The Priest construes the rejection of his errors as the rejection of truth and justice. than the feelings which the former excites and the latter experiences, we do not, according to the best existing doctrine, know anything.'

Here we have one of the highest and most reliable statements on record of the 'nature' of matter and spirit, so far as that nature can be delineated. Body is an independent existence, and the material seems the only independent existence. Mind is dependent on body. All we can, with certainty, declare is that inorganic body acting on inorganic body effects physical change, that organic body acting on the greater susceptibility of organic body effects mental change. Throughout life and nature there is one thread of material action.

Since the knowledge of Nature possessed by man is so limited, it would appear that Theism was born in impatience, in despair, in presumption, or in some dream of untutored and wild speculation. To the great mystery of Nature man has wantonly added the greater mystery of a Being above Nature. Whoever sees in Atheism simply the development of a negation sees but half the truth. Even in this respect (supposing existing theological systems to be erroneous) Atheism has the merit of clearing the way for pure moralism. To resolve religion into dependence, is canonising human weakness; whereas man rather needs that which shall develop his strength. Is this salutary teaching? Life should be self-reliant. The light of Nature and the experience of man are anterior to clerical dogmas, and are the sources whence guidance and duty independently spring. The Priest breaks in upon the integrity of life, and diverts its course. His assumption is, that he makes an addition to our knowledge. But does he do so? He professes to show us the hidden things of the future we fail to see them. He simply encumbers us, and we pray him to stand aside. The responsibility of our course is our own, and not his; and we have a right to be left free when we demand exemption from his mistaken interference. Rejecting (as in selfdefence we are bound to do) the irrelevant advices of the Priest, he goes and proclaims that we reject truth, honour, justice, love. Whereas the fact is, we merely reject him. His denunciation of us is his error, or the retaliation of his disappointment. We appeal, therefore, to the informed, the impartial, and the candid, to judge between us. We respect theology, inasmuch as it professes to explain man's destiny, and regret that it bears no fruit for us; but this is not our fault, and we therefore attempt to solve the problem of the Present and the Future for ourselves.

If the Atheist be unable to believe in a God, it is demanded, in what does he believe? We answer, though he may not be able to explain the origin of all things, he may yet believe in the things themselves; though he may not be able to account for Nature, it does not follow that he disbelieves the existence of Nature. Without powers to penetrate the secret of Nature; without the intuition which guesses it; without the facts which explain it; without being convinced by any theories extant upon the subject;

Vide Theodore Parker's theory.

The testimony to the character of Atheists borne by Theodore Parker.

without being able to learn of the existence of one spot of land on the wide sea of theological conjecture; warned by the wrecks floating in sight, of those who have perished in ancient times, and the tossing to and fro of those still upon that fathomless deep of speculation, which we have no vessels adequate to navigate, nor compass nor chart to guide; from which no spiritual Columbus has ever yet returned, bringing report of the new world; the Atheist keeps by the shore, the broad and pleasant shore of humanity, relinquishing the fabulous legends which superstitious cupidity, or unrest, or fancy, have originated, and reposes in the more useful, but less ambitious, belief of growth and development, of science and art, of trust and truth, of service and endurance.

CHAPTER XIII.

THEODORE PARKER.

MR. THEODORE PARKER has contributed to the world so many noble discourses and brilliant criticisms, and speaks such hearty and fearless words for humanity, that one is reluctant to take decided exception to his views, as stated in one of his most confident books, 'Atheism, Theism, and the Popular Theology.' When, in this work, he speaks of Atheism, he speaks from feeling, and very turbid feeling too. He sees nothing deeper in Atheism than antagonism. Had the Church granted full freedom, there would have been no Atheism.'

This is the orthodox mistake. Mr. Parker, however, bears frank testimony to certain merits in Atheism, that an orthodox writer would withhold. His words are:-'The Christian world has something to learn at this day, even from the Atheist; for he asks entire freedom for human nature; freedom to think, freedom to will, freedom to love, freedom to worship, if he may-not to worship, if he will not.'

The Atheistic view of life is a cheerful and trustful view. The Christian view is one of distrust of humanity. That Atheistic confidence in mankind is no theoretical admiration, but a brave reliance, is proved from the fact that the Atheist is prepared to see society based on the entire freedom of human nature.' This noble preacher has no stone to hurl at his brother because he does not belong to his Church. He remembers that Christianity was at first but a new 'superstition.' 'It was the religion of a "blasphemer," who had got crucified between "two others, malefactors." Christianity was then the "latest form of infidelity." Mr. Parker makes some admissions, which equal in liberality those made by Coleridge. Atheists,' says Mr. Parker, are not always bigoted, but philosophical. A few of them are in America founding schools and sects of their way of thinking. Some of them are men of quite superior ability, men of very large intellectual culture. They seem to be truth-loving and sincere persons, conscientious, just, humane, philanthropic, and modest men. They are men who aim to be faithful to their nature, and to

The coward and the murderess equally condemned by Atheism as by Theism.

their whole nature. I am acquainted with some of them; they are commonly on the side of man, as opposed to the enemies of man; on the side of the people, as against a tyrant; they are, or mean to be, on the side of truth, of justice, and of love. I shall not throw stones at these men; I shall devise no hard names against them; they will get abuse enough without my giving them any at all. I feel great tenderness towards them, and very great compassion, which, I suppose, they would not thank me for. Some of them I know personally, others by their reputation; some by their writings. I think they are much higher in their moral and religious growth than a great many men, who are always saying to God, "I go, sir," and yet never stir. These are men who have made sacrifices even to be faithful; and, without knowing it, they have a good deal of practical religiousness of character, both in its subjective form of piety, and in its objective form of personal and social morality.'

Yet Atheism, as it is described by Mr. Parker, is certainly the saddest of life philosophies imaginable. He tells us that when the war trump is blown, one brother goes out and fights, and comes home to die, covered with heroism and gashes. Another brother, in that time of peril, is a coward, and creeps into the oven. When the war is over, the oven brother comes out with a whole skin, and says, 'What a fool his soldier brother was to lay down his life for him, and get nothing for it.' The Atheist, says Mr. Parker, declares the coward brother to be right.' On the contrary, the Atheist declares the coward brother ought to be kicked. Is it true that brave men get nothing by their struggles ? Do they not resist tyranny, give security to their country, win dignity and self-respect? The noblest course is best for those who fail. In an inevitable struggle, the noblest course is better than the vilest for those even who perish. Mr. Parker argues as though most men might get into ovens if they pleased. He forgets that if they did, the bayonet would make contemptuous thrusts at the miserable posteriors there exposed. Therefore, if there were no dignity in duty, no grandeur in courage, it would still be worth while not to get in the oven very extensively. One mother, says Mr. Parker, whose selfdenial leads her to cherish her sickly child, dies at last, and there is an end of her. Another mother abandons her dying child, and lives forty years of wantonness, and when she dies, it is to the same end as the other. It may be so, but no Atheist says it ought to be so. But if apparently so in death, is it the same in life? Bad as the world is, is forty years of wantonness what every heartless mother may reckon upon as her reward here? And is there nothing in the pure and sublime joy of tenderness, which the self-sacrificing mother bestows on her child? Is this world so constituted by the Deity you proclaim, Mr. Parker, that the murderess and the merciful may be equally happy? The moral of all Mr. Parker's Theism is, What shall I get hereafter by it? Save me from Atheism-it gives nothing.' Negroholders stand by slavery on the same principle. Liberty 'gives nothing' which they care for. The Theist opposes slavery because he

Atheism a manly refuge from the effeminacy of Theism.

shall get more from God in reward of his forbearance. Mr. Parker's Theist is only a sharper kind of Yankee. May Mr. Parker pardon the remark, but he seems to me to own a sad whining Theism. We have much English and Scotch orthodoxy more self-reliant. Professor Newman, in England, is as distinguished as Mr. Parker for an intense Theism, but Mr. Newman is an utter contrast in respect of the logical and manly spirit in which he holds his principles. With Mr. Newman, Theism is a light by which he walks; with Mr. Parker, it is a crutch. Mr. Newman can walk alone, Mr. Parker cannot stir. The idea of immortality is not essential to Mr. Newman. His unfaltering trust in duty sustains him. Mr. Parker never moves without a sedan chair, a lantern, and an amulet. 'I am not,' says he a cowardly man; but if I were convinced that there was no God, my courage would drop as water, and be no more................I am not a sad man, but take away my consciousness of God; let me believe there is no infinite mind, conscience, and affection......that the sad people of Europe, Africa, America, have no guardian, all the joy I have in the daily business of the world, in literature, science, and art, in the friendships and wide philanthropies of the time, would perish at once......Yes, I should die in uncontrollable anguish and grief.' To one who thinks thus, the truth of religion is unnecessary. He does not want conviction; his need is consolation, and a superstition will do for him as well as a rationalism; in fact, it would do better, as he would be less likely to be disturbed by any misgiving or doubt. When Mr. Parker departs from this strain, it is only to talk confusion. If a man confesses that he has a natural and absolute obligation to think true, to do right, to feel kind,......it is of little consequence whether he says he derives the obligation from Nature or God, because, in such a case, he means by the word Nature what another means by the word God.' This is absurd. What has Mr. Parker just said about the Infinite Mind thinking for him, the Infinite Conscience feeling for him, the Infinite Affection guarding him, etc.? This personal dependence of Theism is not involved in the independent idea of Nature. Secular morals are derived from uniform action in Nature, Theistic morals from personal intention and Providence in the author of Nature.

Theism is paternal, and like paternal government it takes a pound from you by force and gives you sixpence back by charity. Theism makes the world into a schoolroom, and keeps men always at the desk. Theism plays at an everlasting game of Family, and keeps men always children, and always dependent on the governor. It is a state of things neither good for the children nor the governor. Atheism acknowledges the manhood of men, sends them out into the world, teaches them self-reliance. Looking at the character this kind of Theism gives to Deity, one can have no wish to be connected with it; looking at the kind of worship thus prescribed, one can have no wish to join in the irreverence; and Atheism is a manly refuge from this slavery and grossness of sentiment. A glance at the state of the continent will show us the impotence of Theism for redress. We are

The utter impotence of Theism for political protection.

told it is the friend of liberty. What does it do for Poland, for Hungary, for Italy, for France? We are told it is the friend of good feeling, good morals, and good faith. What influence has it over the dungeons of Austria, over society in Naples, or over the consciences of Emperors in Paris? The peoples of the continent crouch in chains and blood, Despotism sits erect in insolent security. Imperial perjury flourishes in France. In the old days, Providence was said to help the poor: now it helps kings-it bends the bayonet of Milano, it diverts the bullets of Pianori, it preserves the life of gaolers and takes the life of prisoners, it holds up tyrants who bow down nations. Where is the influence of Theism in all these scenes? Theism is said to abhor a lie and to be the friend of humanity. Its voice is dumb, its arm is impotent; it makes no vindication of the honest who are aspersed, it makes no effort for the relief of the poor who are oppressed. It is worse than impotent-it is treacherous. It is the apologist of might. It cringes round the throne, it gives its voice against the people In the old time, Religion pretended to be deliverance, in recent times it has pretended to be consolation. It is neither consolation nor deliverance. It is a traitor. It binds the spirit that Despotism may better bind the hands-it has no help for those who cry to it, it betrays those who trust it. The honest poet exclaimed—

It is time the people understood that they must fight their own battles by wisdom and sacrifice, strength and courage. The god of battles is no longer on the side of right, but of might. He is on the side of the strongest battalion, of the heaviest gun, and of the minié rifle. If the contest be between brain and brain, the victory is with the largest knowledge, the deepest sagacity, with the men who have mutual trust, a practical aim, and unresting activity.

CHAPTER XIV.

FRANCIS WILLIAM NEWMAN.

IN 1849 a volume appeared, entitled 'The Soul, Her Sorrows and Her Aspirations.' The author was Francis William Newman, the brother of John Henry Newman, known now as 'Father Newman,' who represents the Catholic; Professor Newman, the author of the work here considered, the Rationalistic, side of religion.

The Church of England seldom gives you the impression of being

*Ebenezer Elliott.