them good, and it is only because some do that he advocates it; arguing, of course, for the necessity of such belief for the mass (because of their ignorance), from his own feelings.

ness."

morality, it is evident that instead of a virtuous and good being we have presented to us a moral monster.

How can the idea of such a being lead to virtue and morality; excepting it be upon the principle of good coming out of evil? In this case the god is in harmony with the theory; for he has selected a god of power, wisdom, &c. who could avert all misery and vice, if he chose; proving him to be the foul and polluted fountain of all enormities. Supposing we were to adopt this god and this theory (which however is directly opposed to the second part of the "Jew Book," which declares that good cannot come out of evil), and resolve ourselves into a nation of intellectual Thugs, the next generation would be perfect moral beings; for to our example, which would form nine-tenths of their cha. racters, they would only have to add our belief!

"All men (says the author), even the most ignorant and vicious, love wisdom and goodness in the abstract [qy., where could such characters get the ideas from ?]; for wisdom and goodness are the progenitors of happiBut of what happiness? Why, the happiness resulting from the practice of virtue. Surely it will not be affirmed that none but the wise and good are happy; and that there are not millions in the world whose only source of happiness is the misery of others. Who can say that the Thug, in proportion to his capacity for experiencing pleasure, is not as happy in cutting a throat, as the philanthropist in saving a life; or the pickpocket in abstracting a purse, as he who relieves the indigent? What is wisdom and what is goodness? Are they not relative terms; the "creatures of circumstances?" Does it follow that that which is good for to-" absolute Atheists," meaning thereby that day is likewise good for to-morrow, the nextday, and for ever? If it were so, we could speedily establish a "fixed moral standard," based upon our own knowledge, and not upon a rotten belief in a nonentity.

Mr. M. is himself an Atheist to the god of the Jews, as will be seen by the last few lines of his preface, but contends for a god who directed all the bloody wars of extermination carried on by that nation, the horrors and cruelties practised by the inhuman monster David, in making men pass through brickkilns, and under axes and harrows of iron; as well as the choice specimens of moral conduct, which were glanced at in the "Jew Book" article of No. 4.

Mr. Mackintosh has taken great pains to show the difference between knowledge and belief, in order to prove that there are no

there are no men who can prove that there is no god; neither are there any who can prove that there is a god (saving those who believe in Mr. M.'s own god-power-whose existence can be proved at any time) which is merely leaving the question where he found it. But it is not sufficient that this should be pointed out, we may yet see that Mr. M. has overreached himself and has gone beyond the truth. This book was evidently written with a view to damage atheism at any hazard, and in carrying out his object he has not scrupuled to injure theism. If we examine this argument, we find that either Mr. M. did not know what he was writing about, or that he was determined to do the Atheist an ill turn, though it were at the expense of honesty. He has himself made a straw man, and called it an "absolute Atheist," which he belabours most heartily, upon the Newcastle plan of "doing what he likes with his own." Can Mr. M. show us any absolutes? Are not all things and conditions relative? He himself contends that there is no absolute good and evil in the universe, at the very moment that he talks of a fixed (or absolute) moral standard of goodness!

Mr. M's book has not removed a single difficulty in the way of deism. They who contend for a god, necessarily contend for a something vastly superior to what we can ever imagine can be attained by man, and of course for the power to do or not to do that which man has not the power to accomplish. Now the leaving undone any good which might be done, is really to do evil. Could the god of this book have prevented the immorality he directed? If he could, he is a demon god, and ideas based upon such a If we trace the origin of the words theism being will partake of his nature and dispo- and atheism, and the ideas which gave them sition, according to the writer's own argu-birth, we shall find that they were employed ments. But it is clear that he could, for he is "all powerful," by which I do not mean that he can cause a thing to be and not to be at the same time; but, that he is "all the power that is in the universe, AND NO MORE; and it would be difficult to conceive how there could be any more;"* and there being more power devoted to immorality than to * See par. 27, p. 27.

to designate men who believed and disbelieved in a god; and not men who knew and could demonstrate his existence and non-existence. If either party could have proved their case, conviction must have followed with the other. No men wilfully believe a lie, neither can any resist the evidence of their senses. Proof would have rendered both terms unnecessary; for if all men thought alike there could be

no particular designation for a portion of them which would not apply to all, and so be useless. Taking the terms in their legitimate senses, attaching those ideas to them it is obvious they were intended to represent, and which they ever will represent in the minds of rational men: do this, and they will then, with honest men, be understood in an absolute sense. That is to say, they will convey the idea of men who themselves have no doubts upon the matter, which ever way it might be. This, perhaps, will appear paradoxical, first to contend against and then for the existence of absolutes; but I have drawn a distinction which I think will be apparent. The man who asserts that there is no god, equally with him who asserts the contrary, is, to say the least, inconsiderate and foolish. What right then has Mr. M. to give a meaning to the terms which they were never intended to convey? Is this the morality resulting from his godism?

more then one thing can be in two places at one time; therefore it is difficult to conceive, everywhere being all, how two everywheres can find room in it. Is it not scandalous that such dishonest quibblings and sophistries should be gravely put forward by a teacher of morals? Is it from this that the proof of the morality to be derived from faith is su perior to reason? Here we have an individual setting up an idol of his own imagination, and calling it a god for philosophers; and not content with parading his folly to the world, must grossly abuse those whom he knew would expose his errors, thinking perhaps, that by giving the first blow, he should have an easy victory.

But, for argument's sake, granting that power is not motion, we find that he has de monstrated the existence of his god; as the editor showed in the first notice, when he said men could pick him up in the lever, &c. Happy man! And happy generation to exIn sec. 24, under the head of power, we ist contemporaneously with such a genius! are treated to a journey through infinite space, Mr. Mackintosh's god is power! Think of in which are said to exist an infinite number this miserably gentle reader, when you comfort of worlds, which have been in motion yourself in your mildness, and contemplate "throughout an endless eternity of the past, the headstrong and armstrong whom you see and will continue throughout an endless eter-dealing death and destruction around. Think nity of the future." In this paragraph the writer labors to prove that power and motion are not identical, and he concludes it with the following words :

If there should be any Atheist so absurd as to maintain that matter and motion are enough, without ANY power to sustain that motion, we [that is the author] have only to say, that it would be waste of time to argue with such a person. He is too far gone. His case is hopeless.

of this when you hear the mighty rushing wind, the startling crash and reverberating echo of the thunder, pealing from cloud to cloud! Think of this when the vivid lightning rends the "monarch of the grove !!” Or, if you be a smoker," think of this when you blow your tobacco!!!"

In the next

But it may be said, if it be impossible to create new organised forms, without the dissolution of the older forms, could not those which live, live for ever in a state of vigour, without either new forms being created, or older ones destroyed? This also is impossible; for in order to do this everything must stand still, which would not be a system of life but of death.

In sec. 27, the writer again gives us two infinities; he speaks of "an eternal and infinite universe, actuated and governed by an Should I not blush to acknowledge that, in eternal and infinite mind," which is calling addition to my vulgarity, I am "so absurd as mind matter and matter mind. to maintain that matter and motion are sec., arguing from analogy, he shows his god enough," in my opinion. This power which to be a personal one, having arms, legs, &c., Mr. M. would add to motion is merely another of which blunder, by the way the watch godname for the spirit which “vulgar supersti-ites are likewise guilty. In sec. 31, he detionists" would superadd to matter. Why he stroys the very being he has taken so much has not hesitated to invert the order of things, trouble to manufacture. He says, and convert into a cause that which is merely an effect. Motion is the cause of what we call power, instead of power being the cause of motion. If power be not motion, what is it; is that which is said to produce and perpetuate motion inert; and if not inert what is it but motion? Is it not the motion com municated to the cannon ball, which propels it powerfully forward? But Mr. M. himself proves the identity of the two, for he says (par. 26), "wherever there is motion there is an evidence of the presence of power," and "the answer to the question-where is this motion? is, that it is everywhere," "therefore there is an omnipresent power," and of course, an omnipresent motion. Now, two things of equal magnitude cannot be in the same place at one and the same time, any

Now, arguing analogically, if living for ever be in reality not living at all, but positive death, then must his eternal god be non-existent, or dead!

With this brief notice of the latter portionof the work I must conclude, space not war. ranting any further examination of this most extraordinary book; the unphilosophical language and errors in which are, to use an auctioneer's phrase, "too numerous to particularise."

W. Č.

PROGRESS OF RELIGIOUS

HONESTY!

THIS is the age of progression, some say, so religious honesty has its phases. One of them may be read in the following paragraph from the Cheltenham Chronicle, of Wednesday last, called the Rev. Francis Close's paper:

ATHEISM AND BLASPHEMY.-On Tuesday evening last a person named Holyoake, from Manchester, delivered a lecture on socialism (or as it has been more appropriately termed devilism), at the Mechanics Institution. After attacking the church of England and religion generally for a considerable time, he said he was open to any question that might be put to him. A tee-totaller named Maitland, then got up, and said the lecturer had been talking a good deal about our duty to man, but he omitted to mention our duty towards god, and he would be glad to know if there were any chapels in the community? The Socialist then replied that he professed no religion at all, and thought they were too poor to have any. He did not believe there was such a being as a god, and impiously remarked that if there was, he would have the deity served the same as government treated the subalterns, by placing him upon half-pay. With many similar blasphemous and awful remarks, which we cannot sully our columns by repeating, the poor misguided wretch continued to address the audience. To their lasting shame be it spoken a considerable portion of the company applauded the miscreant during the time he was giving utterance to these profane opinions.

[We have three persons in our employ who are ready to verify on oath to the correctness of the above statements. We therefore hope those in authority will not suffer the matter to rest here, but that some steps will immediately be taken to prevent any further publicity to such diabolical sentiments.-ED. C. C.]

duced the applauding about which Mr. Close is so sore. My reply was

"As you, sir, have introduced religion to this meeting, which I have carefully avoided in my lecture, I will answer frankly and sincerely your question; and as you say we cannot have morality without religion, I will answer that, too. Home colonization is an economical scheme, and as we can ill bear the burden of a god here, he may lie rather heavy upon their hands there. Our national debt and our national taxation hang like millstones round the neck of the poor man's prosperity, saying nothing of the enormous gatherings of capitalists in addition to all this; and in the face of our misery and want, we are charged twenty millions more for the worship of god. This is utilitarianism versus divinity; and I appeal to your heads and your pockets if we are not too poor to have a god? If poor men cost the state as much, they would be put like officers upon half-pay. I think while our distress lasts, it would be wise to do the same thing with the deity. Thus far goes the political economy of my objection to build chapeis in community. Again, I never like to propose to others that I shrink from myself. I am not religions-my creed is to have no creed. All religion has been driven out of me, as I morality cannot exist without religion! Prepos will shortly show you. But what do I hear? That terous! Religion, in my opinion, has ever poisoned the fountain springs of morality! Connect them together! Hark ye! Morality alone is lovely-has sheds honest influences over mankind. Who that a sweet, balmy, and healthful reputation, and has felt its power, would degrade it by connecting it with religion? Read the mental degradation and oppression of your race, and there you read the history of religion; look at its bloody Instruments of torture, and its fell subjugation of honesty when and there we read its character! Why its fierce man would shun the revolting homage it demands: and inhuman myrmidons have immured, within these few months, Charles Southwell in Bristol Gaol; and while the friend of my bosom lies there I wish not to hear the name of god, I shudder at the thought of religion, I flee the bible as a viper, and revolt at the touch of a christian-for their tender mercies may next fall upon my head! This, sir, is no reason why the people in communities may not introduce troduce it into my lectures, and I trust you will take religion there, but it is the reason why I do not init as my apology for not recommending god-worship in home colonies."

would have been said about me in the Chronicle. The great majority of a very good meeting felt the natural force of the position before them. In fact, as all

no doubt often felt as I did, but had had no opportu nity of expressing their feelings unreservedly.

The veracity and fairness of this report will be seen from the following facts. I did not lecture upon socialism, but upon "Home Colonization, as a means of superseding Poor Laws and Emigration." And home colonization, every body knows is as orthodox as respectability can wish. My "attacking the church of England," was but a passing remark-and that not upon the church of England, but upon the Church of England Working Man's Association, which was the Social Institution I lectured in when This, as far as I can tax my memory, is the literal in Cheltenham before. Therefore I spoke of it as an of my reply, which was cheered throughout, I only old acquaintance, and having found it nicely deco-mention this because otherwise it is very likely little rated, not at working men's expense, and not being able to divine what working men could have to do with the church of England, I borrowed a simile from Jesus, and likened it to a whited sepulchre, out-thinking men and women must have done, th y had side fair enough, but inside rottenness and dead men's bones; not in the physical sense, but to rottenness of principle and deadness of morality. This is all that was said upon theology during the lecture, and before commencing I stated that my opinions must be understood as being individually mine, and that I stood there alone. I am particular in this, because it has lately become the fashion to charge upon me all sorts of crimes, that I have never done or dreamed of doing. The question of Maitland is correctly given in substance, as far as it goes, but a very imperfect part of my answer to it. I did not say "I did not believe there was such a being as a god." It is quite true I do not think there is, but I did not say so there. On this point Mr.Close or Maitland is far from the truth. What I did say was the following, and I subjoin the reasons for my opinions which the editor found convenient to withhold, and which pro

I have often wondered what was neaut by the words "wretch" and "miscreant;" when applied to many persons known during the French revolution -the terms have often filled me with a horror of them. But now, having spoken, with perhaps unusual earnestness, in defence of true, unsullied morality, I find the same terms applied to nie, I begin guess they are employed to mean heterodoxy ra. ther than vice.

to

I hope to hold a Public Meeting in the same place, to reply to this saine rev.gent. and his Chronicle, and take into consideration the case of Mr. Charles Southwell. G. J. H.

Printed by G. J. HOLYOAKE, and Published for him
by all Liberal Booksellers.
Saturday, June 4, 1842.

THE

EDINBURGH

VION

ORACLE OF REASON

Or, Philosophy Vindicated.

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

No. 25.]

EDITED FOR CHARLES SOUTHWELL, DURING HIS IMPRISONMENT,
BY G. JACOB HOLYOAKE.

ANOTHER PROSECUTION FOR
BLASPHEMY!

[PRICE ID.

to a question. These remarks, it would appear, by the following extract from the Cheltenham Chronicle, led to his arrest on Thurs

Arrest of the Second Priest of the day night last, at the conclusion of a public

"Oracle."

AGAIN the duty has devolved upon me of announcing to the readers of the Oracle and the public the apprehension and committal of another of my friends, for the same indefinable and imaginary offence — blasphemy! Again have I to record the active existence of the same demoniacal spirit which actuated the primitive Christians in their persecutions of the Pagans and heretics; and which has passed in an uninterrupted line from that time to the present in the blood and brains of the accursed sects professing christianity!

meeting to take into consideration the subject of civil and religious liberty :

reference to a paragraph which appeared in the last Chronicle, regarding this monster, the magistrates read the article alluded to, and expressed their opinion that it was a clear case of blasphemy. In doctrines, the superintendent of police was ordered to order to check the further progress of his pernicious use every exertion to bring him to justice.

Holyoake the Blasphemous Socialist Lecturer.-In

"After the audience had retired (says the Cheltenham Free Press) Sup.Russell intimated to the lecturer, that he had been ordered by the magistrates to bring him before them,

but he had no warrant. Mr. HOLYOAKE

said he would go with him peaceably, and walked down arm-in-arm with a friend to the station house, Superintendent Russell following behind." The same paper contains an excellent account of the meeting, as well as some liberal comments upon the arrest by the editor.

Writing to me from the police station, Mr. H. says, "The meeting at which I spoke till half-past ten, was enthusiastic. It was twelve o'clock when I was lodged here."

What else could be expected of men who deify a real or imaginary iudividual, a compound of ambition and folly, of mock humility and rampant tyranny; who, though called the "Prince of Peace," declared he came to bring a sword into the world? This hellish mission he performed to perfection, for never since his time has blood and misery ceased to flow from his dogmas and mysteries. The life-blood of humanity has gushed in torrents, manuring and enriching the earth, in all ages -for RELIGION! Sighs innumerable, and tears of anguish, in quantity not to be computed, have resulted from the same source, sufficient to melt the obdurate feelings of any COMMITTAL OF A SOCIALIST LECTURER ON being composed of aught short of the damnably hateful passions which blind fanaticism has given to its god! Men, says Bishop Warburton, have made themselves gods after man's image, taking the worst specimens they could find-themselves.

The last number contained an article from Mr. HOLYOAKE, respecting a lecture delivered by him in Cheltenham, upon Home Colonization, Poor Laws, &c., and an account of some remarks made at the close, in answer

The subjoined account of his committal is extracted

From The Cheltenham Free Press.

A CHARGE OF BLASPHEMY. GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE was charged with blasphemy. Mr. Bubb appeared for the prosecution.

Mr. Bubb.-I attend to prefer the charge of blasunwritten law of the land. There have been a vaphemy, and I shall take my stand on the common rity of statutes passed for punishing blasphemy, but these statutes in no respect interfere with the common unwritten law. Any person who denies the existence or providence of god, is guilty of blasphemy,

and the law has annexed to that offence imprisonment, corporal punishment, and fine. I shall give evidence of the facts, and I shall ask that he be