Reviews.

Freethought Review, Volume I, Issue 2, 1 November 1883, Page 10

Reviews.

Science and Religion: A Review of Judge Higinbotham’s Lecture, by T. Cheyne Farnie, M. A. Dunedin : Joseph Braith waite. Mr Farnie, while sympathising with Judge Higinbotham’s views where they are definite, pushes them to their logical conclusion. Enforcing and illustrating the distinction between religion and theology, he observes that religion is “ the worship of ideals.” In this sense true religion “ has the very closest connection with man’s individual and social welfare.” But with modern theology, “ worship has sunk into an accident, a second place, while belief is the essential element —belief in the existence of a divine architect and ruler of the universe, belief in the excellencies of creed and dogma pertaining to the antique churches.” “Theology has faded from the rank of a religion, and fallen into that of a superstition.” But is the distinction founded on true ideals only Whether a divine architect exist or not, the belief sets up the ideal, and that is religion. The distinction is probably one of degree only, and not in the nature of the things described. Mr Farnie’s reply to Judge Higinbotham on the vital point of his lecture is quite conclusive—“lf man did not fall, then there is no need for the system of the Christian Churches— that system topples over as soon as this is shown.” Where Mr. Farnie deals with Theology and Science, he shows that Theology is not entitled to be dignified by the name of Science, and he asserts that it has not given birth to one single new idea for hundreds of years.” Yet the conception of a supremo mind has been subject to a process of evolution, in passing from the region of revelation to that of metaphysics. Science is a very loose term wanting a better definition than any yet given to it. We agree with Mr Farnie that Theology is not entitled to be called a Science : but with the qualification that many other things so designated are also inaccurately described. Mr. Farnie clearly shows that the anthropomorphic conception of Cod cannot be got rid of while it is necessary to predicate attributes. Deprived of his attributes he is unthinkable. Mr. Farnie concludes his able and e'oquent review by an apotheosis of the ideal of duty—perhaps the only thing worthy of the honor.

Village Politics: By Charles William Stubbs, M.A., Vicar of Graiiborough, Bucks. London : Macmillan and Co. This is a book of sermons and addresses on the labour question, delivered at various times during the early progress of the movement under the leadership of Joseph Arch. It is dedicated “To the Farm Labourers of England in sincere sympathy with their struggle towards citizenship through seff-reliance and association,” and is full of 1 light and leading.’ The author is one of those men whose humanity throws his creed into the shade, and whose clear intellect dissects and analyses the current doctrines of the ruling classes with a boldness seldom equalled among the clergy of his church. To the question, “ Can a povertystricken people be a religious people ?” Mr. Stubbs replies in the negative. To the question, “ What is religion ?” the answer is thus supplied: “Religion, as I regard it, is the art of living well, not only of dying well. It is the science, if I may use the term, of being and doing good.” He then proceeds to show the mutual responsibilities of all classes. “ The welfare of all is wrapped up in each.” The question is an economical one, and he thinks the clergy should try to understand political economy. It is an honest attempt to find out the causes of poverty. The economy is superior to the theology, some of the illustrations, such as that of David and Nabal, being unfortunate. But on the whole, the book is the most encouraging and hopeful reading that has proceeded from the clerical body for a generation.

Without God, no Commonwealth: By Cardinal Manning;

Contemporary Be view, July, 1383.

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England has attempted to establish—that without the idea of God a political society is impossible. By the term commonwealth he means " a condition in which men are bound together, and protected by laws, for their common welfare." He does not supply a definition of God, and he cannot " consent to argue this question as if God were already not only deposed from His Sovereignty but also outlawed from the world which He, and not our politicians and philosophers, have made." Having assumed the existence of God, Cardinal Manning has no difficulty in finding all civic and moral duties emanating from his will. Starting with the great assumption, the reasoning eddies in a circle, tending to establish a theocracy. The argument is apparently summed up in the sentence : " An empire without God cannot stand ; for an empire which effaces God from its legislature has no longer a principle of unity." If a principle of unity can be found without God, the argument not only fails, but is turned against His Eminence. Having to account for the ancient commonwealths, the Cardinal found the principle of unity in the idea or conception of a God—• Gods'?—and "the heathen world was nearer the truth when it venerated a Dea Roma, than they who deny the natural or divine law as the foundation of Society." We have therefore the doctrine that the truth of the conception is secondary to the conception itself. Dea Roma equally with Jehovah will serve as the foundation of the State. Nor does it matter that the God should be personified. "It is better to have an altar to the Unknown God, than no altar and no God." There is some truth in the theory that the existence of a State postulates a principle of unity. But if Dea Roma may be this principle, so also may the Constitution of the United States, or Vive la Republique. If it is only the idea that is required, a nation's necessity for a supreme object of worship and veneration—-the principle of unity—can be as fully satisfied in the protecting goddess of Athens, or of Rome, in the Sun in the East, in a paper Constitution like that of the United States, or in a phrase embodying a national sentiment—as in the God assumed by the Roman Pontiff and his priests. The paper seems to have been inspired by the discussion proceeding over Mr Bradlaugh and the oaths' question.

Lectures on Liberty, Authority, Freethought, Socialism, Naturalism, and Atheism: By Very Rev. Father Le Menant des Chesnais, S.M. Auckland : Freeman's Journal Office.

Bishop Luck, of Auckland, writes to these lectures an introduction, in which he observes : " No small favor is conferred on those who would wish to stem the tide of infidelity and social revolution, by putting within their reach a clever and brief expose of the sophisms of those wretched men who

hate God and all those who are intent on their own true interests." Can any sophism be more transparent than to assert that men hate God? No theist hates the object of his faith, and no atheist can hate what to him is merely a term implying negation. He cannot very well hate nothing. The lectures themselves consist mainly of dogmatic assertions about God and his " pleasure," and Freethinkers and their " sensuality." God along is absolutely free, and "alone can do as he pleases, having no one to put any restriction on his liberty, possessing every good, incapable of error." And here is another sophism. Granting his existence, he may no doubt do as he pleases ; but if his goodness is infinite, he is subject to moral conditions, and his p'easure is accordingly restricted. Further, we are told that—" As God above has made man whatever he is, and given him whatever he possesses, so God alone has a right to govern him, and dispose of him, and of all that belongs to himaccording to His good pleasure." And, of course, it foMows that as He made the Freethinker what he is, he has the right to be so unjust as to execute his pleasure in the shape of vengeance on his own handiwork ! If He does not " govern " the sinner, it is equally his pleasure,— exercised in this case perhaps to give Father Le Menant the opportunity of showing how logically gifted is one of his priests. Leaving these glimpses of revelation, we come to the burden of the song—the shocking wickedness of Freethinkers—the assurance being given that, " Before refuting them we shall faithfully explain their doctrine, and use their own expressions." Let us give an illustration of the rev. gentleman's faithful description : " Freethinkers maintain that all priests and statesmen are men without intellect and reason, and I suppose also all those who believe in them." The intellect of priests may be warped by their vocation, but Freethinkers have always recognised the craft and subtility of these gentlemen. Asfor statesmen, it is just possible Freethinkers may have heard of Macchiavelli, Metternich, and Talleyrand. Does the Rev. Father think his people so illiterate that they will accept his unconscious humour without question ? The lecturer then gives a quotation, but no authority, duly placed within commas, thus : " The gratification of our appetites, passions, and senses (if we believe Freethinkers) is the end of our existence.' " Why the hypothesis "if we believe Freethinkers" in the middle of a quotation from a Freethinker ? Here we think there is a little touch of dishonesty on the part of the Father. At once we deny that any representative Freethinker ever used the words. The lecturer will only maintain his veracity by producing his authority. The term "sensuality "is very frequently applied to Freethinkers and their views, but the application is in no one instance sustained. On the other hand, the charge is destroyed in order to make good a charge of hypocrisy. For, says the Rev. Father, "When Atheists practise any virtues it is from selfish motives. They are temperate, to preserve their health; they are liberal and generous, out of ambition and zeal for their own reputation. Their virtues are all hypocritical." Men who aresuch artful hypocrites as to be temperate to preserve their health, are not very likely to ruin their health by sensuality ! These lectures are of a low order of intelligence, unscrupulous in statements of fact, but not ill-suited lo an audience illiterate and superstitious.