. But are not the precepts of Socrates. Confucius, and the Gymnosophists of India equal, aye, and superior to those of the messiah? And amongst them, too, we find numberless cases of humanity, justice, temperance, meekness, and patience, proving that virtue flourished antecedent to Christ. Christ said that "men should love one another; "Pythagoras, long before the time of Christ had said, let men revenge themselves upon their enemies by converting them into friends." And Socrates said "that it was not lawful for a man, who had received an injury, to revenge by doing another." To love one's enemies is impossible, we may refrain from doing them an injury, but we can only love that which excites in us pleasur able feelings, and this an enemy is not likely to do, therefore we find it to our interest to "make friends of them."

Faith, it is said, is the pedestal on which stands the Christian religion. against which the gates of Hell will never prevail. What is faith? Religious faith consists in believing, trying, or saying you believe that which ap pears absurd, unlikely, and undemonstrable, therefore it exacts the total renunciation of reason, a stupid assent to things improbable, and a blind reverence for everything holy, which reduces man to a level with the beasts, and must be injurious to him. It is only beneficial to the priests who fatten upon the credulity and degradation of mankind.

Charity is another stone of the fabric, Christian charity consists in "loving god and our neighbours," but this, with Christians, must be mere pretence, because we cannot love a being whom we fear, and we must fear a being who would embrue his hands in the

[blocks in formation]

But loving our neighbours," yes, that is very good, but impracticable to a Christian, for we are commanded to love a jealous god, who like a jealous woman, wants it all to himself; besides, it would be degrading to offer a heart to deity shared by another. How can a Christian love an Infidel who worships not his god? And who, likewise, turns both him and his god into ridicule, 'tis impossible. Beings who are by their religion taught to hate themselves, can never love any one else. We do not find the Ranters or the Methodists who say they love god very much," care a great deal about their neighbours, on the contrary, they are proverbial for being screws, beings who will have their pound of flesh. 'l'is true they are zealous, but it is the zealousness of rabid intolerance, which makes them starve them. selves and their dependants at home, to send out muskets and missionaries abroad.

[ocr errors]

In a word Mr. E., the Christian religion seems invented to destroy nature, and the reason of man, it converts virtue into positive vice, it has interposed between the union of the sexes; it has invented artificial barriers to their happiness, it has converted the mar riage ceremony into a pantomimic farce, commencing with debauchery, and ending with death. Those nations who profess Christianity are more immoral than any heathen nations yet discovered, and where it is said that religiou most flourishes, there you find the people more ignorant of their duties, of their obligations. There you find that robbery, assassination, debauchery, and persecution reign triumphant Witness Spain, Rome, Italy, Portugal, or Ireland. he fact is, they are too religious to be moral. T. P.

ANTI-PERSECUTION UNION.

8, Holywel-street, Strand, IT is requested that all collectors who hold Subscription Books will send in the amount of money mittee to complete their report to lay before a pub received as early as possible, to enable the Com lic meeting in October, agreeable to former resolutions, of which due notice will be given.

M. RYALL, Sea.

Now Publishing. in Fortnightly Numbers,
at 1d. each, and Parts, at 6d.
THE JUSTLY CELEBRATED
AND UNEQUALLED SATIRICAL RHAPSODY, THE
УАНО О!

With numerous ADDITIONS by the Author.

Printed and Published by THOMAS PATERSON, No. 8, Holywell-street, Strand, London.-Agent for Coventry, J. Morris, 35, Union place, Butts. Saturday, September 24, 1842.

THE

SCOTTISH EDINBURGH

RACLE OF REASON UNION

Or, Philosophy Vindicated.

FAITH'S EMPIRE IS THE WORLD; ITS MONARCH, GOD; ITS MINISTERS, THE PRIESTS;
ITS SLAVES, THE PEOPLE."

EDITED BY THOMAS PATERSON.

"

1.]

Originally Edited by CHARLES SOUTHWELL, sentenced, on January 15, 1842,
to Twelve Months' Imprisonment in Bristot Gaol, and to pay a fine of £100,
for Blasphemy contained in No. 4.

Second Editor, G. J. HOLYOAKE, sentenced, on August 15, 1842, to Six Months'
Imprisonment in Gloucester Gaol, for Blasphemy, at Cheltenham.

WHAT IS GOD?

ISTS, Sceptics, and so-called Infidels
hantly ask, with Zophar the Naama-
"Canst thou by searching find out

i hitherto it has been conceded that
han bath seen him and lived."
eed, Moses and Richard Carlile are
ly two individuals who profess to an-
the question in the affirmative. Both
arrived at the same conclusion; the
by a view, posteriorium; the latter by
gument, a posteriori. The first was a
tion founded on the best evidence-that
senses. While the second was a mere as-
, without proof," that god was as much
bject of science as any other thing."
8 may be true, but I ask, What are the
ions of this thing, its length, breadth,
ackness ? What are its density, hue,
with its locality and peculiar properties,
w can it be rendered subservient to the
of man? These, and a thousand more
Ons all equally pertinent, demand a

answer.

at is the reply? All theologians de-
that "its ways are past finding out."
ophers confess that with all their search
airies they have found no particle of
nor do they know how to transform
and wine into the flesh and blood of
rd Jesus Christ. And geometricians
"line of faith,
ot yet demonstrated a
ut to square the fallacy of reasoning in
e, so necessary to prove the existence
d.

[ocr errors]

r all this who would not say with Mr. ke, "I do not believe there is such a 8 a god," and what Christian should

that

ilence is the least injurious praise.

Carlile further informs us that the zod is threefold, father, son, and holy and of the ever-blessed trinity the folexplanation is given :

e father-god is what man knows of raical or natural world.

he son-god is what man knows of the al or mental world.

[PRICE ID.

Three very nice distinctions without a particle of difference. What can man know of the "mental or spiritual world," but as a part of the "natural world?" And what is the difference between "the educated state of man in wisdom, virtue, and love," and "what man knows of the natural or physical world ? "

In the words of the Athanasian creed, we may say "such as the father is, such is the son, and such is the holy ghost." Definitions of god three in number hut one in meaning.

But if we must have a plurality of gods, why stop at the number three, since we have only to multiply the effects of education to have gods innumerable. Thus we should have gods of finely formed limbs, noble minds, and artistic conceptions-gods of clean wide streets, noble mansions, and commodious workshops-gods of baths, tennis courts, pleasure grounds--gods more numerous than the stars of heaven, and only to be calculated when the effects of education may be summed up and registered. In fine we may call them mother-god, sister god, brother-god, cousingod, niece-god, grand-daughter-god, &c. through all the variations of great, grand, and great-grand children gods, till the grand becomes perfectly ridiculous, and "numbers drowns the thought."

This dearth of names would not be the least inconvenience the gods would have to put up with. I am afraid we could hardly find them standing room. On the lowest calculation each man would have in him three gods. Hence the world would be overrun with some two thousand four hundred millions, and this nation alone would possess eighty-one millions, a visitation of gods from which we fervently hope this nation may ever be free. Three gods are more than we can support, and more than we ought to have-surely no man would' wish to have eighty-one millions.

Worse than the plagues of locusts in Egypt, their presence would be "very grievous,' covering the face of the earth so that the land would be darkened, "and eating every herb of the land."

Yet we may lay the flattering unction to our souls that "these gods are incarnateable

he holy-ghost god is the educated state in man by education in all science." How in wisdom, virtue, and love."

science, which says not a word of even one

[ocr errors][merged small]

Three reviews of this work appeared Oracle, but Mr. M. objecting to the spe which the reviews were written der answering them, or holding any dise with the writers upon the subject. Subse ly, Mr. Mackintosh having reconsider determination, declared his willingness cuss the question of the existence of s verning principle, power, or being," directed the universe. This article app in No. 35. He then stated that his c tion of a god was that of "an idea da. in the mind of man." In No. 36 I e voured to show the absurdity of the core

Mr. Carlile commenced with a very sensible observation, which it would have been well had he adhered to, namely, "that if god is not comprehensible it would be nonsense to talk about it." With this I heartily concur, and hence easily account for the nonsense which great men sometimes talk on behalf of religion. Thus Newton, the prince of phi-that an idea of a finite being could coun losophers in his "Principia," sank into contempt in his "Apocalypse," and the six years' imprisonment of Richard Carlile in Dorchester will be remembered and admired when his answer to the question, What is god? has been long forgotten. Cheltenham.

Jos. B. LEAR.

IS THERE NO GOD? "I am a believer in the being of one god, powerful, wise, and good."-Preface to a " Dissertation on the Being and Attributes of God," by T. S.

MACKINTOSH.

"We (T. S. Mackintosh) have found that it may be
shown by a process of reasoning, almost, or quite
equal, to mathematical demonstration, that the
universe is actuated, controlled, and guided in its
harmonious movements, by omnipresent, omnipo-
tent power."

"God is an idea DWELLING in the mind of man."-
T. S. MACKINTOSH, in No. 35 of the Oracle.
"What is the moral idea of god? It is, as I conceive,
a compound idea, made up of all the moral perfec.
tions, as wisdom, goodness, justice, or whatever
other virtue may be conceived to confer worth up
on and give dignity to the human character.
These are attributed to god-are called god's moral
attributes, and taken collectively constitute the
moral idea which we form in our minds concerning
god. The moral attributes of god, like truth, ho-
nour, &c. are mere abstractions."-By the same,
in No. 38 of the Oracle.

"With me god is a principle, not a thing, or still
plainer, god is a moral principle, not a physical
thing like virtue, which is not a thing but a
principle.....The idea of god is altogether a moral
and not a physical idea."By the same, in No. 40
of the Oracle.

direct the operations of an infinite univ To the objections contained in this latt ticle Mr. M. has never replied, and wh right or wrong they still remain unans

In No. 38 there appeared another a from the pen of Mr. Mackintosh, in wh elaborated his latest idea of a god, ar with his previous declaration in No. 35. that number (38) he classes his idea of with the ideas entertained by men c justice, and honour, all of which it known are derived from man's observat the result of human actions, which a are declared to be right or wrong. ficial or injurious, as far as they tend mote the happiness or misery of m They are thence called true or false, unjust, honourable or dishonourablecase may be. These ideas are consequ confined to the interests or economy of manity, or the mutual relation of man t having no influence whatever upon the r of nature's operations, which are inv the same, whether men are virtuous or vi If the "governing principle, power, or be which directs and controlls the univers idea only, it will be necessary to establ eternal existence of man and of the his mind before we can imagine the ex of our system and the motions of its bos for unless the motion be sustained by power it would cease, and chaos would again, according to Mr. Mackintosh. if the motion of the planets require to tained it must have been originated, self-originated it can be self-sustained.

THE above quotations are some few opinions from the pen of Mr. Mackintosh in support of the question of the existence of a god, in opposition to the negative opinion of the Atheist, namely its non-existence-both parties being If man murders man the earth is ret understood to take their stand upon the prob-vulsed in consequence. Nay, if every ability or non-probability of such an existence, and not upon the proof or dis-proof of such a being.

Mr. Mackintosh some time since published a work, intitled "A Dissertation upon the Being and Attributes of God." In this work he declares himself to be "a believer in the being of one god, powerful,wise, and good," and that this god was an "omnipotent, omnipresent power," who "actuated and governed" an "eternal and infinite universe" "in all its motions great and little."

ber of the human family was to be d of life, nature would go on just as now. just as it did before he came into ex The earth is not injured nor any of the mals upon it by man's death, exceptia himself in some cases, on the contrary, decomposition which follows death is p tive of life to numberless other animals, happiness is conserved by man's destro for if life be happiness then are they in the possession of it and in the me sustaining it. The same effects follo

thence over all the earth, we asked why this was done ?

Now it might do well enough to say it was to prevent their breaking like thieves into heaven, as long as we are in the habit of seeing the clouds open and display Jupiter upon his marble throne; this might do when the glorious place was just above our heads; but modern astronomers will langh at this, and as we are not inclined to charge god with ignorance, we must seek another reason; now that Jacob's ladder is so worn as not to bear an angel s tread, and Garbiel no longer pays his court either to the women or men of this lower world; this tale wont do: well we sought the reason and we have found it. God helps the salmon up the river, assists it to exert its last strength in a leap to lay its body at the feet of man, who must otherwise starve; and of course he scattered the people at the tower of Babel, and sent them into the interior of continents, which could otherwise have never been inhabited, in order that they might eat the salmon which could not otherwise have been eaten ! Who, with a moment's reflection, sees not this? And who shall refuse to glorify his holy name? Who will not praise his power, wisdom, and goodness? Again we ask, can we be surprised at the existence of atheism? This is where and why all former writers upon this subject have erred. They have pretended to argue from analogy, and they have no sooner commenced their reasoning than their analogy breaks down; yet they go blundering on, draw just the opposite conclusion to that which their premises warrants, and call on us to bow! They first make their god, and then cut and carve all existences, like a tailor with his cloth, to make them fit. If the argument of helping the salmon up the stream was worth anything-if it prove the power, wisdom, and goodness of god-does it not prove his impotence, ignorance, and folly, to send salmon where they were not absolutely necessary, or to let a single circumstance fail in producing proper and those happy effects?

W.

[ocr errors]

it away? and the wicked one invariably the victor. In external creation, exclusively and adequately contemplated, there is no escape from Manichenism. It is vain to say that the death of the inferior creatures is a blessing to man; for why, in the creation of a god of love, should any such ne cessity exist? And how would this account for the death of man himself?"-REV. H. M NEILE.

I CONCLUDED an article under the above head last week, by saying I considered "there are no arguments to be drawn from nature against the existence of a god of love, if there be any god at all," and I shall now offer a few remarks in explanation of my views upon this matter, as well as conclude my reply to the objections of our anonymous friend in No. 38.

It is the universal belief amongst Christians, and I believe I may say among mankind generally, that this earth was created by a being called god, at the same time that he created innumerable others in the ani verse, but that all the rest were provided for the special benefit of this one globe of ours, or rather for man, who was to inhabit it. The Christians draw their arguments for such belief from the Jew-book, wherein it is expressly declared that the whole of the universe, with the exception of this planet. was created in one day, whilst the creation of the earth occupied four days, and the creation of man one day. After which arduous nn. dertaking, the lord is said to have blessed his work, and to have declared that it was good, there being then no one to dispute the question with him, and that on the seventh day he rested from his labour, having first, I should presume, washed himself, combed his beard, and put on a clean shirt--though this latter circumstance is not mentioned by the holy phantom who chronicled the other events. That Christians should entertain such notions is a matter of no wonder, but that Atheists, although they should previously have been Christians, should continue to do' so, does surprise me. Yet this is the hypothesis upon which our friend argues the question of the existence of a god of love-that the earth, "and all that therein is." is man's inheritance, and that because man alone is not perfectly happy, therefore there cannot be a god of love. Just as though every other plant or animal which inhabits the globe were not as justly entitled to an equal share of divine consideration as man had not an equal claim upon divine love and attention.

and

WHY ARE WE ATHEISTS? "I am convinced, I say, that, from external creation, no right conclusion can be drawn, concerning the moral character of god. The authors of a maltitude of books on this subject have given an inadequate and partial induction of particulars. Already aware (though perhaps scarcely recog A god of love should have an equal affecnising how or whence) that god is love, they have looked on nature for proofs of this conclu- tion for all his creatures, and man is but an sion, and taken what suited their purpose. But insignificant part of the whole. From what they have not taken nature as a whole, and collected fact in man's history or economy do parties a conclusion from impartial premises. They expatiate on the blessings and enjoyments of life, in arrive at the conclusion that his happiness the countles tribes of earth, air, and sea. But if alone is the great desideratum with the deity ? life be a blessing, death is a curse. Nature pre-In what is man different to other animals? sents the universal triumph of death. Is this the In physical characteristics he is vastly indoing of a god of love? Or are there two godsa kind one, giving life; and an unkind one taking ferior to many, and in mental powers his

superiority is only one of degree, and not of
exclusive possession. The god who created
a tiger, if he be a god of love, is bound to
satisfy the passions and desires he has given
to the creature he has made; for if he did not
provide for the necessities of the tiger after
he had called him into existence, but left him
to feel the pangs of hunger, ultimately to die
in agonies, he would as justly be entitled to
a charge of cruelty, as though he had caused
the death of thousands.

But leaving the general view of the ques-
tion, and considering man alone, the same
rule will apply. There is a difference in the
disposition of every human being. Some are
more amiable and benevolent than others,
and of a consequence some are more vicious
and selfish than their fellows. The character
given to each is independent of the will of
Then, as some
the individual possessor.
are virtuous and some are vicious, and as all
are the creation of one being, for his own
pleasure and happiness, as well as for theirs,
it is as much the duty of that creator, if he
be a god of love, to gratify the malice of the
malicious, as it is for him to encourage the
virtue of the virtuous. If there were no ob-
jects of compassion there could be no bene-
volence. If there was no vice, there could
be no virtue. Virtue and vice are but arbi-
trary terms belonging exclusively to huma-
nity. The virtuous man merely benefits his
own race, whilst the vicious man injures it.
Neither of them either benefit or injure the
universe. Supposing a creator of all things,
the bug and flea have a special interest in
the injury of man, which it would be injus-
tice in such a creator to overlook. He could
not exclusively benefit any portion of his
creatures without manifest injustice to some
other portion. If, therefore, we grant the
probability of a god existing, there are no
facts in nature to disprove the hypothesis
that he is a god of love-that he has unut-
terable everlasting love for ALL his creatures.
What reason then have men to assume
that the universe is not governed by a god of
love, simply because they are miserable? It
is man's arrogance and egotism which dic-
tates such a conclusion. Man is not con-
tinually miserable, he would soon cease to
exist if he were. In making an estimation
of the number of pleasurable sensations we
experience, allowance would have to be made
for their degree of intensity, if not for their
number, on account of previous misery. I
know it might be said, then, in order to
experience the extreme of pleasure, it is
necessary to suffer the extreme of misery, but
honest
this cavil would be unworthy an
mind. The candid reader will understand
me, I have no doubt.

In continuation of my reply to our anonymous friend's objections, I would observe,

that his sneer at my "illogical idiosyncracies,”
was ill-timed. Our friend was evidently a
man of one idea, he saw, or fancied he saw
reasons for believing in a god of love, special
love for man, but no sooner did his eyes open
His
to the fact of man's misery, than he deter
mined there could be no god at all.
mind could grasp nothing but the one idea
which had possessed it, and when that was
removed there was a perfect blank, To an
ordinary mind the idea would have presented
itself that there might be two gods, one loving
and the other spiteful, as spoken of by
M'Neil, and believed in by millions in our
own and other countries. But no, our friend's
first love was his last. Not finding her what
he fondly anticipated, he discarded her in a
pet, and, like Peter, subsequently denied any
previous knowledge of her.

Our friend asks, what it is to me that my
children may believe in a god, though I do
"Is it any argument against
not, and says,
the solidity or justness of my opinion to day,
that some one next generation may, for a
different reason entertain a different one?"
This is my sincere reply to the first question.
Did I not hope by my labours to benefit the
future generations of mankind, to destroy
the sources of misery and degradation which
afflict present society, and to enable men by
my exertions to obtain those liberties and
rights which have been so long unjustly with-
held from them-I would not again move a
muscle or utter a word more in defence or
furtherance of the principles I advocate. I
have no expectation nor ever had of gaining
anything for myself by my exertions in the
field of human redemption, further than the
pleasure arising from doing what I conceive
to be right. Born and educated in our pre-
sent rotten state, I can see through its pre-
tensions. Never having witnessed a superior
state of society, I have no loss to regret.
Though I should be delighted to meet candid,
honest, and noble-minded men and women,
and to find society solely composed of
samples such as I have met, yet am I not
disappointed to meet with none but the con-
verse. Habitually used to such associations,
my character has been formed accordingly,
In fact, present society would do very well
for me, were I disposed to live in it as some
other men do. But I do not feel such dis-
position, because I foudly imagine my la
bours, however humble, will have the effect
of increasing the happiness of my successor.
Those good men who died before I lived did
as much for me, and I feel it a duty and a
pleasure to do the like for those who will live
when I am dead. It is then of every conse-
quence to me that my children and the chil
dren of the next generation should feel the
same horror and disgust of the vile system
which I do, or my labour will be in vain.

« ElőzőTovább »