Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

a Divine tribunal, before which all must ultimately be arraigned, when the virtuous shall be rewarded and the vicious punished.

Experience shews, that the nature of man, in order to be really and substantially improved, requires the highest and most powerful influences possible, to be brought to bear upon it; he needs not only to be vividly impressed with the fact, that moral conduct is in real harmony and consistency with his well-being in this life, that an immoral course mars his own happiness, and the happiness of humanity at large, but that every act he commits is weighed in the mind of infinite justice; and that no secretly concocted scheme which seeks the injury of another can by any means escape his detection; but that our whole natures are open to his all-searching gaze. Let those truths be clearly apprehended and sincerely believed, and then, and then only, do men rise to that dignity of character and purity of life, which it is their duty and privilege to seek after and

attain.

I remain, dear Sir,
Your's sincerely,

WILLIAM BETTLE.

Bradford, Yorkshire.

ATHEISTIC CONTROVERSY: TOWNLEY

HOLYOAKE.*

AND

WHEN we first heard of this discussion, we were not aware, that the Mr. Townley about to engage in it, was the gentleman whom we had known as the respected minister of Bishopsgate chapel, London: his first speech contains a clear logical statement of the argument from design, which was evaded and not answered by Mr. Holyoake, who seems to rely much upon his impressions, and often promises his positive views, but seems to end in a very philosophical mist, or atheistic fog. Thus he observes,

"A person will say to me, if the Atheist is not able to believe in the existence of a Being distinct from nature, 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, therefore, that he disbelieves in the existence of nature. Without the power to penetrate the secret of nature, without the intuition which guesses that secret, without the facts which explain it, without being convinced by any theories extant on the subject, without being able to learn of the existence of one spot of land on the wide sea of theological controversy, and amidst the tossings to and fro upon the deep of speculation, which we have no vessel adequate to navigate, nor chart nor compass to guide, from which no spiritual Columbus has ever returned, bringing a report from the New World,the Atheist, observing all this, keeps by the shore-the broad and pleasant shore of humanity, relinquishing the fabulous legends which cupidity or fancy has originated, and relies on the more useful, but less ambitious, belief of growth and development, of science and art, of trust and truth."

We are unable to discover in what truth he trusts, or the benefits of that science and growth, which have afforded neither satisfactory theories, nor available charts, but still leave these bewildered mariners "tossing to and fro upon the deep of speculation," with an inadequate vessel and neither a compass nor a Columbus; the position is certainly not enviable, whilst the nearness to the shore may be only nearness to the breakers, or sunken rocks; nor is it yet explained what greater share the Atheist has

"A Report of a Public Discussion carried on by Henry Townley, formerly Mis sionary to Calcutta, and late Minister of Bishopsgate Chapel, London, and George Jacob Holyoake, Editor of the 'Reasoner,' London Periodical, &c., in the Scientific Institution, John Street, Fitzroy Square, London, on the Question-Is there sufficient proof of the Existence of a God; that is, of a Being distinct from Nature? Edited, with Notes and an Appendix, by HENRY TOWNLEY, and a Preface by JAMES BENNETT, D.D. London: Ward and Co., 27, Paternoster-row."

in humanity than other people; though humanity is often spoken of, as if some new found territory to which they have an exclusive right.

Instead of answering Mr. Townley's argument respecting the processes of nature, requiring some wiser guidance than exists in particles of matter, Mr. Holyoake proceeds to declare his inability to understand the origin of nature, or the creation of something out of nothing. We suppose it is quite possible this may have occurred, though Mr. Holyoake cannot understand the process, as there are some other things, respecting which he is equally dark; yet if any one should assert terms unintelligible, of course they could not be believed, this, however, is not the case in the declaration, that Divine Power and Wisdom brought the universe into existence. This Mr. Holyoake confesses:

"I say, I can understand what is meant by that-the assertion is clear enough; but who can make plain to human reason an act like that of creation? Who can make plain to us that there could, by possibility, be an act performed like that? We are brought at once to a Being whom we cannot conceive of, and who must be the subject of hypothesis, for the understanding cannot repose upon it, the senses cannot repose upon it, we cannot define it to one another, we cannot tell what sort of a Being this is, for we must express all the attributes by a negation of matter, and we must suppose it without the properties of matter, we must suppose it without the attributes of matter, yet capable of doing that of which we have no conception, namely, bringing this vast frame of all things out of nothing.

"Now I submit, that only as a difficulty which affects the understanding of the matter. If the proposition had been taken-as it is usually taken by theologians in this day-that it is also a matter of faith as well as of reason—if the assumption was not to make this plain to the understanding, then it would be different; but the assumption of the speaker, the assumption of the proposition is that plainly this act has been performed. How can that be explained to us, and made conformable to reason, which we are so incapable of comprehending in any form or degree? I maintain, it is useless to talk about probabilities in this case-about there be ing forty-nine or fifty upon the one side, and fifty and a fraction on the other; here there is nothing in favour of such a supposition that nature itself is the work of creation, because the more we dwell upon the theory, I conceive, we find we must come to the conclusion, that what is always must have been, or must have come from nothing, and that we cannot comprehend-we may put it down as a matter of faith, but we cannot classify it among the victories of reason."

Mr. Holyoake's demand then is, for something that shall satisfy the understanding, that shall be so plain as to leave no difficulties respecting it: we must, therefore, look into his own system for a very understandable account of things, accordingly we read,

"The Majesty of the Universe so transcends my faculties of penetra tion, that I pause in awe and silence before it. It seems not to belong to man TO COMPREHEND ITS ATTRIBUTES and extent."

Thus we have a complication of mysteries, in the nature which he describes, with such profound religious reverence, but he rejects the origin of nature, because "it transcends his faculties of penetration," and admires nature for the very same reason: this is a specimen of his method of satisfying his understanding. His faith in nature's power is founded on his ignorance of her capabilities, thus he declares,

"My own impression is, we do not know enough about nature, to be able to say nature is incapable of what is evidently manifest to us is a work of nature."

[ocr errors]

Of course nature is capable of doing what is her work; the question being what that work really is? But is Mr. Holyoake certain from "not knowing enough of nature" what this said personage can do? It is plain she can mystify her votaries, since her very clear portrait isthus drawn:

"This shadowy form of things, before which all men stand in awe and dread, in the presence of so MANY MYSTERIES and marvels, which art is unable to unravel, which science is unable to unravel, which philosophy is unable to explain."

Could not our philosopher then imagine the possibility of a mystery in the origin of Nature analogous to those mysteries which he owns in her processes? But in order to avoid taking refuge in what we cannot understand, viz., creation, he takes refuge in what "philosophy cannot explain," namely, Nature, which it seems possesses all attributes, and so is equal to the God in whom the Theist believes, for after all the Atheist has a god, made up of rivers, trees, stones, and earth, which the old Idolators worshipped separately, but which the Idolatrous Atheist also worships under the title of Nature.

"It seems to me, the nature we know is all that is meant by the theological phrase of the God which we seek'-that it is sufficient by its own power of existence. If we reason about it, unless we take refuge in the idea of a creation which we cannot understand, we must come to the conclusion, that nature is self-existent, and that attribute is 30 majesticthe power of being independent of any ruler, the power of being independent of the law of other beings, seems so majestic as fairly to be sup posed to include all others."

Our Atheist has the same difficulty in understanding what spirit is, as in understanding creation, so he disbelieves both :-respecting a Being independent of Nature, he argues,

"If we say it is a spirit-as I suppose my friend here would tell us→ a spirit seems to me, what he has formerly told us his conception of this independent Being is, the negation of all matter. Now that which is the negation of all matter is, in fact, but another form of giving up the question, so far as explanation can carry it; it is but another form of saying -Really, I cannot tell what it is."

Now we should be very much obliged to Mr. Holyoake, if he would SEND US WORD WHAT MATTER IS; and if he can tell more about it, than we can about spirit, our readers shall have the material advantage of all his illumination. He is not very likely to favour us so far, though he shall have any reasonable space at his command. This is no unfair request, since he affirms,

"I am particularly concerned, as I have been throughout, to explain, with all the explicitness I am able, that if I take up with any other hypothesis, it must be because I am able to understand it. If I adopt a theory of nature which I cannot explain to others, why, plainly, I am dumb, when I go before them."

How dumb he should, therefore, be, is evident from these words,

"Is it, therefore, not easier to believe that this stupendous and mighty frame of nature always was, and what seems to be infinite was also eternal? It seems to me to be so, and upon this opinion I rest; still, I explain nothing-I do not explain how matter came to be, nor do I think any man can. Nature no man can fathom-we can only suppose, and all that is given to us is not to suppose contradiction. Suppose we what we will, we still stand like children on the shores of eternity, who must look forward with wistful and unsatisfactory curiosity; but let the profound sense of our own littleness, which here creeps upon us, check the dogmatic spirit, and arrest the presumptuous world-we stand in the great presence of nature, whose inspiration should be that of modesty, humility, and love."

He can only suppose and have an unsatisfactory curiosity, ending in the perception of his own littleness, to check the dogmatic spirit of scepticism, and teach the hardest lesson modesty and humility, which ought to be inspired by these contradictions: especially since, as he says again,

"The purpose of this controversy, as of all controversy, must be to make things plainer, and to reconcile what was obscure before to the understanding of persons who were not able to comprehend it in the old form of expression, I think, if we apply such a rule to the observations which we have lately heard, they will not prove quite so satisfactory as seems to the gentleman by whom we have just been favoured with them."

After the very clear accounts with which Mr. Holyoake has favoured us, respecting the mysteries of his inexplicable nature, which none by searching can find out, since "its majesty transcends his faculties of penetration," and since "it seems not to belong to man to comprehend its attributes and extent." Mr. Holyoake properly observes,

"Now you will say it is presumptuous in me to expect to have this matter explained, and that I am pushing the argument of the satisfaction of the understanding too far. But the nature of difficulty is this-I do not present it as a reason why I am unwilling to believe as you would

« AnteriorContinuar »