I have read from Euripides. The poet begins by identifying God with the ether in which the Earth floats or rides (implying that he knew the Earth to be a globe), but adds, that God hath also firm seat on Earth; that is, He is not merely external to the Earth, but is also resident and permanent on it. The poet then, in the current formula "Whosoever thou art," expressive of wide uncertainty, annexes, "Hard to be guessed, whether Thou art Necessity of Nature, or the Mind which pervades mortal men." Thus he embraces, though doubtfully, in the being of God, first, all the natural forces of the universe, such as we now call Gravitation, Cohesion, Electricity and such like; next, the Mind by which we think, and know and feel. If he had stopt in saying that God was only the Necessity of Nature, a blind force, it would have been Atheism. When he adds the opinion that God is the universal mind, some will say, Is not this Pantheism? No; for he regards God as worthy not only of wonder, but also of adoration, and closes by giving the reason for adoration, ascribing to him the righteous government of the human world.

Observe the gradation of doubt and of faith. Concerning the physical constitution of God (if the phrase may be allowed) the Greek poet was reverentially doubtful; but concerning his moral government of the world, concerning the rightfulness of adoring him, and virtually concerning his goodness, he expresses no doubt. And is not this exactly the reasonable posture for a finite man, in reverentially essaying to define some thoughts concerning the infinite God? Consider of what kind is our knowledge of our fellow-men. How little do we know of their essential being! How late and limping is physical science in the history of man! yet our moral knowledge is old and certain. Love, goodness, virtue, esteem, trust, gratitude,—are very ancient experiences and confident beliefs: but what (in physical contemplation) the soul of man is,-when it begins to exist, and whether at death it ceases to exist, are in comparison very obscure inquiries. In all human knowledge, properties are learned first; the essence of things is learned later, if ever! In other words, and perhaps more accurately, we apprehend things on the side in which we are in contact with them, but we comprehend very few things at all.

Consider again the instructive analogy furnished by the knowledge which the brutes may have of man. No one will imagine that an affectionate dog has any other knowledge of his master

than a limited apprehension. What guess could Sir Isaac Newton's favourite spaniel have of the quality, powers and range of his master's mind? yet he had no doubt whatever that his master loved him, and deserved to be loved, though to comprehend his master's nature was utterly beyond his capacity. Just so, the cardinal point of practical Theism lies in an energetic development of the moral relation of God to man and man to God; and its wisdom requires great diffidence concerning the essential nature and powers of Him whom with one voice we pronounce to be incomprehensible. Since we know not his limits, nor have reason to assign any, we call Him unlimited, boundless, infinite as to Space as well as to Time; and again, as we have no reason to imagine that He changes with time, we call Him unchangeable as well as eternal. There is nothing of obscure or doubtful language here. But as of all things outward and visible our knowledge is very limited and our ignorance is infinite, much more must this be true of our acquaintance with an invisible Spirit.

After these preliminaries, I proceed to the historical origin of Atheism. In all the most intelligent races of men and those with whose early mind we have best acquaintance, Atheism does not grow up with men's first speculations concerning the universe, but unfolds itself at a later stage; and, as I believe, prevalently as a reaction from errors into which Theists fall.

When it is our duty to sit in judgment on the sin of others, our mental vision is purified and we become fairer, wiser judges, if we begin by inward confession of our own sin. Just so, if Theists are to judge truly of Atheists or aid to convert them, Theists need to examine their own errors which may have led Atheists astray or driven them into reaction. I hope it is not needful to remind you that Christians are Theists. To the errors of Christian Theists I must refer presently; but I first speak of the earlier appearance of Atheism, as known in our histories.

Ancient Greece is the World in historical Miniature, politically and religiously. We have their infantine religion laid before us in the poems of Homer. Though the Greeks were so very intelligent a race, yet their early conceptions of Deity scarcely admitted moral elements. Theism was with them a physical speculation only, and rested unduly on the violent phenomena of nature. In Thunder and Lightning, in Earthquake and Storms, they saw the agency of their chief gods. Yet they did not overlook

more tranquil processes, such as Vegetation, Birth, and the recurrence of Day and Night. Inferior deities were assigned to these. The gods were supposed to punish occasionally the greater sins of mortals, but by no means to conform their own conduct to any law of morality. The national religion, having its source in private and various fancies, was combined and popularized by poets, under whose treatment its wildness was exaggerated into folly, caprice or brutality. Necessarily the growing intellect of the nation scorned such a religion. Nevertheless it does not appear that any conscious and systematic Atheism broke out, until a serious attempt had been made to defend the wretched and baseless mythology by mystical interpretations and other subtle devices. Then the indignation of free thought led first to wide-spread doubt, next to positive renunciation of the creed. The Doubters held that no truth is attainable on such subjects: these were called the New Academy. The Deniers avoided the name Atheists, by professing to believe in Superior Spirits who lived in eternal ease and bliss, but too tranquil to concern themselves about the management of the universe or the reigning over mankind: hence they stood in no moral relation whatever to us men. The name of Epicurus was best known in Greece as the advocate, we may say the Apostle of the latter doctrine. To us the tenets of Epicurus are most accessible in the poem of his devoted disciple, the Roman Lucretius; and in him we see most distinctly that disgust at the coarse, wild and mischievous conceptions put forth as Religion was the animating principle of his Atheism.

What happened then is sure to happen again in like circumstances. If the ostensible teachers of religion hold up for men's homage and reverence a God whose qualities and dealings shock our moral nature, it must not be expected that all who reject such a creed will be able to separate its falsehoods from its truths. Many will reject it in the mass and become Atheists, but by far the largest number of them will keep their unbelief to themselves, It is notorious that as among the priests of ancient Rome contemporary with Cicero, so in the priests of Spain, Italy and France, atheism has been a common result of corrupt religion. Protestantism does not offend common sense (at least in my opinion) so violently as Romanism; nevertheless, all who heard the scalding words of Mr. Bradlaugh in this room against the creed called Orthodox in England will permit me to insist, that an ingenuous scorn of what he regards as a degrading

portraiture of God gives impulse to his atheism. English Protestants are not guiltless in this matter. They have persecuted the frank and bold men who avow their disbelief, hereby driving more timid men into silence and suppression. Christians have certainly taken no pains to instruct Atheists. But if they had, how could they expect instruction to be well received, while the public law treated Atheists as criminals and gave them fines and imprisonment for arguments.

But I return to the point. If the men and system typical of a national religion hold up for reverential homage the portraiture of an unjust, unmerciful, capricious or impotent God, the unbelief and scorn which justly follows will, through human infirmity, carry not a few into a disbelief of God altogether; in which case the folly of Theists is largely responsible for the Atheism. I do not wish to go into detail as Mr. Bradlaugh did, and point to the special errors which arouse indignation; it suffices to say that there are opinions concerning God or the gods which nothing can accredit. It avails not to quote books called sacred, or to alledge miracles, if the doctrine be such as the human conscience loathes or the human intellect reprobates. If sacred books uphold such tenets, so much the worse for the books. Books cannot have proof of infallibility so strong, as is the disproof of a doctrine which mars and pollutes the divine character. Christians habitually confute other religions by this very topic: "The god which you hold up to us is unjust, cruel, impure, a sort of devil, why is he to be honoured and revered ?" Such a religion is debasing to the votary's mind; hereby it destroys its own claim of reverence.

Let it also be carefully remembered, that the great basis of popular knowledge is, moral truth. All social action, all national cohesion, all reverence for law, all sanctity in rule, is founded upon man's moral faculties: much more is all rational or worthy religion. "He who loves not his brother whom he hath seen, how shall he love God whom he hath not seen?" The man to whom the words Justice, Mercy, Goodness have no positive and consistent meaning can have no reason within him for worship and reverence. Practical religion must be based on these great moral ideas. A creed which violates them, demoralizes men, when it does not drive them into unbelief. If a national religion be totally corrupt, widespread atheism is nothing but the natural death of a creed which has lost moral vitality. If the atheism spring from moral indignation, I believe that it can only be a

temporary winter of the national soul, in preparation for a more fruitful summer. If a very corrupt national creed, say like that of Hindostan, were swept away by atheism when other arguments had failed, we perhaps ought to regard the atheism as a beneficial visitation, like the hurricane which destroys pestilence.

I have tried to set forth one cause which I believe must always tend to produce atheism, namely, errors in a national creed; but these are made worse, if they are coupled with a presumptuous familiarity and dogmatic pretension. A Roman writer said sarcastically: "This man fancies that he knows accurately what Jupiter in private said to Juno." We see the outrageousness of such mythology. But how less is Milton blamable, who supposed himself competent to expound the discourses held by God the Father with his only begotten Son? Theology has been garrulous and confident, where modesty or silence alone becomes us. Men who call God incomprehensible seem to forget this fundamental principle precisely when it is most needed. One truth surely is quite open to every intellect, that human knowledge is limited. We see distinctly what is near; and perhaps seem to know it; but what is extreme in distance we cannot see at all. In the interval there is generally a region of half light, half shade,—which is called a penumbra, where we see a few strong outlines-and all the rest dimly; or, it may be, we think at one moment that we see, and the next moment doubt whether we saw aright. These phenomena of sight have their close correspondences in the mind, which in consequence is sure of some things with the greatest certainty permissible to man; is in blank ignorance of others; but finds between these extremes a region of half knowledge with a few certainties pervading it, but in general affording matter for modest or reverential opinion, not for light minded decision nor scholastic dictation. If Theists transgress modesty in dealing with this region of thought, how can they expect modesty or tenderness from Atheists ?

I proceed to another deplorable phenomenon, equally baneful,namely the tangle curiously called Metaphysics, in which not a few Theistic advocates have involved their doctrines. Christianity at its outset had as its boast: "Unto the poor the gospel is preached." A religion which addresses itself to the human race must be intelligible to simple minds. If the great mass of a nation are intended by God to revere and worship him, the grounds of believing in God must be on the level of very ordinary intellects. Theism, equally with Christianity, saps its own