IS THERE A GOD? XVII. "Atheism is a point of metaphysical abstractions. The metaphysician asks, "Who created matter?" The answer is, "The first cause." The rejoinder says, "Did he make matter out of nothing? If so, the nature of the human mind receives this as an absurdity. If he made it out of something, this is not creation but reformation, and then, who made the something; and the inquiry goes on ad infinitum, until the mind is lost in what, by its nature, it cannot comprehend, and the case rests between a choice of an absurdity or an incomprehensibility." This is one part of the metaphysical subject. Now let me come to the other. The metaphysical philosopher asks, "Who created this first cause ?" The reply is, "It is self-created." Then comes the argument, He must have made himself either out of nothing or something -if out of nothing, we have nothing creating itself into something, and that something endued with omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. It is not, therefore, a first, but only a second cause, nothing being its parent, and the whole philosophy rests upon nothing being the first cause or creator of everything. If what we call the first cause did not create itself out of nothing, it must have created itself out of something, having a previous something, and again the human mind is in the dilemma of adopting an absurdity or an incomprehensibility."-PUBLICOLA. THE above is rather long for a motto, but it must pass as an illustrative extract. It is from the pen of the most subtile and philosophical of our political writers, and very well expresses the current and philosophical objection to the discussion of atheism among the reasoning and liberal portions of society. They regard it as a question equally balanced -a pendulum of mystery, ever vibrating between the poles of unintelligibility-aud think, the questions of deism and its negative the Scylla and Charybdis of the metaphysical ocean. since it is as easy to conceive matter to have always been as to have never been. The difficulty is not greater of comprehending that there must always have been something than that there once was nothing. Hence we conclude, since matter plainly is, that it always was. If we really had to choose between the absurd and the unfathomable it would be rational to choose the latter, as ig. norance is better than folly. But it is not The Theist, upon the question of crea tion, has the absurdity. The Atheist deals only in plain, clear, comprehensibilitiesand plain and clear the existence of the universe is. so. With regard to a creator-came he from something or nothing? If it were as plain to our eyes, as is matter, we should have some ground to conclude it self-existent. But this not being the case, the Atheist knows nothing of it, and does not busy himself with the "dilemma" at all. The absurdity of the supposition made by the Deist he at once rejects, and leaves incomprehensi bility to be studied by the theoretically mad. The Deist, by supposing a god, does nothing more than defy his own reason, and multiply difficulties no mind can remove. The Atheist is more of a utilitarian, and takes care not to squander his invention in such a worthless manner. Supposing atheism and deism to be really questions equally supported by facts or probabilities, which Origen Bacheler in his discussion with Dale Owen ably and acutely proves can not be the case--still this would be no excuse for the supineness and apathy displayed upon this subject by professedly liberal and philosophical thinkers. He who really believes deisin to be but a speculative question, should take care that his fellow men so regard it, and not allow thei to rest the question of morals, human rights, and liberty on a speculative basis. And what is much worse, to assume their question proved and every day ACT upon it, to the expendi. ture of millions, the sacrifice of all honesty and virtue, the negation of philosophy, and frustration of the benevolent schemes of phi However, as is the case more or less in all controversy, these opinions are not shared by every body. When we are told god created the world from nothing, the human mind instantly rejects it as a palpable absurdity, as an act not only contrary to ex- lanthropy. perience but absolutely inconceivable. The creation of matter from nothing is admitted as an absurd idea, but it belongs to, and is held by, the Deist not the Atheist. The Atheist accounts for the existence of matter without having recourse to an "incom prehensibility." The existence of the universe is plain enough, it is an axiom requiring no proof. It is perfectly comprehensible. But whence came it, cries the restless and uneasy theologian, who, when it suits his purpose will pry into hidden things with as much ardour as the Infidel? The Atheist answers, we suppose matter to be eternal G. J. H. The following whimsical, and of course blasphemous, placard was printed and published by Richard Carlisle, in 1828. Daring man, had he no fears for his immortal soul?— HANGING OF THE HOLY GHOST.-Every clergyman of the established church, is at his ordination, declared to have received the holy ghost. The Rev. Peter Fenn, who, for forgery, is ordered for execution, on Monday next, is an ordained clergyman of the estab lished church. The clerical or law-established inference is, that the holy ghost is to hanged on Monday next. XVIII. THEORY OF REGULAR GRADATION. | of sexes, and reproduction takes place by simple division or by buds, termed gemmules, which spout and become detached from the parent, "The reader will find that, proceeding through a series of forms, from the sponges to the highest of the polypifera, namely, the sea anemonies or actiniæ, an increase in the development of organic structure characterises the successive links of the chain."- Visitor. UPON a reconsideration of the plan I originally laid down for the development of this theory, and a review of the arguments and illustrations I have already adduced, I am of opinion that to trace the successive links of organisation throughout the entire animal kingdom, from the sponges upwards to man, would tire my readers. I have, therefore, determined upon giving the distinguishing points only of the different divisions, consider ing sufficient has already been said to satisfy an ordinary mind that it is not upon mere conjecture the gradation theorists have based their opinion. There is an old saw, that one fact is as good as a thousand, and in all that relates to physics, it may be relied on. I have given many facts in support of my views, and combatted what objections 1 have fallen in with, which I considered worthy of notice; in fact, those objections which are urged by the more intelligent of the creationists, both Jewish and otherwise. The remaining papers will therefore be intended to serve the double purpose of strenthening the convert in his newly acquired views, if there be any such; and also be of use to those who have not the time or means to procure illustrations for themselves. I shall commence then with the invertebrata, or those animals having no vertebral column. Three of the four great divisions of Cuvier, belong to this head. The radiata or zoophyta, or those animals that branch out in rays from a centre, like the madrepore, is the lowest division, and the acrita (from a, negative, crino, to perceive), or animals in whom no distinct nerves can be perceived, the lowest in the animal scale. As in No. 23, p. 191, I gave an outline of Cuvier's arrangement of the animal kingdom, which contained the most important differences of the four divisions, I shall not repeat them, but add what other particulars I may deem necessary. skeletons of this division are met with internal or external, soft, horny or calcareous; branch ed, globular, or filiform; free or fixed. The sponges and zoophytes belong to the acrita, and though no nervous fibres have been detected, it is very probable that nervous matter in some subtle form may be blended with the gelatine, or pulpy substance of which they are composed; true blood-vessels do not exist; their power of locomotion differs materially, some live and die upon one spot; none have true limbs, but many have tentacles or feelers for securing their prey; there is no distinction The The sponges (porifera) have been consi. dered by many naturalists as vegetables, at this we cannot be surprised when we look at them as we find them sold in commerce; when in the sea it is covered with a gelatinous film, both inside and out, very like the white of an egg; it drains away when removed from the water; chemically tested the sponge is purely animal, azote or nitrogen forming a large portion of its composition. "Sponges exhibit a great variety of forms, and often the most fantastic shapes. Fixed plant-like to the rock, they festoon the deep sea caves; they line the walls of submarine grottoes, and hang as grotesque ornaments from the roof; some like inverted goblets, aptly termed Neptune's drinking cups; some like fans, some like globes, and others like intertwined branches of uncouth growth." Though every species of sponge has its characteristic figure, still no two individuals of the same species agree in external form, or in the number and precise directions of their large canals. Among the higher animals, as we know every species resembles the rest of its species, in the form of the limbs and teeth, in the length and figure of the ears, tail, muz zle, etc., and also in the arrangement and colouring of the hairs, spines. scales, or fea thers. But this definiteness of figure, involv ing a constancy in the number and arrange ment of composing parts, diminishes in degree as we verge towards the lower groups, and when we arrive at the lowest, we see diversity in the midst of sameness, being in this particular very much like trees, for na two oak trees have the same number of branches, form of trunk, etc. who The zoophytes or phytozoa (Ehrenberg phyton, a plant, zoon, an animal), called by Graut, polypifera, or polype-bearers, follow the sponges. The demonstration of their animal nature is due to John Ellis, F.R.S 1754, who, however, had many opposers, contended they were vegetables. Highest among the polypifera, in the scale of organisation, are the flesby polypes, namely the sists of a soft, fleshy, cylindrical body, actiniæ, or sea anemonies, The actinia conbase of which, acting as a sucker, enables the animal to adhere to rocks, stones, and peb bles. the ated disc with a central oral orifice, and is The opposite extremity presents a stri surrounded by a tentacula, either in a single with minute suckers,as in actinia alcyonoidea, row, and adorned by enlargements, covered from the South Pacific, or by two or more rows of simple tubular tentacula, as in a. sẽnilis and equina of our own shores. These teu cula are capable of being expanded. has only served to clog and choke it, leading to the growth of absurd and crude notions about soul or spirit, which, to the great scandal of right reason, have been crammed down the throats of the people. If theolo contracted, and moved in every direction, When fully expanded, while the creature waits for its victim, they present a most beautiful flower-like appearance, increased by the fine colours which they usually exhibit, In the actiniæ, for the first time in this class, wegians would leave railing and deal with facts, recognise distinct muscular fibres, giving to the body the power of contraction and expansion, and even locomotion. It is not only on being touched that these creatures contract; so extreme is their sensibility, that a dark cloud passing over the sky, is sufficient to make them draw in all their tentacles; and the actinia senilis will, at once, bury itself in the sand on the approach of an intruder. W. C. with a view to ascertain why the mind of man is superior to that of the most intelligent brute, the reason is to be found in the following observations by Lord Bacon, "That of all things in the universe, man is the most compounded and re-compounded body, so that the ancients, not improperly styled him a microcosm, or little world within himself. For, although the chemists have absurdly and too literally wrested and perverted the elegance of the term microccsm, whilst they THE FREE INQUIRER'S WHY AND pretend to find all kinds of mineral and BECAUSE. WRITTEN BY CHARLES SOUTHWELL. III. Why have some philosophers assumed that matter is capable of thought P Because they hold it as an incontrovertible axiom, that nothing can come of nothing, and contend that we have an idea of matter, but none of spirit or soul, distinct from matter. They conceive that the atoms of which bodies are composed, have, when combined in different proportions, different degrees of energy; and that, as fermentation is produced by the mixture of an acid and an alkali, so thought, or intellectual energy is composed by the atoms which compose the human structure; and, in reply to those who contend that it is incredible that matter should think, they urge that it may be incredible, but it is a fact, and insist that no mere assumption can be allowed in an argument of this nature, still less an assumption which involves the whole question in dispute-yet, it is true, that upon this frail twig hangs all theological reputation, and those innumerable and complicated theories of a future life, to which theologians have given birth; by this thread is the weapon of the free inquirer suspended, like the sword of Damocles, over the heads of all traders in human credulity. We cannot conceive why an acid and an alkai should produce ferimentation, and yet fermentation is produced; we cannot conceive how life should be a property of organisation, and yet organised matter always lives; we cannot conceive how plants grow, or the moon moves through her orbit, travelling at the amazing rate of 2000 miles an hour; we cannot conceive why matter should gravitate, attract separate, mix, preserve, putifry, regenerate; but, in reality, all that we can do in any case, is to observe matter, and the change or phenomena it exhibits. The distinction between man and nature used in the first instance, perhaps, to help the understanding, vegetable matters, or something correspond. ing to them in man; yet, it remains firm and unshaken, that the human body is of all substances the most mixed and organical; whereas, it has surprising powers and faculties. For the powers of simple bodies are but few, though certain and quick, as being broken or weakened, and not counterbalanced by mixture; but excellence and quantity of energy reside in mixture and composition." Why has life been called a property of organisation? Because all elements and all atoms, or particles of matter, whether organic or inorganic are the same in essence; the only difference consists in the arrangement of them; dead matter is called inorganic, that is, not so arranged as to display the phenomena called living, so that the terms inorganic and dead mean exactly the same thing; whereas, when we speak of an organised substance, we speak of a living substance. The difference between the life of a man and that of a beetle or caterpillar, is one of degree, not of essence, and is a necessary consequence of the different arrangement of the atoms which compose them. Arrangement, generally termed structure or organisation, is life, derangement or decomposition is death; so that the phenomena called life, is a consequence of the organs, their powers, and their susceptibilities. "Life," says a modern author," as far as we affix any scientific meaning to the word, is a peculiar mode of being, in which a certain series of phenomena are observed to take place; these phenomena, are never found associated with any other conditions but that one to the designation of which the term life is appropriated; hence, we use this word merely as the short expression by which this peculiar state of being, or the associated phenomena which coustitute it are denoted. What life is, independently of this series of phenomena, we are wholly ignorant, as we are of everything but appearances in relation to every object in In HISSING AN ATHEIST! (From the Monthly Repository, for 1834.) THE Times of November 29, contains the report of the trial of Henry Berthold for stealing a boa, the property of Messrs. Leaf and Co., the firm which figured some time back as defendants in a dispute with the custom-house, touching sundry alleged ir regularities relative to the revenue. Few public matters have occurred of late more calculated to excite disgust in a well regulated and reflecting mind than the conduct of almost all the parties connected with this trial, either as actors or spectators, if the Times report be correct. Henry Berthold, a native of Saxony, and writer to some of the penny political periodicals, was charged with shop-lifting, by concealing a boa in his hat, for which he was put upon his trial, and he hired Chas. him, if possible, not guilty. The prisoner also read works of a highly moral tendency, and in testimony a defence, stating that "he had published several to the character of his writings solicited the attention of the court to the letters he had in his posses sion from his present majesty, when Duke of Clarence, from the Duchess of Kent, the Duke of Glou eester, the Duke of Wellington, Earl of Stanhope, and other distinguished personages." He then by way of proof of his innocence placed the boa in ques tion in his hat, so that it would not go on his head. Upon which, a witness for the prosecution, by the direction of the recorder, twisted the boa into a form which made it easy to conceal in the hat when on the prisoner's head. Phillips, barrister of alliterative notoriety, to prove nature." We say that matter is the permanent subject of certain qualities, such as extension, divisibility, attraction, repulsion, and so on. We say that mind is the permanent subject of certain faculties, such as perception, memory, association, reason. like manner, we imagine that there is a permanent subject, which we name the vital principle, upon which we conceive the phenomena of living beings to depend. But these permanent subjects, these substrata, in which qualities are supposed to inhere, must be considered, so far as our real knowledge is concerned, fictions of the imagination. All that we really know are the ascertained phenomena, beyond these everything must of course be conjecture; and the most eminent men have fallen, and at this very time, are constantly falling into gross errors, by not keeping the distinction here suggested steadily in view. The opinion held by almost all the ancient philosophers, and some few of the moderns, that the mind of man is nothing of itself, like putrefaction, exciti bility, contraction, gravitation, separation, attraction, &c., merely certain conditions of matter, has been deemed harsh and incredible; as it is contended that the nature of man, including body and soul, or mind, could not spring out of senseless or unreasoning atoms, seemingly forgetful, or perhaps not having known, that dead substances are composed of precisely the same particles as living ones, which only differ in their arrangement; so that dead, or inorganic matter, arranged and modified in a certain man-prisoner's character, but on being put on his oath, ner, becomes living or organic; how this is accomplished none are wise enough to answer, but that it is done all must know who place any reliance upon the evidence of their The opinion that the vital principle, or mind of man, is a self-existent immaterial agent, is a mere opinion, and has nothing whatever to do with science.. Others, assert that the soul, or mind, is a very subtle fluid, which enters into, and makes use of the body as a shell or covering; so that man thus considered is a twofold being, material and immaterial, body and soul, something and nothing, which body and soul are not to be considered as necessarily connected, but merely for the time being. Others contend, that the soul is but a manifestation of the principle of heat, generated by the motions of the atoms which compose us. It is observed by Dr. Arnott, that the temporary absence of heat may be called the sleep of nature, the more permanent torpor about the poles appears like its death; in like manner it has been presumed, that the temporary suspension of motion, and its consequent heat among the particles of organised beings, is sleep, whilst the absence of heat, in consequence of its entire suspension, is death. 246 senses. A witness named JULIAN HIBBERT then presented himself, under a subpoena, to speak to the stated that he did not believe in the contents of the book presented to him, whether it might be the Old or New Testament. Mr. Charles Phillips then elicited from him that he was an Atheist, whereat he professed to be deeply shocked, and refused to examine him. The witness calmly replied "very well," and descended from the box amid loud hisses. Mr. Phillips, however, to make the thing still more explicit, again called him back for an explanation of the word Atheist, and then concluded, "I will not disgrace myself by asking you another question." The witness then retired amidst the strongest manifestations of disgust and execration from all present. A second witness, WILLIAM M PHERSON, was then called, whose conduct gave sufficient evidence that he was disgustingly coarse-minded, as well as absurd. He also stated that he was an Atheist, and the remainder of the trial was as follows, according to the Times: Mr. Phillips (with great energy): Begone, sir; I will not, after the disgusting exhibition made toques night, degrade myself by asking you another be. witness, who left the court amidst hisses and loud cries of "Turn him out," in which several of the jury joined. Mr. Alderman Brown then said, addressing Mr. Phillips, "The public, Mr. Phillips, owe you much for the course you have pursued." persons, of appropriating every thing they lay hands upon-he must have been actuated by one of two causes-actual want, or utter profligacy. If the latter, he was a worthless being; if the foriner, it is an evidence of the absence of intellect, or beggarly pride. A writer in want would scarcely be refused No other witness answering when called, the re-employment as a labourer in a printing house, and corder proceeded to sum up the evidence to the jury. He was satisfied they would not suffer the prisoner to sustain any prejudice in their minds from the exhibition that had just now been made in court. It would have perhaps been well if the court had used its authority to repress the disturbance which that exhibition had occasioned, but he could not help saying, however irregular the conduct which flowed from right principles might be, it was most pleasing to witness with what disgust and execration the declarations of a party (whether real or affected) that he was not dependant upon a supreme being, were received in a British assembly. The jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy, believing this to be a first offence. The recorder told the prisoner if he had respectable witnesses who could depose to his character and mode of life, he would hear their evidence before he passed sentence. The prisoner said he had such friends, and that he had no notion that the witnesses he had called would have been guilty of such conduct. In commenting upon this I shall render justice, so far as my reason will enable me, to all parties. Henry Berthold was clearly guilty of the crime of stealing the boa, and the recommendation to mercy was most ill judged. Inninitely greater was his crime than a similar offence committed by a private individual. He had set himself up as a teacher of the people, and an advocate of their political rights, therefore it behoved him to be of irreproachable life and morals, even if his intellect were infirm, and if he erred through want of intellect; still more certain should be his punishment, in order to prevent other half-informed men from lightly arrogating to themselves the office of moral and political teachers as a mode of getting their daily bread. The princiciple of the bloated churchman, "do ye even as I say, and not as I do," should not be allowed to gain ground amongst those who profess themselves patriots. Children who play wantonly with fire are punished on account of the risk that mischief may occur, and he who sets up for a public teacher should, when he errs, be more severely punished than an obscure man, for his sphere of evil is greater. I have not read any of the writings of Henry Berthold, but he is evidently a man of very inferior intellect. He was the author of the political handkerchief, a puerile attempt to out manœuvre the stamp-office, by printing political articles on calico, or rather on crossed cotton thread saturated with damaged American flower or plaster of Paris. The thing was unreadable after a single "man handling," becoming a dirty mass of printer's ink and white powder. He could not even have looked at the act of parliament, or he would have seen that the stamp-duties were protected by the words "paper, or any other material." A man thus shallow could be but a blind guide to others. In stealing the boa-supposing him not to be possessed of the idiosyncracy peculiar to some Had a man of moral feelings would at once have said, it is better to labour for a bare subsistence than to break down the barrier of integrity. Nothing but the pangs of hunger can warrant any man in taking the property of his neighbour without his leave, and even then the violence only becomes excusable on the plea that hunger is like madness, preventing a man from being master of his own actions. there been a fragment of high mind in Henry Berthold when put upon his trial, he would at once have crossed his arms and said "I am guity; and the cause of my guilt was want (or proii cy) for which I am content to bear the punishment the law awards." But not so; he meanly shuffled and prevaricated, and endeavoured to controvert direct and positive testimony by a trick so absurd and glaring that a child would have been ashamed to attempt it, as an imputation on his intellect. Still more contemptible than this was his citing such persons as the Dukes of Clarence, and Gloucester, and Wellington, in proof of his good character. A portion of his business as a public teacher had been to bring into contempt the factitious respect attaching to such men on account of their rank, and upon the principle of the cringing meanness ever inhabiting the soul of a sycophant; only upon that principle can his conduct be accounted for. A man of high mind, even after the commission of a crime, would at once have disdained such disproof of his own unworthiness. Yet, "the recorder told the prisoner that if he had respectable witnesses who could depose to his character and mode of life, he would hear their evidence before he passed sentence." That sentence, when translated, means, if you will abjure all your former radical doings, and can by proper sycophancy to sundry dukes and duchesses, persuade them to give you letters of recommendation, I will let you off. How perfectly this tallies with the statement of the "schoolmaster in Newgate," that great men can influence the punishment of a prisoner, from hanging and transportation down to respite and reprieve. It is another proof of the mischief of suffering a "pardon power" to lie in irresponsible hands, thus making it a tool for political tampering. Punishments should not be defined by law, save under the direction of unprejudiced philosophers, and when thus defined, they should be imperative-not left to the regulation of the passions of a judge. Thus far Henry Berthold, criminal! (To be continued.) Some time ago, a party of ranters returning from a prayer-meeting, made up with an old woman with a lantern in her hand, who had been out charing; they, thinking she had been on the same errand as themselves, asked her, "Had she been seeking the lord ?" Eh, bless me! (cried she), I did not know he was lost! |