engaged in the attempt to establish that theism. has a broad and solid foundation both in fact and reason, I contented myself with simply warding off the attacks of those who deny that it has such a foundation. But obviously more than this may and should be done. It is our right and our duty to inquire also if those who reject and assail theism are themselves standing on firm ground, and if the systems which have been raised in hostility to theism are as impregnable as we have found itself to be. It is this right which I intend to exercise; it is this duty which I shall endeavour to perform.

In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Anti-theism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism. No system is so opposed to theism as atheism; it is the extreme form of opposition to it. But short of atheism there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a Deity; but it is anti-theistic, since it denies that there is only one. Pantheism is not atheism, for it admits that there is a God; but it is anti-theism, for it denies that God is a Being distinct from creation and possessed of such attri

butes as wisdom, and holiness, and love. Every theory which refuses to ascribe to God an attribute which is essential to a worthy conception of His character is anti-theistic. Only those theories. which refuse to acknowledge that there is evidence even for the existence of a God are atheistic.1

An examination of anti-theistic theories ought evidently to begin with atheism,-the complete negation of theism. The term atheism, although much less general in signification than anti-theism, includes a multitude of systems. Atheism has a great variety of forms. Its advocates are by no means agreed among themselves. On the contrary, if their comparatively small number be taken into account, they are far more divided into sects than theists. They are at one only in their utter rejection of theism. I am not aware of any positive distinctive principle which atheists hold in common. As soon as they attempt to state a doctrine which may fill the place of theism, dissension breaks out among them at all points. It is an obvious consequence of the fact that atheism is thus indefinite, divided, and varied, that its chief phases must be discussed separately. It cannot be treated fairly by being treated as what it is not, a single, self-consistent system. It is really a series or aggregation of discordant and conflicting systems. At the same time, some 1 See Appendix I.

general remarks regarding it may not be without

use.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in God. It teaches either that there is no God, or that it is impossible for man to know that there is a God, or that there is no sufficient reason for believing that there is a God. In other words, it either absolutely denies that there is a Divine Being, or it denies that the human mind is capable of discovering whether or not there is a Divine Being, or it simply maintains that no valid proof of the existence of a Divine Being has been produced. Atheism in the form of a denial of the existence of a God has been called dogmatic atheism; atheism in the form of doubt of man's ability to ascertain whether there is a God or not has been called sceptical atheism; atheism in the form of mere rejection of the evidence which has been presented for the existence of a God may be called critical atheism. There is no individual system of atheism, however, which is exclusively dogmatic, exclusively sceptical, or exclusively critical. These terms express accurately only ideal distinctions which have never been exactly realised. Sceptical atheism and critical atheism are inseparable. A purely dogmatic atheism would be utterly incredible. Sceptical atheism and critical atheism have always been much more prevalent than dogmatic atheism. In

every form-even in its most modest formatheism pronounces all belief in God a delusion, and all religion a fable. What is called practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life. It may coexist with a belief in the being of a God. It is the living as if there were no God, whether we believe that there is a God or not.

The existence of atheism has often been doubted. It has been held to be absolutely impossible for a man entirely to throw off belief in God. The thought of a universe without a creator, without a presiding mind and sustaining will, without a judge of right and wrong, has seemed to many to be so incredible that they have refused to admit that it could be sincerely entertained by the human mind. And it may be conceded that there is an element of truth underlying this view. The whole nature of man presupposes and demands God, and is an enigma and self-contradiction if there be no God. The reason of man can only rest in the Divine Reason as the first cause; his affections tend to a supreme good which can only be found in God; his conscience contains a moral law which implies a moral lawgiver. He can only be conscious of himself as dependent, finite, and imperfect, and consequently as distinguished from that which is absolute, infinite, and perfect. In this sense all theists will probably hold that the soul

bears within it a latent and implicit testimony against atheism and on behalf of theism; and the opinion is one which cannot be refuted otherwise than by what would amount to a refutation of theism itself. But although man's whole nature cries for God, and can only find its true life in God, there can be little doubt that he may so contradict himself, so violate the most essential principles of his own nature, as to persuade himself that there is no reason in the universe higher than his own, no good which is not earthly and perishable, no righteous judge, no infinite and eternal God. The number of those who have gone this length may not have been so large as it has sometimes been represented. Many have certainly been called atheists unjustly and calumniously. Some may possibly have professed themselves to be atheists who really professed a religious belief which they overlooked. But that there have been atheists-that there are atheists -cannot reasonably be denied. When men teach the most manifest and explicit atheism - when they avow themselves to be atheists-when they glory in the name-we must take them at their word. To say that they do not conscientiously believe what they teach is an assertion which no one has a right to make unless he can conclusively prove it, and for which there will be found in many cases no proof whatever. The strangest