Gave him a welcome. "Strange," cried I," whence of grace, like a navigator up a tunnel, and

ORACLE OF REASONIN

Or, Philosophy Vindicated.

"FAITH'S EMPIRE IS THE WORLD; ITS MONARCH, GOD; ITS

No. 31.]

ITS SLAVES, THE PEOPLE."

EDINBURGH

PRIESTS

MINISTERS THR

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

RELIGIOUS POLICY.

"Never can true reconcilement grow,
Where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so
deep."-MILTON.

Ty some species of metaphysical analysis,
oftener talked of than practised, some men
are enabled to separate evil from the evil-
doer, and to cordially hate the one while the
wellfare of the other is regarded. So would
I do with regard to christianity and Chris-
tians. I wish them no harm, nor would wil-
lingly do them any; but their principles and
practices 1 do most heartily execrate, and
from them, in every form or colour, shape
and shade, cry 66 good lord deliver me!"'

UNION

[PRICE ID.

good of your soul! Bulwer says Swift libelled man by calling him a Yahoo; Bulwer was never indicted for blasphemy, or he would have envied the horses their want of souls, and would thank god from the bottom of his heart to give him Houyhnhnms instead of Christians for his neighbours. Some one has said, the man who first planted a stake in the ground to mark out his portion was the greatest enemy of his species, but a far greater was he who first found out we had souls, or more properly, persuaded us we had. Priests immediately took possession of them, and woe has been our portion since.

I do not think Christians should be served as they serve those who differ from them, but Joseph Sturge has placed it upon re- they must be fairly and resolutely met and cord, that in his opinion the cruelties prac- their tyranny destroyed. It is needless to tised in our gaols tend only to harden the say they should be personally shunned, deheart, lead to despair, and infidelity. I can tested, and abhorred, their own practices will honestly testify that upon my taste only of effect that for them the moment they are unChristian mercy in one of those schools of god's derstood. No man is a more deadly foe to evidences, my infidelity and atheism was a liberty--moral, social, and political-than is balm-an adonyne to my spirits. To any a Christian. He upholds, whether he knows one who has fallen into the hands of god's or not, all tyranny, when he supports mental servants, the grave is less appalling a thou- despotism. The inhumanity of man to man sand times than is the horrid book you are is never so fully displayed as by Christian asked to believe in, the horrid principles men to unbelievers. It is easier to twist ropes drawn from it, and the still more horrid, re- of sand than to make men Christians by perrolting, and inhuman propounders of them. secution. The arguments of Luther would The man who has had the misfortune to fall not in an eternity of time have overthrown into the fangs of the disciples of Jesus on a the church of Rome. But he made religion charge of blasphemy, will ever afterwards display its hellish propensities in persecuting shudder at the sight of a bible-shun it as his followers, and down was old Rome tumhe would a poisonous viper, or a loathsome bled in a few years. "Human feelings are reptile. It comes, saying "Search me, for stronger than creeds," and humanity once in me you have eternal life!" You listen aroused, will, from its love of justice, extirpate to its guileful and deceitful allurements, and all who insult and degrade it. This will soon directly you find certain torture and prospec- be the fate of christianity and the reward of tive death. To him no sight is more detes- its inhuman policy. A Christian is an obtable and revolting than a Christian; who ject of unmitigated horror, to any man who approaches with honied words of love and dares think for himself, and has honesty mercy; he lures with boastings of paths enough not to be an hypocrite in expressing his pleasant and peaceful; but doubt his dogmas thoughts. Christians keep no faith--outside and cruelty-rudeness, gibes, jeers, manacles, they are mild, winning, and full of kind preand gaols are his kind replies. The hypo- tence-let them but throw off the mask, and crite! when he but once has lured you to his the Bubbs, Cappers, and Newalls are recoglair, he takes your liberty, blasts your charac-nised in every face. It is said, god hides the ter, damns your soul, execrates you before a jury, gloats like a demon as the sentence is pronounced, and adds, with the bitterest glee and pretended affection, that he does it for the

future from men that hope may live on hidden destiny. Would it not be an equal or greater blessing to take from us the idea of a god, since so much demonism is awakened in hu

The sup

man bosoms in their servitude of him? By | god. The supposition of one, or a million al not knowing the future, we are saved from gods, implies no contradiction, being miserable; by not knowing god, we position that there is neither one nor a million should be saved from making others so. implies no contradiction, but the supposition Christians' policy is to attack a man of that there are and are not a million of gods, liberal opinions and taunt him to express or that there is and is not a god is quite inthem. If he does, candidly and honestly, admissible. One or other of the propositions down they call the law, dungeons, and police must be true, both can't be, we are quite upon him, and hunt him out of life. If he, sure of this, whatever else may be doubtful. through fear of these prospectively, keep back This is called by philosophers "the princi any part of his sentiments, or give them an ple of contradiction." The great foundation orthodox version, they shout out "coward," (says Leibnitz, in his controversial correspon hypocrite," and thus after having made dence with Clarke) of mathematics, is the him damn himself, they damn him too, and principle of contradiction or identity-that thus doubly damned, their triumph is com- is, that a proposition cannot be true and false plete. This Brindley has proved a hundred at the same time. Of course, to deny this times, and every pulpit in every town aims principle, to say, for example, that a belief weekly at the same thing. Glorious victory in god is both true and false, would not this for a system said to be founded upon merely plough up the foundation of mathetruth!-winning its laurels by force and matics, but every other science. I conclude, fraud, and gaining strength from falsehood therefore, that there is or is not a somebody and deception-its true trophies from men or a something, a nobody or a nothing, a mamade disingenuous hypocrites. But let this terial or immaterial, an intelligent or utterly fail; let men meet them, disdain their over- stupid existence, who created the universe, tures, and despise their power, and Christians that is all things visible or invisible, and now will shrink within the dark sphere of their preserves and governs the same. Here, howown infamy, and dwindle into the paltry lit- ever, we require another principle. It must tleness of meanness and vice. To a fate be as already shown, that there is or is not a like this they are fast hastening, morally; god; but how are we to get at a conclusion and as for the success of their persecution, thereupon, either affirmative or negative? while they have the power to employ it, in- How are we justified in deciding for of stead of suppressing what they aim at, the against the existence of one or a million gods, experience of all persecutions proclaim that, The principle we require, the principle withas the blood of the martys was the seed of out which we are not justified in forming an the church, so Bristol, Gloucester, Chelten- opinion for or against theism, polytheism, or ham, and a few more gaol, will be the seed atheism, is clearly stated by the author above and pillars of atheistical faith. Years of quoted. He says, that in order to proceed preaching and volumes of argument do less from mathematics to natural philosophy, anoto the advance of opinions than the opposition ther principle is requisite. I mean (he con of sword and dungeon performs in a few tinues) the principle of the sufficient reason, weeks. This has been amply borne out by or in other words, that nothing happens with the recent prosecutions. G. J. H. out a reason why it should happen so rather than otherwise; and accordingly Archime des was obliged in his book, De Equilibrio, to take for granted, that if there be a balance in which every thing is alike on both sides, and if equal weights are hung on the two ends of that balance, the whole will be at rest. It is because no reason can be given why one side should weigh down rather than the other. Now by this single principle of the sufficient reason may be demonstrated the being of a god, and all the other parts of metaphysics or natural theology; and even, in some measure, those physical truths that are independent of mathematics, such as the dynamical principles, or the principles of forces. This is all quite true, even that part of it which relates to demonstrating the being of a god. The sufficient reason MAY be given for the being of a god, and whenever it is given I will not cavil about words, but readily allow the being of a god to be demonstrated, but not till then. Leibnitz does nowhere affirm that this single principle of the

IS THERE A GOD?

XVIII.

"The word god, is for the most part used to denote the impenetrable cause of those effects which astonish mankind, which man is not competent to explain."-System of Nature.

THERE is or is not a god. There is or is not a somebody or a something-a nobody or nothing, who existed before the worlds. There is or is not an intelligent existence, large or small, good or bad, local or universal, by whom all things were made, itself unmade. There is or is not such a being or existence, but whether it is more probable there is than that there is not, reason alone can determine. There may be a score of gods-there may be one god-there may be none at all. It is not impossible there can be a million of gods, it is only improbable; it is not impossible there can be somewhere, or somehow, one

sufficient reason has demonstrated or will demonstrate the being of a god; he only affirms what no Atheist denies, that it may be demonstrated. The Atheist, however, it is proper distinctly to say, does deny that the sufficient reason can be adduced in proof of a god, he does most emphatically deny that reason has been or can be given why that scale of the argument should "weigh down rather than the other." The Atheist thinks the weight of reason lies in the opposite scale, that, in short, the sufficient reason may be and HAS been given in demonstration that there is no god; and why, I should like to know, may not the principle of the sufficient reason be as legitimately applied to the denial as to the affirmation, to the disproof as to the proof of a god. This argument acquires additional force when we conder the fact that if there be presumption and pure loss of labour in reasoning about a god or gods at all, the folly cannot be charged upon Atheists; no, Theists and all other supernaturalists have exclusive right and title to it. They asserted there is a god or gods, then, and of course, not till then, others were stirred up to examine their reasons, to test their sufficiency. I never could understand upon what principle one man is to be deemed presumptious for denying the sufficiency of another man's reasonings; still less can I understand why it should be quite legitimate for a fanatical blockhead to affirm a god, yet quite illegitimate for a philosopher or a fool to deny one. This has been put in a clear point of view by Mr. SOUTHWELL in his lately published "Reply to a Discourse on the subject of Deity." The Atheist, says he, simply denies that there is reason to believe in the existence of a first cause, which denial is the necessary consequence of materialism, a philosophy that admits not the creation or destruction of matter. This demial of an intelligent being, said to be not material but distinct from all that sense can

conceive is called dogmatic. But in truth, the charge of doginatism more properly attaches to those who affirm, than to those who deny a proposition. If god had never been affirmed, he could not have been denied. It is a rule of logic, and a very sensible rule, that the onus probandi, that is the burthen or weight of proving, rests on those who affirm a proposition. Priests have affirmed the existence of a god, but who will maintain that they have complied with the rule of logic ? Who is convinced by their "strong reasons," that an immaterial being first created and now governs the universe? Before being convinced, it is necessary to understand, but I never yet heard either priest or layman say he understood god. It is therefore important the reader should remember that the denial of a god results from the lack of proof on the part of those who affirm such an existence, and

that it would be absurd, or rather a contradiction in terms, to talk of a negation where there has been no affirmation. Nor are those who reject as inconclusive the reasons urged by supernaturalists called upon, from the simple act of denying, to prove a negative. For example, my hot-headed neighbour may affirm that the moon is made of a peculiar kind of pudding, but I cannot see upon what reasonable grounds I, who might be disposed to disbelieve him, am called upon to disprove his assertion.

Can you disprove the existence of a god? cry the theologians. No, gentlemen, no, it is not the Atheist's business to disprove, but yours to prove a god. This is intelligible, and fixes the saddle on the right horse. It is obvious, that though a proposition may be affirmed without being denied, it is inconceivable that anything should be denied, before it is affirmed. If, therefore, there be any dogmatism or presumption in declaring that there is or is not a god, like the famed Irish reciprocity, 'tis all on one side, and that the affirmative side of the question. There is not one tittle more dogmatic presumption in denying a god, than there is in denying devils, angels, or witches. If people with heated imaginations will declare, and not only declare, but act upon the declarations that there sober-minded men to be refused liberty to are gods, devils, angels, furies, &c., why are question such existences? Why should Phillip drunk be heeded and his words cherished as oracles, while Phillip sober is either to be beaten down, or at best have no attention paid to him? Why, I should like to be informed, are we to be denied an appeal to the principle of the sufficient reason, as well with regard to the existence of a god as any other existence? It would be difficult for

sophistry itself to frame a satisfactory answer all but the merest rabble deny the existence to these questions. Upon what principle do other principle can they deny such imaginary of witches, angels, or devils? Upon what existences, but that of the sufficient reason; and is it not preposterous for men to demand good, sufficient reason for one class of super

There is or is not reason to believe in a god; natural existences, and not for another? if there is, it can be shown, if there is not, such belief should be rejected. Reason, to consistent inquirers, is all or nothing, and it cannot be admitted that those who embrace a principle are allowed to pick or choose in its application. Gibbon tells us that the gods of the ancient Germans originated in the hopes, fears, and ignorance of that fierce people. The gods of other nations can boast no nobler origin. Ignorance created, knowledge will destroy them. Knowledge has destroyed witchcraft-it will destroy, utterly annihilate godcraft. No one has proved, no

one ever can prove the impossibility of witch-In both we find animals much superior to craft; no one has, no one ever will prove the the lowest vertebrata; and in both, also, we impossibility of godcraft, yet both crafts will find species which are, in many respects bebe annihilated by reason, both will sooner or low the highest radiata. It is the necessary later be held in equal contempt. And is it consequence of a natural arrangement, which not edifying to hear free inquirers, who go aims at grouping together the different forms about the country preaching against devilism, of living beings according to the type or plan angelism, and witchery, in all its branches, on which they are constructed, that such yet shrink from exposing godism; nay, not should be the case. Neither of these two only shrink from exposing the pernicious ab- sub-kingdoms can be regarded as in all resurdity, but stigmatise as rash, illegitimate, spects superior to the other. The high deand dogmatic all who are more consistent velopment of the locomotive power in the and less cowardly than themselves? They articulata strikingly contrasts with its usually laugh at and scout the devil, speak with scorn slight possession by the mollusca. On the of witches, and profitably amuse themselves other hand, the digestive and nutritive sysat the expense of the angels, but gods they tems in the mollusca are much more comcover with the mantle of their protection. plex, and attain a higher organisation; so They attack superstition every where but in that the heart, for example, of the tunicata its stronghold, and shake away, in Samsonic (the lowest class of mollusca) is as powerful style, at a pillar here and a pillar there of the in its action on the circulating fluid as that Dagonish temple, but let any one tng at the of the highest articulata." main prop of the building, without the removal of which it cannot tumble, and they cry out illegitimate, consider our thin skulls, act upon the "better to be safe" principle, and don't " go too far."

Having taken the arrangement of Cuvier, who places the articulata near the rudiala, I shall proceed to describe their leading featnres. There are four classes in this divi sion, the annelida, crustacea, arachnida, aud the insecta. The general form of the bodies THEORY OF REGULAR GRADATION. vided into segments. Among the articulata of these animals is long, cylindrical, and di

XIX.

M.

are found all the senses, and for the first time! a symmetrical body, or that form in which too similar halves appear to be joined to gether, as in a man. The solid parts or skeletons are always placed externally. The crab, spider, beetle, and butterfly are specimens of this division.

The articulata exhibits a peculiarity in the nervous system, which often enables the real character of doubtful animals to be dis tinguished. A double cord ruus along the centre of the lower surface of the animal, studded with knots or ganglia at regular intervals, which are so many centres from which the nerves pass off to the different segments. The head, also, has its ganglia, in which the double cord terminates anteriorly. Where the members, however, are not uniformly distributed along the whole body, but are concentrated to one part, as in insects, arachnida, and the higher crusta. cea, we observe a corresponding concentration of the ganglia in that region. The degree of this concentration indicates the elevation of the animal in the series. The following classes must be arranged in the articulated series, though in some of them the characteristic structure is very indistinct: Annelida, or worm tribe. In these the body

My paper last week treated of the lowest subdivision of the great division of the invertebrata; that is, if we make two instead of four distinctions-the vertebrata and the invertebrata. The members of that sub-division, it was seen, possessed few if any of the characteristics commonly associated with the term animal. The distinctions between animals and vegetables, so perfect and apparent under some circumstances, cannot be deter. mined at all times with sufficient certainty to convince and carry conviction to every mind. Just so is it with the distinctions, arbitrary ones, erected to assist our imperfect senses in the animal kingdom. The change from one animal to another is so gradual, that it is only by an examination in the first place of decidedly-marked specimens, that investigators are enabled to determine where a positive distinction exists, when compared with some others, from whence they were doubtless derived; but having once got a clue they follow it to its real or apparent source, and there, for convenience, make an imaginary distinc tion. As an illustration, I may quote the following from Chambers, which will show the true state of the case, and the difficulties to be contended against. "From the vertebrata we might pass, in descending the ani-is prolonged, without any distinct appenmal scale, either to the mollusca or the articulata, both of which exhibit some points of approximation with them. In both we meet, as in the vertebrata, with very highly organised as well as very simply constructed beings.

dages for locomotion. The habitation is usually aquatic, though sometimes terrestrial. The division into segments is not very distinct, the entire skin being soft. Myriapoda, or centipede tribe. These have

1