The unpopularity of that creed it would be vain to deny. A v

Produced by The Freethought Archives, www.ftarchives.net

PRODUCTION NOTES:

An Apology for Atheism by Charles Southwell (1814-1860)

First published anonymously in 1846

Transcribed by the Freethought Archives, www.freethought.vze.com

AN APOLOGY FOR ATHEISM:

ADDRESSED TO

RELIGIOUS INVESTIGATORS OF EVERY DENOMINATION

BY ONE OF ITS APOSTLES.

"Not one of you reflects, that you ought

know your Gods before you worship them."

LONDON:

J. WATSON, 5, PAUL'S ALLEY, PATERNOSTER ROW.

AND ALL BOOKSELLERS.

1846

AN APOLOGY FOR ATHEISM

It would be absurd to doubt that religion has an important bearing on

all the relations and conditions of life. The connexion between

religions faith and political practice is, in truth, far closer than is

generally thought. Public opinion has not ripened into a knowledge that

religious error is the intangible but real substratum of all political

injustice. Though the 'schoolmaster' has done much, there still remain

and hold some away among us, many honest and energetic assertors of 'the

rights of man,' who have to learn that a people in the fetters of

superstition, can never achieve political freedom. Many of these

reformers admit the vast, the incalculable influence of Mahommedanism on

the politics of Constantinople, and yet persist in acting as if

Christianity had little or nothing to do with the politics of England.

At a recent meeting of the Anti-State Church Association it was

remarked, that 'throw what we would into the political cauldron, out it

came in an ecclesiastical shape'. If the newspaper report may be relied

on, there was much laughing among the hearers of those words, the deep

meaning of which it may safely be affirmed, only a select few of them

could fathom.

Hostility to state churches by no means implies a knowledge of the close

and important connection between ecclesiastical and political questions.

Men may appreciate the justice of voluntaryism in religion, and yet have

rather cloudy conceptions with respect to the influence of opinions and

things ecclesiastical on the condition of nations. They may clearly see

that he who needs the priest, should disdain to saddle others with the

cost of him, while blind to the fact that no people having faith in the

supernatural ever failed to mix up such faith with political affairs.

Even leading members of the 'Third Estate' are constantly declaring

their disinclination for religious controversy, and express particular

anxiety to keep their journals free of everything 'strictly

theological.' Their notion is, that newspaper writers should endeavour

to keep clear of so 'awful' a topic. And yet seldom does a day pass in

which this self-imposed editorial rule is not violated--a fact

significant as fact can be, of that connection between religion and

politics the author thinks has been far too little regarded.

It is quite possible the editors of newspapers have weighty reasons for

their repugnance to agitate the much vexed question of religion, but it

seems they cannot help doing so. In a leading article of this day's

_Post_, [Endnote 4:1] we are told--'The stain and reproach of Romanism

in Ireland is, that it is a political system, and a wicked political

system, for it regards only the exercise of power, and neglects utterly

the duty of improvement.' In journals supported by Romanists, and of

course devoted to the interests of their church, the very same charge is

made against English Protestantism. To denounce each other's 'holy

apostolic religion' may be incompatible with the taste of 'gentlemen of

the press,' but certainly they do it with a brisk and hearty vehemence

that inclines one to think it a 'labour of love.' What men do _con

amore_ they usually do well, and no one can deny the wonderful talent

for denunciation exhibited by journalists when writing down each other's

'true Christianity.' The unsparing invective quoted above from the

_Post_ is a good specimen. If just, Irish Romanism _ought_ to be

destroyed, and newspaper writers cannot be better employed than in

helping on the work of its destruction, or the destruction of any other

religion to which the same 'stain and reproach' may be fairly attached.

The author of this Apology has no spite or ill-will towards Roman

Catholics, though opposed to their religion, and a willing subscriber to

the opinion of Romanism in Ireland, expressed by the _Post, because

convinced of its truth._ The past and present condition of that country

is a deep disgrace to its priests, the bulk of whom, Protestant as well

as Romanist, can justly be charged with 'regarding only the exercise of

power, while neglecting utterly the duty of improvement.'

The intriguing and essentially political character of Romanism, it would

be idle to deny. No one at all acquainted with its cunningly contrived

'system' will hesitate to characterise it as 'wickedly political,'

productive of nothing but mischief--a system through whose accursed

instrumentality millions are cheated of their sanity as well as

substance, and trained like the dog to lick the hand that smites them.

So perfect is their degradation that literally they 'take no thought for

to-morrow,' it being their practice to wait 'till starvation stares them

in the face,' [5:1] and _then_ make an effort against it.

Notwithstanding the purely Christian education of which they are taught

to boast, nothing can exceed the superstitious recklessness displayed in

their daily conduct.

The _Globe_ of Thursday, October 30th, 1845, contains an article on the

damage sustained by the potato crops here and in Ireland, full of matter

calculated to enlighten our first rate reformers, who seem profoundly

ignorant that superstition is the bane of intellect, and most formidable

of all the obstacles which stand between the people and their rights:

one paragraph is so peculiarly significant of the miserable condition to

which Romanism and Protestantism have reduced a peasantry, said to be

'the finest in the world,' that we here subjoin it--

'The best means to arrest the progress of the pestilence in the

people's food have occupied the attention of scientific men. The

commission appointed by government, consisting of three of the most

celebrated practical chemists, has published a preliminary report,

in which several suggestions, rather than ascertained results, are

communicated, by which the sound portions of the root may, it is

hoped, be preserved from the epidemy, and possibly, the tainted be

rendered innoxious, and even partially nutritious. Followed

implicitly, their directions might mitigate the calamity. But the

care, the diligence, the persevering industry which the various

forms of process require, in order to effecting the purposes which

_might_ result if they were promptly adopted and properly carried

out, are the very qualities in which the Irish peasantry are most

deficient. In the present crisis, the people are more disposed to

regard the extensive destruction of their crops in the light of an

extraordinary visitation of Heaven, with which it is vain for human

efforts to contend, than to employ counteracting or remedial

applications. "Sure the Almighty sent the potato-plague, and we

must bear it as well as we can!" is the remark of many; while, in

other places, the copious sprinklings of holy water on the potato

gardens, and on the produce, as it lies upon the surface, are more

depended on for disinfecting the potatoes than the suggestions of

science, which require the application of patient industry.'

Daniel O'Connell may continue to boast about Irish morale and Irish

intellect--the handsome women, and stalwart men of his 'beloved

country;' but no sensible persons will pay the least attention to him.

It is, at all events, too late in the day for we 'Saxons' to be either

cajoled or amused by such nonsense. An overwhelming majority of the

Irish people have been proved indolent beyond all parallel, and not much

more provident than those unhappy savages who sell their beds in the

morning, not being able to foresee they shall again require them at

night. A want of forethought so remarkable, and indolence so abominable,

as characterize the peasantry of Ireland, are results of their religious

education. Does any one suppose the religion of that peasantry has

little, if anything, to do with their political condition; or can it be

believed they will be fit for, much less achieve political emancipation,

while priests, and priests alone, are their instructors? We may rely

upon it, that intellectual freedom is the natural and necessary

precursor of political freedom. Education, said Lord Brougham, makes men

easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to

enslave. The Irish peasantry clamour for 'Repeal,' never considering

that did they get it, no essential change would be made in their social,

moral, or to say all in one word, _political_ condition; they would

still be the tool of O'Connell and other unprincipled political

mountebanks--themselves the tool of priests.

Great has been the outcry raised against the 'godless colleges, that

Sir Robert Peel had the courageous good sense to _inflict_ on Ireland.

Protestant as well as Romanist priests are terribly alarmed lest those

colleges should spoil the craft by which they live. Sagacious enough to

perceive that whatever influence they possess must vanish with the

ignorance on which it rests, they moved heaven and earth to disgust the

Irish people with an educational measure of which religion formed no

part. Their fury, like 'empty space,' is boundless. They cannot endure

the thought that our ministers should so far play the game of

'infidelity' as to take from them the delightful task of teaching

Ireland's young ideas 'how to shoot.' Sir Robert Inglis _christened_

this 'odious' measure, a 'gigantic scheme of godless education,' and a

large majority of Irish Roman Catholic Prelates have solemnly pronounced

it 'dangerous to faith and morals,' Neither ministerial allurements, nor

ministerial threats can subdue the cantankerous spirit of these bigots.

They are all but frantic, and certainly not without reason, for the

Irish Colleges Bill is the fine point of that wedge which, driven home,

will shiver to pieces their 'wicked political system.' Whatever improves

Irish intellect will play the mischief with its 'faith,' though not at

all likely to deteriorate its 'morals.' The best guarantee for national

morality is to be found in national intelligence; nor need any one feel

alarmed at the progress of principles and measures inimical to faith in

either Romanism or Protestantism. Let the people of Ireland be properly

employed, as a preliminary to being well educated, and speedily they may

_deserve_ to be singled out as 'the most moral people on the face of the

earth.'

An educated nation will never tamely submit to be priest-ridden, and

well do Ireland's enslavers know it. The most stupid of her priests,

equally with the shrewdest of her 'patriots,' are quite alive to the

expediency of teaching as facts, the fraudulent fables of the 'dark

ages.' To keep the people ignorant, or what is worse, to teach them only

what is false, is the great end of _their_ training; and if a British

ministry propose anything better than the merest mockery of education,

they call it 'dangerous to faith and morals.'

The sage who writes 'leaders' for the _Morning Herald_, is of opinion

that Ireland would indeed be 'great, glorious, and free,' if its Roman

Catholic people were to cease all efforts for Repeal, and turn good

Protestants. But the _Herald_ does greatly err not knowing human nature

and the source of Irish evils. It is not by substituting Protestantism

for Romanism that those evils are to be cured. Were every Romanist in

Ireland at once to turn 'good Protestant,' their political emancipation

would be far off as ever. Protestantism everywhere, like Romanism

everywhere, is 'a political system, and a wicked political system, for

it regards only the exercise of power, and neglects utterly the duty of

improvement.'

Religion is the curse of Ireland. To the rival churches of that country

may be traced nearly all the oppressions suffered by its people, who

never can be materially improved till purged of their faith in priests.

When that salutary work shall be accomplished, Ireland will indeed be 'a

nation' in the secure enjoyment of political liberty. The priest-ridden

may talk of freedom, but can never secure it; for, as truly said by one

of our most admired poets--

Tis man's base grovelling nature makes the priest,

Who always rides a superstitious beast.

And he is a poor politician who expects to see political liberty

achieved or enjoyed by nations made up of 'base, grovelling' specimens

of human nature.

What then can be thought of the first-rate reformers before alluded to,

who are going to emancipate every body without the least offence to any

body's superstition? It should be borne in memory that other people are

superstitious as well as the Irish, and that the churches of all

countries are as much parts of 'a wicked political system' as are the

churches of Ireland. The judges of our own country frequently remind us

that its laws have a religious sanction; nay they assure us Christianity

is part and parcel of those laws. Do we not know that orthodox

Christianity means Christianity as by law established? And can any one

fail to perceive that such a religion must needs be political? The

cunning few, who make a market of delusion, and esteem nothing apart

from their own aggrandisement, are quite aware that the civil and

criminal law of England is intimately associated with Christianity--they

publicly proclaim their separation impossible, except at the cost of

destruction to both. They are sagacious enough to perceive that a people

totally untrammelled by the fears, the prejudices, and the wickedness of

religion would never consent to remain in bondage.

Hence the pains taken by piety-mongers to perpetuate the dominion of

that ignorance which proverbially is 'the mother of devotion.' What care

they for universal emancipation? Free themselves, their grand object is

to rivet the chains of others. So that those they defraud of their hard

earned substance be kept down, they are not over scrupulous with respect

to means. Among the most potent of their helps in the 'good work' are

churches, various in name and character, but in principle the very same.

All are pronounced true by priests who profit by them, and false by

priests who do not. Every thing connected with them bears the mark of

despotism. Whether we look at churches foreign or domestic, Popish or

Protestant, that mark of the 'beast' appears in characters as legible

as, it is fabled, the hand writing on the wall did to a tyrant of old.

In connection with each is a hierarchy of intellect stultifiers, who

explain doctrines without understanding them, or intending they should

be understood by others; and true to their 'sacred trust,' throw every

available impediment in the way of improvement. Knowledge is their

devil. So far as antagonism to progression goes, there is no sensible

difference between the hierarchies of Rome or of England, or of

Constantinople. To diffuse the 'truth' that 'will set men free' is no

part of their 'wicked political system.' On the contrary, they labour to

excite a general disgust of truth, and in defence of bad governments

preach fine sermons from some one of the many congenial texts to be

gathered in their 'Holy Scripture.'

Nor is it found that non-established priesthoods are much more disposed

to emancipate 'mind' and oil the wheels of political progression than

those kept in state pay. The air of conventicles is not of the freest or

most bracing description. No doubt the 'voluntary principle' is

just--only brazen faced impostors will say it is right to tax a man for

the support of those who promulgate doctrines abhorrent to his feelings

and an insult to his judgment. Still, the fact is incontestable, that

Dissenting Priests are, for the most part, opposed to the extension of

political rights, or, what is equal, that' knowledge which would

infallibly secure them. The Methodist preacher, who has the foolish

effrontery to tell his congregation 'the flesh lusteth always contrary

to the spirit; and, therefore, every person born into the world

deserveth God's wrath and damnation,' may be a liberal politician, one

well fitted to pilot his flock into the haven of true republicanism: but

the author is extremely suspicious of such persons, and would not on any

account place his liberty in their keeping. He has little faith in

political fanaticism, especially when in alliance with the frightful

doctrines enunciated from conventicle pulpits, and has no hesitation in

saying that Anti-State Church Associations do not touch the root of all

political evils. Their usefulness is great, because they give currency

to a sound principle, but that principle, though important, is not

all-important--though powerful, is not all-powerful. If universally

adopted, it is questionable that any useful change of a lasting

character would be worked in the economy of politics.

Priests of all religion are the same, said Dryden--the religions they

teach are false, and in their tendency anti-progressive, say Atheists,

who put no trust in doctrine which involves or assumes supernatural

existence. Believing that supernaturalism reduced to 'system' cannot be

other than 'wickedly political,' the Atheist, truly so called, sees no

hope for 'slave classes,' apart from a general diffusion of

anti-religious ideas. According to his theory, religion is in part a

cunningly and in part a stupidly devised fable. He cannot reconcile the

wisdom of theologians with undoubted facts, and though willing to admit

that some 'modes of faith' are less absurd than others, is convinced

they are all essentially alike, because all fundamentally erroneous.

Rousseau said 'philosophy can do nothing that religion cannot do better,

and religion can do many things which philosophy cannot do at all.' But

Atheists believe religion the most formidable evil with which

progressors have to cope, and see in philosophy that mighty agent in the

work of improvement so beautifully described by Curran as _the

irresistible genius of universal emancipation_.

Speculative thinkers of so decidedly irreligious a temper are not

numerous. If esteemed, as happens to certain commodities, in proportion

to their scarcity they would enjoy a large share of public respect.

Indeed, they are so few and far between, or at least so seldom make

their presence visible, that William Gillespie is convinced they are an

anomalous species of animal, produced by our common parent 'in a moment

of madness.' Other grave Christian writers, though horrified at

Atheism--though persuaded its professors, 'of all earth's madmen, most

deserve a chain;' and, though constantly abusing them, are still unable

to believe in the reality of such persons. These, among all the

opponents of Atheism and Atheists, may fairly claim to be considered

most mysterious; for, while lavishing on deniers of their Gods every

kind of sharp invective and opprobrious epithet, they cannot assure

themselves the 'monsters' did, or do actually exist. With characteristic

humour, David Hume observed 'There are not a greater number of

philosophical reasonings displayed upon any subject than those which

prove the existence of Deity, and refute the fallacies of Atheists, and

yet the most religious philosophers still dispute whether any man can be

so blinded as to be a speculative Atheist;' 'how (continues he) shall we

reconcile these contradictions? The Knight-errants who wandered about to

clear the world of dragons and of giants, never entertained the least

doubt with regard to the existence of these monsters.' [10:1]

The same Hume who thus pleasantly rebuked 'most religious philosophers,'

was himself a true Atheist. That he lacked faith in the supernatural

must be apparent to every student of his writings, which abound with

reflections far from flattering to the self-love of religionists, and

little calculated to advance their cause. Many Deists have been called

Atheists: among others Robert Owen and Richard Carlile, both of whom

professed belief in something superior to nature, something acting upon

and regulating matter, though not itself material. [11:1] This something

they named _power_. But Hume has shown we may search 'in vain for an

idea of power or necessary connection in all the sources from which we

would suppose it to be derived. [11:2] Owen, Carlile, and other

Atheists, falsely so called, supposed power the only entity worthy of

deification. They dignified it with such appellations as 'internal or

external cause of all existence,' and ascribed to it intelligence, with

such other honourable attributes as are usually ascribed to 'deified,

error.' But Hume astonished religious philosophers by declaring that,

'while we argue from the course of nature and infer a particular

intelligent cause, which first bestowed, and still preserves order in

the universe, we embrace a principle which is both uncertain and

useless. It is uncertain, because the subject lies entirely beyond the

reach of human experience. It is useless, because our knowledge of this

cause being derived entirely from the course of nature, we can never,

according to the rules of just reasoning, return back from the cause

with any new inference, or making additions to the common and

experienced course of nature, establish any principles of conduct and

behaviour. [11:3]

Nor did Hume affect to consider Christianity less repugnant to reason

than any other theory or system of supernaturalism. Though confessedly

fast in friendship, generous in disposition, and blameless in all the

relations of life, few sincere Divines can forgive his hostility to

their faith. And without doubt it was hostility eminently calculated to

exhaust their stock of patience, because eminently calculated to damage

their religion, which has nothing to fear from the assaults of ignorant

and immoral opponents; but when assailed by men of unblemished

reputation, who know well how to wield the weapons of wit, sarcasm, and

solid argumentation, its priests are not without reason alarmed lest

their house should be set _out_ of order.

It would be difficult to name a philosopher at once so subtle, so

profound, so bold, and so _good_ as Hume. Notwithstanding his heterodox

reputation, many learned and excellent Christians openly enjoyed his

friendship. A contemporary critic recently presented the public with 'a

curious instance of contrast and of parallel,' between Robertson and

Hume. 'Flourishing (says he) in the same walk of literature, living in

the same society at the same time; similar in their habits and generous

dispositions; equally pure in their morals, and blameless in all the

relations of private life: the one was a devout believer, the other a

most absolute atheist, and both from deep conviction, founded upon

inquiries, carefully and anxiously conducted. The close and warm

friendship which subsisted between these two men, may, after what we

have said, be a matter of surprise to some; but Robertson's Christianity

was enlarged and tolerant, and David Hume's principles were liberal and

philosophical in a remarkable degree.' [12:1]

This testimony needs no comment. It clearly tells its own tale, and

ought to have the effect of throwing discredit upon the vulgar notion

that disgust of all religion is incompatible with talents and virtues of

the highest order; for, in the person of David Hume, the world saw

absolute Atheism co-existent with genius, learning, and moral

excellence, rarely, if ever, surpassed.

The unpopularity of that creed it would be vain to deny. A vast majority

of mankind associate with the idea of disbelief in their Gods every

thing stupid, monstrous, absurd, and atrocious. Absolute Atheism is

thought by them the inseparable ally of most shocking wickedness,

involving as it manifestly does that 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost'

which we are assured shall not be forgiven unto men 'neither in this

world nor in that which is to come.' Educated to consider it 'an

inhuman, bloody, ferocious system, equally hostile to every restraint

and to every virtuous affection,' the majority of all countries detest

and shun its apostles. Their horror of them may be likened to that it is

presumed the horse feels towards the camel, upon whom (so travellers

tell us) he cannot look without _shuddering_.

To keep alive and make the most of this strong religious feeling has

ever been the object of Christian priests, who rarely hesitate to make

charges of Atheism, not only against opponents, but each other; not only

against disbelievers but believers in God. The Jesuit Lafiteau, in a

Preface to his 'Histoire des Sauvages Americanes,' [13:1] endeavours to

prove that only Atheists will dare assert that God created the

Americans. Scarcely a metaphysical writer of eminence has escaped the

'imputation' of Atheism. The great Clarke and his antagonist the greater

Leibnitz were called Atheists. Even Newton was put in the same category.

No sooner did sharp-sighted divines catch a glimpse of an 'Essay on the

Human Understanding' than they loudly proclaimed the Atheism of its

author. Julian Hibbert, in his learned account 'Of Persons Falsely

Entitled Atheists,' says, 'the existence of some sort of a Deity has

usually been considered undeniable, so the imputation of Atheism and the

title of Atheist have usually been considered as insulting.' This

author, after giving no fewer than thirty and two names of 'individuals

among the Pagans who (with more or less injustice) have been accused of

Atheism,' says, 'the list shews, I think, that almost all the most

celebrated Grecian metaphysicians have been, either in their own or in

following ages, considered, with more or less reason, to be

Atheistically inclined. For though, the word Atheist was probably not

often used till about a hundred years before Christ, yet the imputation

of _impiety_ was no doubt as easily and commonly bestowed, before that

period, as it has been since.' [13:2]

Voltaire relates, in the eighteenth chapter of his 'Philosophie de

L'Histoire,' [13:3] that a Frenchman named Maigrot, Bishop of Conon, who

knew not a word of Chinese, was deputed by the then Pope to go and pass

judgment on the opinions of certain Chinese philosophers: he treated

Confucius as Atheist, because that sage had said 'the sky has given me

virtue, and man can do me no hurt.'

On grounds no more solid than this, charges of Atheism are often erected

by 'surpliced sophists.' Rather ridiculous have been the mistakes

committed by some of them in their hurry to affix on objects of their

hate the brand of impiety. These persons, no doubt, supposed they were

privileged to write or talk any amount of nonsense and contradiction.

Men who fancy themselves commissioned by Deity to interpret his

'mysteries,' or announce his 'will,' are apt to make blunders without

being sensible of it, as did those worthy Jesuits who declared, in

opposition to Bayle, that a society of Atheists was impossible, and at

the same time assured the world that the government of China, by

Voltaire and many others considered the most ancient on earth, was a

society of Atheists. So difficult it is for men inflamed by religious

prejudices, interests, and animosities to keep clear of sophisms, which

can impose on none but themselves.

Many Atheists conceal their sentiments on account of the odium which

would certainly be their reward did they avow them. But the unpopularity

of those sentiments cannot, by persons of sense and candour be allowed,

in itself, a sufficient reason for their rejection. The fact of a creed

being unpopular is no proof it is false. The argument from general

consent is at best a suspicious one, for the truth of any opinion or the

validity of any practice. History proves that the generality of men are

the slaves of prejudice, the sport of custom, and foes most bigotted to

such opinions concerning religion as have not been drawn in from the

sucking-bottles, or 'hatched within the narrow fences of their own

conceit.' No prudent searcher after truth will accept an opinion because

it is the current one, but rather view it with distrust for that very

reason. The genius of him who said, in our journey to the other world

the common road is the safest, was cowardly as deceptive, and therefore

opposed to sound philosophy. Like horses yoked to a team, 'one's nose in

t'others tail,' is a mode of journeying anywhere the opposite of

dignified, pleasant, or improving. They who are enamoured of 'the common

road,' unless handsomely paid for journeying thereon, must be slavish in

feeling, and willing submitters to every indignity sanctioned by custom,

that potent enemy of truth, which from time immemorial has been 'the law

of fools.'

Every day experience demonstrates the fallibility of majorities. It

palpably exhibits, too, the danger as well as the folly of presuming the

unpopularity of certain speculative opinions an evidence of their

falsity. A public intellect, untainted by gross superstition, can

nowhere be appealed to. Even in this favoured country, 'the envy of

surrounding nations and admiration of the world,' the multitude are

anything but patterns of moral purity and intellectual excellence. They

who assure us _vox populi_ is the voice of God, are fairly open to the

charge of ascribing to Him what orthodox pietists inform us exclusively

belongs to the Father of evil. If by 'voice of God' is meant something

different from noisy ebullitions of anger, intemperance, and fanaticism,

they who would have us regulate our opinions in conformity therewith are

respectfully requested to reconcile mob philosophy with the sober

dictates of experience, and mob law with the law of reason.

A writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ [15:1] assures us 'the majority of

every nation consists of rude uneducated masses, ignorant, intolerant,

suspicious, unjust, and uncandid, without the sagacity which discovers

what is right, or the intelligence which comprehends it when pointed

out, or the morality which requires it to be done.' And yet religious

philosophers are fond of quoting the all but universal horror of Atheism

as a formidable argument against that much misunderstood creed.

The least reflection will suffice to satisfy any reasonable man that the

speculative notions of rude, uneducated masses, so faithfully described

by the Scotch Reviewer, are for the most part grossly absurd and

consequently the reverse of true. If the masses of all nations are

ignorant, intolerant, suspicions, unjust, and uncandid, without the

sagacity which discovers what is right, or the intelligence which

comprehends it when pointed out, or the morality which requires it to be

done; who with the least shadow of claim to be accounted reasonable will

assert that a speculative heresy is the worse for being unpopular, or

that Atheism is false, and must be demoralising in its influence because

the majority of mankind declare it so.

The Author of this Apology does not desire it may be inferred from the

foregoing remarks, that horror of Atheism, and detestation of its

apostles, is confined to the low, the vulgar, the base, or the

illiterate. Any such inference would be wrong, for it is certainly true

that learned, benevolent, and very able Christian writers, have

signalised themselves in the work of obstructing the progress of Atheism

by denouncing its principles, and imputing all manner of wickedness to

its defenders. It must indeed be admitted by the really enlightened of

every name, that their conduct in this particular amply justifies pious

Matthew Henry's confessions, that 'of all the christian graces, zeal is

most apt to turn sour.'

One John Ryland, A.M. of Northampton, published a 'Preceptor, or General

Repository of useful information, very necessary for the various ages

and departments of life' in which 'pride and lust, a corrupt pride of

heart, and a furious filthy lust of body,' are announced as the

atheist's 'springs of action,' 'desire to act the beast without control,

and live like a devil without a check of conscience,' his only 'reasons

for opposing the existence of God;' in which he is told 'a world of

creatures are up in arms against him to kill him as they would a

venomous mad dog,' in which among other hard names he is called 'absurd

fool,' 'beast,' 'dirty monster,' 'brute,' 'gloomy dark animal,' 'enemy

of mankind,' 'wolf to civil society,' 'butcher and murderer of the human

race,' in which moreover he is _cursed_ in the following hearty terms:

'Let the glorious mass of fire burn him, let the moon light him to the

gallows, let the stars in their courses fight against the atheist, let

the force of the comets dash him to pieces, let the roar of thunders

strike him deaf, let red lightnings blast his guilty soul, let the sea

lift up her mighty waves to bury him, let the lion tear him to pieces,

let dogs devour him, let the air poison him, let the next crumb of bread

choke him, nay, let the dull ass spurn him to death.'

Dr. Balguy in the course of a Treatise which the 'liberal' author of a

Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World, 'considered an

excellent antidote against atheistical tenets,' expresses himself in the

following manner: 'Of all the false opinions which ever infested the

mind of man, nothing can possibly equal that of atheism, which is such a

monstrous contradiction of all evidence, to all the powers of the

understanding and the dictates of common sense, that it may well be

questioned whether any man can really fall into it by a deliberate use

of his judgment. All nature so clearly points out, and so clearly

proclaims a Creator of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, that

whoever hears not its voice and sees not its proofs may well be thought

wilfully deaf and obstinately blind.'

These are notable specimens of zeal turned sour.

Now, when it is considered that such writings are carefully put into

popular hands, and writings of an irreligious character as carefully

kept out of them, astonishment at human intolerance must cease. So far,

indeed, from wondering that the 'giddy multitude' shrink aghast from

Atheists we shall conceive it little short of miraculous, that they do

not fall upon and tear them to pieces.

Beattie, another Christian doctor, towards the close of his celebrated

Essay on the Immutability of Truth, denounces every sincere outspoken

unbeliever as a 'murderer of human souls,' and it being obvious that the

murderer of a single soul must to the 'enlightened' majority of our

people appear an act infinitely more horrible than the butchery of many

bodies, it really does at first view seem 'passing strange' that body

murderers are almost invariably hanged, whilst they who murder 'souls,'

if punished at all, usually escape with some harmless abuse and a year

or two's imprisonment.

Even the 'tolerant' Richard Watson, Lord Bishop of Llandaff, wrote with

contemptuous bitterness of 'Atheistical madmen,' and in his Apology for

the Bible, assured Deistical Thomas Paine, Deism was so much better than

Atheism, he (Bishop Watson) meant 'not to say anything to its

discredit.'

The Rev. Mr. Ward, whose 'Ideal of a Christian Church' spread such

consternation in the anti-popish camp, describes his own hatred of

Protestantism as 'fierce and burning.' Nothing can go beyond that--it is

the _ne plus ultra_ of bigotry, and just such hatred is displayed

towards Atheists by at least nine-tenths of their opponents. Strange to

say, in Christians, in the followers of him who is thought to have

recommended, by act and word, unlimited charity, who is thought to have

_commanded_ that we judge not, that we be sat judged; the Atheist finds

his most active foe, his bitterest and least scrupulous maligner. To

exaggerate their bigotry would be difficult, for whether sage or simple,

learned or unlearned, priests or priest-led, they regularly practise the

denunciation of Atheists in language foul as it is false. They call them

'traitors to human kind,' yea 'murderers of the human soul,' and unless

hypocrites, or much better than their sentiments, would rather see them

swing upon the gibbet than murderers of the body, especially if like

John Tawell, 'promoters of religion and Christian Missions.'

Robert Hall was a Divine of solid learning and unquestionable piety,

whose memory is reverenced by a large and most respectable part of the

Christian world. He ranked amongst the best of his class, and generally

speaking, was so little disposed to persecute his opponents because of

their heterodox opinions, that he wrote and published a Treatise on

Moderation, in the course of which he eloquently condemns the practice

of regulating, or rather attempting to regulate opinion by act of

parliament: yet, incredible as it may appear, in that very Treatise he

applauds Calvin on account of his conduct towards Servetus. Our

authority for this statement is not 'Infidel' but Christian--the

authority of Evans, who, after noticing the Treatise in question, says,

'he (Bishop Hall) has discussed the subject with that ability which is

peculiar to all his writings. But this great and good man, towards the

close of the same Treatise, forgetting the principles which he had been

inculcating, devotes one solitary page to the cause of intolerance: this

page he concludes with these remarkable expressions: "Master Calvin did

well approve himself to God's Church in bringing Servetus to the stake

in Geneva."'

Remarkable, indeed! and what is the moral that they point? To the Author

of this Apology they are indicative of the startling truth, that neither

eloquence nor learning, nor faith in God and his Scripture, nor all

three combined, are incompatible with the cruelest spirit of

persecution. The Treatise on Moderation will stand an everlasting

memorial against its author, whose fine intellect, spoiled by

superstitious education, urged him to approve a deed, the bare

remembrance of which ought to excite in every breast, feelings of horror

and indignation. That such a man should declare the aim of Atheists is

'to dethrone God and destroy man,' is not surprising. From genuine

bigots they have no right to expect mercy. He who applauded the bringing

of Servetus to the stake must have deemed the utter extermination of

Atheists a religious duty.

That our street and field preaching Christians, with very few

exceptions, heartily sympathise with the fire and faggot sentiments of

Robert Hall, is well known; but happily, their absurd ravings are

attended to by none save eminently pious people, whose brains are

unclogged by any conceivable quantity of useful knowledge. In point of

intellect they are utterly contemptible. Their ignorance, however, is

fully matched by their impudence, which never forsakes them. They claim

to be considered God's right-hand men, and of course duly qualified

preachers of his 'word,' though unable to speak five minutes without

taking the same number of liberties with the Queen's English. Swift was

provoked by the prototypes of these pestiferous people, to declare that,

'formerly, the apostles received the gift of speaking several languages,

a knowledge so remote from our dealers in the art of enthusiasm, that

they neither understand propriety of speech nor phrases of their own,

much less the gift of tongues.'

The millions of Christian people who have been trained up in the way

they should _not_ go, by this active class of fanatics, are naturally

either opposed to reason or impervious to it. Hence, arguing with them

is sheer waste of brains and leisure--a casting of pearls before swine.

They are convinced not only that the wisdom of the world is foolishness

with God, but that wisdom with God is foolishness with the world; nor

will any one affirm their 'moderation' in respect to unbelievers one

tittle more moderate than Robert Hall's; or that they are one tittle

less disposed than 'that good and great man,' to think those who bring

heretics to the stake at Geneva or elsewhere, 'do well approve

themselves to God's Church.' Educated, that is to say, _duped_ as they

are, they cannot but think unbelief highly criminal, and when

practicable, or convenient, deal with it as such. Atheists would, be

'astonished with a great astonishment' if they did not. Their crafty

teachers adjure them to do so 'on peril of their souls;' and if, as Mr.

Jay, of Bath, said in one of his best sermons, 'the readiest way in the

world to thin heaven, and replenish the regions of hell, is to call in

the spirit of bigotry,' the Author of this Apology would not for all the

treasures of India stand in the shoes of these men, whose whole time and

energies are employed in generating and perpetuating that detestable

spirit. But when your Rylands, and Balguys and Beatties, and Watsons and

Halls make a merit of abusing those who cannot believe as they believe,

what can be hoped or expected from the tribe of illiterate canters, who

'go about Mawworming?'

It is nevertheless true, that Atheists have been helped to some of their

best arguments by adversaries. Bishop Watson, to wit, has suggested

objections to belief in the Christian's Deity, which they who hold no

such belief, consider unanswerable. In his famous 'Apology' he desired

to know what Paine thought 'of an uncaused cause of everything, and a

Being who has no relation to time, not being older to day than he was

yesterday, nor younger to day than he will be to-morrow--who has no

relation to space, not being a part here and a part there, or a whole

anywhere? of an omniscient Being who cannot know the future actions of

man, or if his omniscience enables him to know them, of the contingency

of human actions? of the distinction between vice and virtue, crime and

innocence, sin and duty? of the infinite goodness of a Being who existed

through eternity, without any emanation of his goodness manifested in

the creation of sensitive beings? or if it be contended that there was

an eternal creation of an effect coeval with its 'cause, of matter not

posterior to its maker? of the existence of evil, moral and natural, in

the work of an Infinite Being, powerful, wise, and good? finally, of the

gift of freedom of will, when the abuse of freedom becomes the cause of

general misery?' [20:1]

These questions imply what, to the author of this Apology, appears an

ample _justification_ of Atheism. That they flowed from the pen of a

Bishop, is one of many extraordinary facts which have grown out of

theological controversy. They are questions strongly suggestive of

another. Is it possible to have experience of, or even to imagine a

Being with attributes so strange, anomalous, and contradictory? To that

question reason prompts an answer in the negative--It is plain that

Bishop Watson was convinced 'no man by searching can find out God.' The

case is, that he, in the hope of converting Deists, ventured to

insinuate arguments highly favourable to Atheism, whose professors

consider an admission of utter ignorance of God, tantamount to a denial

of His existence. Many Christians, with more candour, perhaps, than

prudence, have avowed the same opinion. Minutius Felix, for example,

said to the Heathen, 'Not one of you reflects that you ought to know

your gods before you worship them.' [20:2] As if he felt the absurdity

of pretending to love and honour an unknown 'Perhaps.' That he did

himself what he ridiculed in them proves nothing but his own

inconsistency. To the Author of this Apology it seems certain, a God

whose being is not as our being, whose thoughts are not as our thoughts,

and whose ways are not as our ways, is neither more nor less than the

merest figment of ill-regulated imagination. He is _sure_ a Being, above

nature, can only be conceived of by itself; it being obviously true that

the natural cannot attain to the supernatural.

The Christian, equally with the Heathen, is open to the reproach of

worshipping he knows not what. Yes, to idol-hating, enlightened

Christians, may fairly be applied the severe sarcasm Minutius Felix so

triumphantly levelled at idol-loving 'benighted Heathens.' Will any one

say the Christian absolutely knows more about Jehovah than the Heathen

did about Jupiter? The Author believes that few, if any, who have

attentively considered Bishop Watson's queries, will say the 'dim

Unknown,' they so darkly shadow forth, is conceivable by any effort,

either of sense or imagination.

Under cover, then, of what reason Christians can escape the imputation

of pretending to adore what they have no conception of, the Author of

this Apology is unable to divine. The very 'book of books,' to which

they so boldly appeal, is conclusive against them. In its pages they

stand convicted of idolatry. Without doubt a God is revealed by

revelation; but not _their_ God; not a supernatural Being, infinite in

power, in wisdom, and in goodness. The Bible Deity is superhuman in

nothing; all that His adorers have ascribed to Him being mere

amplification of human powers, human ideas, and human passions. The

Bible Deity 'has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he

hardeneth;' is 'jealous,' especially of other Gods; changeful,

vindictive, partial, cruel, unjust, 'angry with the wicked every day;'

and altogether a Being far from respectable, or worthy to be considered

infinite in wisdom, power, and goodness. Is it credible that a Being

supernaturally wise and good, proclaimed the murderous adulterer David,

a man after his own heart, and commanded the wholesale butchery of

Canaanites? Or that a God of boundless power, 'whose tender mercies are

over all his works,' decreed the extermination of entire nations for

being what he made them? Jehovah did all three. Confessedly a God of

armies and Lord of Hosts; confessedly, too, a hardener of men's hearts

that he might destroy them: he authorised acts at which human nature

shudders, and of which it is ashamed: yet to love, respect, yea,

reverence Him, we are commanded by the self-styled 'stewards of his

mysteries,' on peril of our 'immortal souls.' Verily, these pious

anathematisers ask our credulity a little too much.' In their zeal for

the God of Israel, they are apt to forget that only Himself can compass

impossibilities, and altogether lose sight of the fact that where, who,

or what Jehovah is, no man knoweth. Revelation (so-called) reveals

nothing about the imagined creator of heaven and earth on which a

cultivated intellect can repose with satisfaction. Men naturally desire

positive information concerning the superhuman Deity, belief in whom is

the _sine qua non_ of all religion. But the Bible furnishes no such

information concerning Jehovah. On the contrary, he is their pronounced

'past finding out,' incomprehensible, and the like. 'Canst thou, by

searching, find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to

perfection?' are questions put by an 'inspired writer,' who felt the

cloudy and unsatisfactory nature of all human conceit about Gods.

Now, a Revelation from God, at least so thinks the Author of this

Apology, might reasonably be expected to make the mode and nature of His

existence manifest. But the Christian Bible falls infinitely short in

this particular. It teaches there is a God; but throws no light on the

dark questions, who, what, or where is God? Numerous and various as are

Scripture texts, none can be cited in explanation of a Deity no older

to-day than he was yesterday, nor younger to-day than he will be

to-morrow; of a Deity who has no relation to space, not being a part

here and a part there, or a whole anywhere: in short, of that Deity

written about by Bishop Watson, who, like every other sincere Christian,

made the mistake of resting his religious faith on 'words without

knowledge.'