An Apology for Atheism | Page 4

the chains of others. So that those they defraud of their hard
earned substance be kept down, they are not over scrupulous with
respect to means. Among the most potent of their helps in the 'good
work' are churches, various in name and character, but in principle the
very same. All are pronounced true by priests who profit by them, and
false by priests who do not. Every thing connected with them bears the
mark of despotism. Whether we look at churches foreign or domestic,
Popish or Protestant, that mark of the 'beast' appears in characters as
legible as, it is fabled, the hand writing on the wall did to a tyrant of old.
In connection with each is a hierarchy of intellect stultifiers, who
explain doctrines without understanding them, or intending they should
be understood by others; and true to their 'sacred trust,' throw every
available impediment in the way of improvement. Knowledge is their
devil. So far as antagonism to progression goes, there is no sensible
difference between the hierarchies of Rome or of England, or of
Constantinople. To diffuse the 'truth' that 'will set men free' is no part of
their 'wicked political system.' On the contrary, they labour to excite a
general disgust of truth, and in defence of bad governments preach fine
sermons from some one of the many congenial texts to be gathered in
their 'Holy Scripture.'
Nor is it found that non-established priesthoods are much more
disposed to emancipate 'mind' and oil the wheels of political
progression than those kept in state pay. The air of conventicles is not
of the freest or most bracing description. No doubt the 'voluntary

principle' is just--only brazen faced impostors will say it is right to tax a
man for the support of those who promulgate doctrines abhorrent to his
feelings and an insult to his judgment. Still, the fact is incontestable,
that Dissenting Priests are, for the most part, opposed to the extension
of political rights, or, what is equal, that' knowledge which would
infallibly secure them. The Methodist preacher, who has the foolish
effrontery to tell his congregation 'the flesh lusteth always contrary to
the spirit; and, therefore, every person born into the world deserveth
God's wrath and damnation,' may be a liberal politician, one well fitted
to pilot his flock into the haven of true republicanism: but the author is
extremely suspicious of such persons, and would not on any account
place his liberty in their keeping. He has little faith in political
fanaticism, especially when in alliance with the frightful doctrines
enunciated from conventicle pulpits, and has no hesitation in saying
that Anti-State Church Associations do not touch the root of all
political evils. Their usefulness is great, because they give currency to a
sound principle, but that principle, though important, is not
all-important--though powerful, is not all-powerful. If universally
adopted, it is questionable that any useful change of a lasting character
would be worked in the economy of politics.
Priests of all religion are the same, said Dryden--the religions they
teach are false, and in their tendency anti-progressive, say Atheists,
who put no trust in doctrine which involves or assumes supernatural
existence. Believing that supernaturalism reduced to 'system' cannot be
other than 'wickedly political,' the Atheist, truly so called, sees no hope
for 'slave classes,' apart from a general diffusion of anti-religious ideas.
According to his theory, religion is in part a cunningly and in part a
stupidly devised fable. He cannot reconcile the wisdom of theologians
with undoubted facts, and though willing to admit that some 'modes of
faith' are less absurd than others, is convinced they are all essentially
alike, because all fundamentally erroneous. Rousseau said 'philosophy
can do nothing that religion cannot do better, and religion can do many
things which philosophy cannot do at all.' But Atheists believe religion
the most formidable evil with which progressors have to cope, and see
in philosophy that mighty agent in the work of improvement so
beautifully described by Curran as the irresistible genius of universal

emancipation.
Speculative thinkers of so decidedly irreligious a temper are not
numerous. If esteemed, as happens to certain commodities, in
proportion to their scarcity they would enjoy a large share of public
respect. Indeed, they are so few and far between, or at least so seldom
make their presence visible, that William Gillespie is convinced they
are an anomalous species of animal, produced by our common parent
'in a moment of madness.' Other grave Christian writers, though
horrified at Atheism--though persuaded its professors, 'of all earth's
madmen, most deserve a chain;' and, though constantly abusing them,
are still unable to believe in the reality of such persons. These, among
all the opponents of Atheism and Atheists, may fairly claim to be
considered most mysterious; for, while lavishing on