and toils all day under the inspection of a number of heartless tyrants, at whose nod he trembles, and who exercise absolute power over him. When his fay's labour is ended, he crawls to his miserable farret or cellar, for which he pays an enormous rent o some unprincipled money-scraper. He partakes of a scanty meal with his half-naked and spiritless children, and eagerly hastens to rest his exhausted imbs, in order to prepare for the labour of the fol lowing day. His life is spent in the same round of monotonous and unrequited slavery, and when turned off to make way for a more youthful machine, he ends his days in the poor-law bastile, amidst the clanking of iron doors and the insults of saucy officials, separated from all he held dear, and if his friends are not acquainted with his death, he is handed over to the surgeon for dissection. A CHARTIST PRISONER. CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the Oracle of Reason. A NUT FOR MR. MACKINTOSH. to be, until all become disgusted and throw away. this most mischievous of all mischievous books. Therefore make it known to your utmost, I pray you, with the most earnest sincerity, a man cannot be an infidel to the bible until he has read it, until he has compared part with part, and words with existing things. Then and then only can he be an infidel to the bible; so you may be assured that I cannot finish Infidels faster than you prepare them for my hands. So get all mankind to read the bible, then the ninth volume of the Republican, which I dedicate to your notice and support, and then we shall all become of one mind; sectarianism, horrid sectarianism will end. So prays your co-operator, RICHARD CARLILE." A correspondent writes," From a paragraph Go now, you moving automatons, go to the fat, in the Times of Monday, 8th Aug., it appears well clad, and well housed lazy, lying, priest. Go that the senate of the Berlin University have and hear him preach a sermon on "contentment," received a reprimand from the minister of and the necessity of quietly submitting to the "pow-religious affairs and education for refusing ers that be," and then skulk home like drivelling to sanction a society amongst the students idiots to witness the squalid looks of your innocent children, and sing some of Wesley's hymns, which of divinity, for supporting the historical view were taught you to hinder you from thinking. of christianity against the attacks of the modern school of philosophers. The senate modified its refusal, it seems, on the ground of its not being able to refuse to sanction a scientific union in an opposite sense, if such societies were at all authorized; but M. Eickhorn intimated that no ceremony should be observed in suppressing any tendency to unchristian principles in the University. Now, this refusal,' and the ground thereof of the Berlin senate, and the no less notable intimation' of M. Eickhorn may have escaped you. They strike, me thinks, at Dr. Strauss, who has so unceremoniously and skilfully handled the orthodox German professors in his masterly Leben Jesu* (Life of Jesus). His last work, I mean the Historical Developement of Christianity, in Opposition with Modern Science, has created great alarm in Germany. The Leben Jesu was accounted only deistical in its tendencies, but if we may believe the Foreign Quarterly Review, the historical development has unmasked an Atheist. Nothing can furnish clearer evidence of alarm this discovery has caused than the fact already stated, that the Berlin senate has refused to sanction a society among divinity students for supporting the historical view of christianity, lest it should be compelled in common fairness to allow a scientific union in an opposite sense, namely, spoiling the historical view. This is a confession of fear on the part of Berlin's senate--but to have 'livers white as milk,' is a thing so common amongst those who have law, and nought but law on their sidethat surprise is out of the question.” SIR.-Having often observed in your paper an admission from W. C. that the existence of god could not be disproved, allow me to say that I think it can, and moreover that I consider the following argument is as strong a proof as proof can be of the non-existence of god. In the first place, Mr. Mackintosh must admit that no power or thing can make anything superior or equal to itself, and upon this fact I build my argument. In the next place, as matter and its essential and circumstantial properties are infinite, and as there is nothing superior to infinity, there can be no god, or rather, matter can have no maker. R. N. K. To the Editor of the Oracle of Reason. SIR. I should like to know from Mr. Carlile how he reconciles the following dedication of the ninth vol. of the Republican, with what he now says respecting the bible. JAMES MONK. "Dedication to the bible societies.-Here! my friends, read here, and see what your bible is worth! But above all things, go on to put it into the hands of every human being! for I, who abhor it as a whole book, am convinced that it can only generate disgust as far as it is fairly read. Before it was read, there was neither Jew nor Christian but thought it to have been written by a superhuman power, for a superhuman purpose; but since the art of printing has been known to the people of Europe, since printed bibles have begun to circulate among them, dreadful has been the sectarianism which its unintelligible, contradictory, and incongruous contents have occasioned; and dreadful will that sectarianism continue There are now, we perceive, 53 Nos. of this celebrated work published-completing the Second Volume. JONAH'S WHALE AND GOURD.-The COUNTER MARCH OF INTELLECT.-Dur Rev. Dr. Scott, of Costorphine, in paper ing a scientific congress at Oxford, Mr. Fa read before the Wernerian Society, in 1828, rady was exhibiting privately to a few friends has shown that the great fish that swallowed his experiment of obtaining the electric spark up Jonah could not be a whale, as often sup- from the magnet. While this was proceed. posed, but was, probably, a white shark. It ing, the head of one of the colleges (Dr. F.) is true that "a whale" is not used in the entered, and inquired what was going on, text of Jonah, but "a great fish ;" still "a He was told that the professor of the Roya whale" is mentioned in the reference to this Institution was demonstrating a proof of h passage which our saviour makes in Matt. late very important discovery, the nature of xii. 40. While the Greek version makes which was explained to the reverend docthe plant under which Jonah sat a gourd, tor. "I am sorry to hear it," said the very the vulgate reckons it a species of ivy. The sapient rector, "I am exceedingly sorry to castor-oil tree, with its broad palmate leaves, hear it; it will only put new arms into the has, however, been more closely identified hands of Infidels !" with "the gourd" of Jonah; which is corroborated by local traditions, as well as by the fact that it abounds near the Tigris, where it sometimes grows to a size more consider able than it is commonly supposed to attain, -Popular Errors. INTERNAL EVIDENCES OF DIVINE AUTHENTICITY.-(Jew-book. Old edition.) 2 Kings, 22. "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the chanceller, I have found the booke of the law in the house of the Lord; and Hilkiah gave the booke to Shaphan and he read it." 2 Esdras, 14. "For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the works that shall be done." Ibid. "The most high gave understanding unto the five men, that they wrote the high things of the night which they understood not. But in the night they did eate bread, but I spake by day, and held my tongue by night. In fortie days, they wrote two hundred and foure books. And when the fortie days were fulfilled, the most high spake, saying, the first that thou hast written, publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it. And keepe the seventy last that thou mayst give them to the wise among thy people." 1 Maccabees, 1. "And the bookes of the law, which they found, they burnt in the fire and cut in pieces. Whosoever had a booke of the Testament found by him, or whosoever consented unto the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death by their authoritie. And they executed these things every month upon the people of Israel that were found in the cities." NOTICE. A Meeting will take place on Saturday evening, November 12th, at half-past eight, at No. 8, Holywell street, to enquire into mythological systems and overthrow religious error. Received J. R., Brighton; J. Griffin H.; B. H.; and W. B. Received by Mrs. Holyoake, from a Few Friends at SUGGESTION TO THE DEAN AND CHAPTER oF GLOUCESTER CATHEDRAL.-Economy being a great thing to divines, especially when the savings go into their own pockets; the following hint is respectfully submitted. Near one of the entrances of Gloucester Cathedral, is a tablet in memory of some modern saint, bearing at the bottom this, to an English ear, very felicitous inscription-"orer, Jork over." Now, on a pillar nearly opposite is a charity box, and the expense of repairing the long inscription upon it would be for ever saved, should the box itself be placed above the tablet, as then the motto of the tablet "over, fork over," would serve for the box and Christian pilgrims would of cours fork out as they passed by. Printed and Published by THOMAS PATERSON, Saturday, November 12, 1842. THE EDINEURS ULAR ORACLE OF REASON Or, Philosophy Vindicated. "FAITH'S EMPIRE IS THE WORLD; ITS MONARCH, GOD; ITS MINISTERS, THE PRIESTS; ITS SLAVES, THE PEOPLE." No. 48.] EDITED BY THOMAS PATERSON. Originally Edited by CHARLES SOUTHWELL, sentenced, on January 15, 1842, to Twelve Months' Imprisonment in Bristol Gaol, and to pay a fine of £100, [PRICE ID. Second Editor, Ğ. J. HOLYOAKE, sentenced, on August 15, 1842, to Six Months' DEISTS. That improved without wounding truth. some of the most eminent Infidel writers of Europe were nominal Deists and real Atheists, cannot be denied. That they laughed (in their sleeves) at all religion-notwithstanding they conformed externally to the religion of those with whom they were obliged to live, from a desire to please, or that yet stronger motive, a dread of giving offence-is no less undeniable. It is hard to say what such philosophers as Blount, Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, Collins, Morgan, Chubb, and Tindal would have written had they dared. Like causes produced like effects upon the philoso. phers of France and Germany. Their opposition to all religion assumed a deistical form, which, though mere sham and deceit, served admirably well as a stalking-horse. Of the morality of such conduct I say nothing, but I do say that such will ever be the effect of power when arrayed against sincerity. Mr. Thomas Hartwell Horne, in his "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures," says that modern infidelity, though it may assume the title of deism, is in fact little better than disguised atheism. He adds, "A man seldom retains for any length of time his first deistical opinions; his errors gradually multiply till he sinks to the last gradation of impiety," and then, by way of substantiating his point, quotes the testimony of Brittan, an Infidel writer, who, in his "Modern Infidelity Pourtrayed," declares that " Deism is but the first step of reason out of superstition. No person (says he) remains a Deist but through want of reflection, timidity, passion, or obstinacy," which it must be confessed was hitting the gentlemen Deists very hard, pummelling them in a style none but atheistical infidels would venture upon. I do not however agree that modern infidelity is little better than disguised atheism, being most decidedly of opinion that bona fide deistical infidelity, ancient and modern, is undisguised outrageous nonsense. I do agree with Brittan that deism is but the first step of reason out of superstition, and that no person remains a Deist but through want of reflection, timidity, passion, or obstinacy. None but an able and experienced shot could have struck the target of truth so THAT whatsoever is considered adoreable, amiable, and inimitable by mankind, is embodied in one supreme, infinite, and perfect being is the Deists' opinion of god. As to their origin, I find in Bayle's Dictionary, article Vizet, that "The name of Deists, as applied to those who are no friends to revealed religion, is said to have been first assumed about the middle of the sixteenth century, by some gentlemen in France and Italy, who were willing to cover their opposition to the Christian revelation by a more honourable name than that of Atheists. The earliest author who mentions them is Vizet, a divine of great eminence among the first reformers, who, in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to the first volume of his 'Instruction Chretienne' (Christian Instruction), published in 1563, speaks of some persons at that time who called themselves by a new name, that of Deists. These, he tells us, professed to believe in a god, but showed no regard to Jesus Christ, and considered the doctrines of the apostles and evangelists as fables and dreams. He adds, that they laughed at all religion, notwithstanding they conformed themselves externally to the religion of those with whom they were obliged to live, or whom they were desirous of pleasing, or whom they feared. Some of them, he observes, professed to believe the immortality of the soul, others were of the Epicurean opinion in this point, as well as about the providence of god with respect to mankind, as if he did not concern himself in the government of human affairs. He adds, that many among them set up for learning and philosophy, and were considered as persons of an acute and subtile genius; and that not content to perish alone in their error, they took pains to spread the poison, and to infect and corrupt others by their impious discourses and their bad examples." Thus Vizet, as quoted by Bayle. The character here given of gentlemen Deists it must be confessed is but so-so, indeed I dont know what worse could be said an' they were blackguards. It would perhaps be too much to say that Vizet has hit them off to the life, though for my own part I know not how the character could be nicely in the bull's eye, and Brittan is as much entitled to a monument for printing that spicy bit of wisdom, as Lord Exmouth, Laumarez, and Sir Sidney Smith for doings of much more questionable utility. But that our modern gentlemen Deists will agree with this opinion I very much doubt. It is worthy of observation that there are almost as many kinds of Deists as professors of deism. I am rarely lucky enough to light upon two Deists in any one company who entirely agree in opinion. They all allow there must be one god, but what sort of personage he, she, or it is (not knowing the gender, the it being neuter is safest), how employed, how to be worshipped, or whether to be worshipped at all. tality and is improved by our admitting providence. 7. That when we err from the rules of our duty we ought to repent and trust in god's mercy for pardon. Such were deistical notions about what they called god in the seventeenth century, and concerning the manner in which it (god) from the same book of reason's oracles, is should be worshipped. The following, taken curiously nonsensical: "First, negatively, it is not to be by an image, for the first being is not sensible but intelligible. Pinge sonum, puts us upon an impossibility, no more can an infinite mind be represented in matter. "Second, nor by sacrifices, for sponsio non valet ut alter pro altero puniatur. However, no such sponsio can be made with a brute creature; nor if god loves himself, as he is the highest good, can any external rite or worship reinstate the creature after sin, in his favour, but only repentance and obedience for the future, ending in an assimilation to himself as he is the highest good; and this is the error in all particular religions, that external things or bare opinions of the mind can after sin propitiate god. Hereby particular legislators have endeared themselves and flattered their proselytes into good opini ons of them, and mankind willingly submitted to the cheat. Enini facilius est superstitiose, quam juste vivere. What is it, how produced, and to what end, Whence drew it being, or to what it does tend? are questions Deists by no means agree about. They do however all agree that there is a god or omnipotent cause, who having well furnished brutes, insects, &c. left not the brain or mind of man without its director in this maze and lottery of things, giving reason as its sovereign rule and touchstone to examine them by, and to fit our choice to the double advantage of body and mind. All this, and much more to the same purpose, I find in deistical books of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. One that has very lately fallen in my way, called "The Oracles of Reason," published in 1693, is uncommonly entertaining and instructive. Nor does it mortify me "Third, not by a mediator, for 1st, it is to think that our Oracles of Reason were not unncessary, misericodia dei being sufficiens (as before supposed) the first that had dis- justitiæ suce; 2nd, god must appoint this turbed the slumbers of good Christian people. mediator, and so was really reconciled to the Now in this really very choice little work I world before; and 3rd, a mediator derogates find deism defended and christianity attacked from the infinite mercy of god, equally as an with skill, wit, and to the clergy, no doubt, image doth from his spiritualitie and infinitie. most provoking good humour. Deistical or "Fourth, positively, by an inviolable adnatural religion, according to one of the afore-herence in our lives to all the things Qurai said oracles (for many priests appear to have been concerned in their pronunciation), is the belief we have of an eternal intellectual being, and of the duty which we owe him, manifested to us by our reason, without revelation or positive law, the chief heads whereof seem contained in these few particulars :— 1. That there is one infinite eternal god, creator of all things. 2. That he governs the world by providence. 3. That it is our duty to worship and obey him as our creator and governor. 4. That our worship consists in prayer to him and praise of him. 5. That our obedience consists in the rules of right reason, the practice whereof is moral virtue. xaid, by an imitation of god in all his inimitable perfections, especially his goodness, and believing magnificently of it." This specimen of deism may, to the readers of our oracle, seem silly rhodomontadish stuff, but then it ought to be remembered that if any man had been audacious enough to write plain sense in the seventeeth century, he would have paid for his whistle by the loss of his ears, or perhaps his head. Atheism would not have been tolerated in those "good old times," and anything short of atheism, that is, anything short of uncompromising antisupernaturalism must be chimerical and radically erroneous. The inconsistencies and absurdities which disfigure the pages of Blount, Chubb, Tindal, Collins, Bolingbroke, and indeed all reputed Deists, were, I am persuaded, not so much a consequence of their errors in philosophy, as fear of fanatical 6. That we are to expect rewards and punishments hereafter, according to our actions in this life, which includes the soul's immor-intolerance. WHAT IS GOD? MAN is a material being-formed of matter, depending on matter for his existence, and constituting nothing more than a part of matter. All his communications too with the world are necessarily conducted through the medium of material senses. Hence, all his thoughts are material, his feelings material, and his brain filled with nought but material pictures or ideas. He can entertain no thought higher than, or superior to, matter-no conception foreign to the world in which he lives-no feelings but such as are implanted by material substances around, "for dust he is and unto dust shall he return." From this we may deduce an argument against the immateriality of the soul. For as the mind, like the body, requires food and exercise, it were a most palpable absurdity to talk of feeding an immaterial being with material substance. And as the brain is or can be filled with nought but material ideas, or the pictures of "stern realities," seen, heard, or felt the images of sensations already experienced, it is clearly impossible to entertain any idea of things we have never seen, heard, or felt, or picture forth in the likeness of the material, things immaterial, Indeed, should it be called a thing? Should it be called anything-but an absurdity? Now, words are sounds or material signs must needs set them down as the drivellings of big babies on the altar of idolatry. What then is god but a being like ourselves, and if he exists at all subject to all" the ills that flesh is heir to ? as is well exemplified in the history of his beloved son. What is god but a part of matter? the purest worship of which is gross idolatry. To the man of reason this worship is abominable, and the Christian is expressly commanded, "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image or the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." But if god is not to be likened to anything we have seen or felt, we can have no idea of him-he cannot exist to us. Hence this command alone would make us all Atheists, "Men drop into truth they know not how." Thus, between the Atheist and the Idolater the man of reason and the worshipper of stocks and stones-there can be no middle class or gradation of belief. On the horns of this dilemma let fanatics writhe and bigots rave. Society will soon learn to estimate them at their true worth, as fools "who live without god in the world,' or knaves professing one thing and living by the practice of its opposite. Jos. B. LEAR. by which we express our ideas. And each THE FREE INQUIRER'S WHY AND word has its idea, and each thought its expression. Hence, as the mind can only entertain material ideas, it is utterly impossible to express any but such ideas. Nay more, though it were possible, which it is not, to entertain an immaterial idea, still would it be impossible for us to utter any sound or sign equivalent to it. Immaterial ideas would require immaterial sounds, which are no sounds at all. Christians then should never forget that total, ineffable Silence is the least injurious praise. Whenever we use the term god, we must attach to it some material idea or representa tion of something seen, heard, or felt. Thus we may perchance liken him to one of ourselves a little bigger than a goodsized giant-one that knows "a sight more" than the best of us, a little more than Sir Isaac Newton-and who can see farther than a hawk. Others may liken him to some such a subtle agent as electricity or magnetism, or a spirit stronger than brandy and more proof than the best gin. Others again may liken him to the earth, and tell us that his perfection is longer than the earth and broader than the sea. All these definitions are doubtless sublime, but they are also so often ridiculous that one BECAUSE. WRITTEN BY CHARLES SOUTHWELL. VIII. Why are men sometimes said to be naturally responsible? Because the precise meaning of the term law does not appear to have been well understood by those who are the readiest to use it upon all occasions. Coombe's definition, that a law is a rule of action, is clear, and has the merit of conciseness. Now, a rule implies a ruler, and a ruler a personal agent, as the term divine government implies a divine governor. If then we insist that men are naturally responsible, we get into an awkward dilemma, and are constrained to admit one of two things: either that nature is a being of some kind or other, which punishes man, in revenge for a fault he has committed-if so, it will only be proved that man is responsible to nature by showing that nature is god, and what is worse, a god that understands not the character of the creatures he has made, and though capable of "weighing the hills in scales and the dust in a balance," is filled with cruelty and all those diabolical feelings which are held disgraceful even when found in the human form- we say this conclusion must be arrived at, or the word responsible must be shown to possess or |