This was the first of a series of lectures delivered before the Truth-Seekers' free debating society on May 28, 1863 by my 2nd great grandfather Dr Th. Berigny. I've been transcribing it with the help of OCR. I feel it's worth re-publishing here, as I've got good reason to believe he was beyond his time and so others might find this of value, as I have.

Introduction

The Author intends to bring forth before the British Nation a series of Lectures upon various subjects, and thereby present in their own language, of which he was ignorant when twenty-five years of age, how he has come to the conclusion that, civilization being upon wrong foundations, no reform will be fraught with permanent benefit, unless the primary cause of social evils be eradicated, i. e., Superstition.

He is not of the class of philosophers who acknowledge that the people must have something false to believe when they cannot have the truth: he holds scepticism as the most fertile ground for the cultivation of knowledge, truth, and wisdom, and he believes that evidence has no authority where there is no honest doubt. Popular- faith that indolently contemplates itself as Narcissus at the fountain, is the atrophy of men’s higher faculties, the baneful virus inoculated into the blood of human childhood ; it has been the Harbinger of a gospel of fatality, despair, and offensive exclusiveness, for the defence of which, men have wasted their valuable energies, and carried on destructive wars. Knowledge on the contrary, being the impressions received by substantial, real, and intellectual evidences, will alone restore religious harmony throughout the world.

It will be noticed, he apprehends, that his dictionary of the English idiom is rather limited, and the French phraseology disagreeably prevailing; his object, however, is not to exhibit literary attainments, but to avow fearlessly, his sentiments in a pertinent and significant language, to which he has been driven by public injustice, and the love of truth.

God considered scientifically, morally and philosophically

All weak minds move with the atmosphere of public opinion. Whilst a force of attraction keeps them irresistibly at u fixed distance, they will maintain, at all cost, that black is white, and right is wrong, and vice versa. A good shaking to public opinion from the torpor of religious conservatism, and millions to exclaim, “I thought so.”

(My meditations upon Dr. Colenso's refutations)

Thanks to the courageous authors of the celebrated essays and reviews, and more recently to an honest Bishop of the Church of England, Dr. Colenso, the subject of religious enquiry is creating great alarms among the votaries of popular “theology,” and the ecclesiastical fabric is trembling upon its very foundation. As these noble deserters have met with some encouragement from a philosophical press, it is to be hoped that the credulous mass who supply the bricks and mortar of sectarian edifices will also enquire into the veracity, reliability, and authority of the old Jewish records.

Modern Protestantism has in reality less vitality than Catholicism, because deprived of unity, the baleful advantage of that progenitor. Protestantism is as much a mock protestation against popish superstition as Catholicism, since the council of Nice is a mock teaching of Christianity. It is true that Protestantism has gloriously protested against individual infallibility; but since its partial triumph it lias protested against the spirit of Christianity with no less hatred than its foe. Protestantism proscribes the very elements that brought it into existence, i.e., enquiry and protest: it's only endeavour is to supplant its old enemy, and to fasten another set of chains upon the new converts. In fact, the ipse dixit of a civilized man, called Pope, would give place to the dead authority of human print, and the cupidity of a set of ambitious men called Cardinals would give place to theological tyranny were Protestantism to be the haughty queen of Christendom, instead of papal supremacy. It is now the mission of philosophy to consider Christianity as a moral reform, and to expose the present old, erroneous systems of “theology” that demoralizes humanity; and the object of this discourse is to commence a strong battle against prejudice and ignorance. I shall seize upon truth whenever found, on Christian or heathen ground. My efforts will be not only to clear the vapours of “ theological” darkness, but to cultivate man’s religious aspirations by a doctrine of affirmations. To pull down the idol of others is not my ultimate desire, for when the trick of happiness will be lost, the sectarian will do that part of destruction himself, like the unlucky gambler abuses the cards instrumental to his ruin. Religious reconstruction is my aim; if not attainable, it is nevertheless searchable.

The object of religion is twofold: First, Inquiry into the knowledge of God and his attributes; secondly, The highest standard of worship owing to Him by the human family. The first question only will occupy me this evening. Is there a Deity? Who is He? If I were to say to my most pious friends that I do not believe in the existence of God, they would cry blasphemy ! and stay my speaking, yet my sentiments would be candidly expressed, though, I apprehend, misunderstood; such as if I were to say that I do not believe in the exisle ice of the sun, when its light is so intense that I cannot penetrate it. I say that the existence of God is no matter of belief, but of knowledge, as it is with the knowledge that one and one make two. No one believes in a mathematical problem so simple because he knows it So it is with God : the existence of a universal Ruler, Sustainer, or Providence is answered by the presence of the smallest atom in the creation, as the existence of a manufactured article reveals the existence of the manufacturer; or as the existence of a force presupposes the existence of a superior force. I may now say, without giving offence, that I do not believe in the existence of God, since you understand that I know from the evidences of my senses that He is! But Who is He? This is a more difficult question.

God admits of no human definition: He only knows himself; and all speculation upon His divine character will prove to be an incoherent rambling, and terminates by the creation of an ideal being, the reflex and exact likeness of the overstretched brain in painful labour. The character of God portrayed by Moses or Joshua, compared with the sublime conception of Jesus, differs as much as cruelty from love.

Vindictiveness, cruelty, and wrath are the excellencies attributed to Jehovah by war-disposed reformers, as universal love is the attribute of the Deity taught by the peaceful Jesus. It is evident that the two characters of God differ as much as the two personal teachers differ from each other; and so it is with every one of us who has to use the telescope of his own mental organization to catch a faint glimpse at the Deity.

To represent the Deity for our adoration as a jealous,J despotic patriarch, is a form of idolatry more pernicious than the veneration of an inert image as a symbol of his personation. Christendom seems to ignore that the idolatry of the Hindoo is not the direct adoration of a wooden idol: their idol is a visible symbol of the universal God. If you accept, instead of this material representation of the Deity, the invisible individuality of God - which Moses proclaimed in the age of force, whilst worshipping this individuality associated with cruelty, robbery,massacre, prostitution etc. you manufacture to yourself an invisible idol more mischievous than the dumb symbolic idol Ram, of the Hindoo, never was alleged to say, through a lifeless representation, “I am a jealous God; I wax hot in my wrath! The Deity thus misunderstood and represented, has never been believed to commend wholesale murder, nor to suggest slavery. The relation of cause to effect explains the present war in America, as the British subjugation of India is the natural consequence of a national religious torpor. At the present time the American war has already cost nearly half a million of lives to the contending parties: go to the remotest cause of this human calamity, and you will find that the invisible individuality of a god of Slavery is associated with it. What was the authority of the primitive English slaveholders who created this shocking institution? - The Bible. What was the argument of divines in favor of the chattel of human beings? - The sanction of the Bible. The benevolent and intelligent mind believes that national calamities are traceable to erroneous religious institutions breeding superstitions, as diseases and sufferings are entailed upon the violation of organic laws. When the causes of our evils and vices are discovered, it will be found that popular “ theology,” vicious systems of education, and tyrannical institutions are answerable for all the iniquity of society, and not the human heart. This platform is accessible to all benevolent minds who can throw what they believe light upon the causes and cure of evils: whether friends or foes, they will be welcome.

If it is beyond the human power to give a definition of God, it is, I hope, within the capabilities of the human mind to express a conception of God, which, though limited and inadequate, is nevertheless consistent with nature and reason. Humanity, in spite of sectarian organizations, is advancing in that direction as in every human science; the salaried divines - alone mortgaged to religious conservatism, are left far behind their thinking laity; and religious emancipation comes from out the doors of the Church, as political liberty proceeded once from the ranks of the people, in spite of privileged aristocracy. The man that dares to think for himself will not adhere to all such conceptions of God that emanate from more ignorant men than himself.

The Bible is a faithful revelation, and a living monument that Moses and Joshua were more ignorant of the knowledge of God than the emancipated intellect in the nineteenth century: yet there is perhaps no modern thinker who shines so brilliantly in this luminous age as those great patriarchs did in the dark ages of humanity. They are not to be judged as they appear to us on a more advanced plan, but for the relative merits they possessed, and good reforms they worked. In spite of great imperfections they have probably deserved much from humanity, and were the highest intellect of their time; - they claim their due and no more.

My conception of the great Deity is either scientific, moral, or philosophical, but not “theological”; scientific researches and discoveries reveal a God of stern and unchanging laws, forces, attractions, repulsions, associations, affinities, etc. God is the centre and originator of all forces and changes - the least ripple that disturbs the still waters is originated in the force of forces. To call God nature is not incorrect, but it is a conception of his material aspect only. Essential Atheism cannot exist, for its definition is a conception of universal effects without cause. It is a philosophical reaction against the personation of God, with form and human imperfections. No man has ever denied the existence of a Supreme Force, or Power, though he rejected another definition of God. Atheism would never have been known if ideal idolatry had not usurped our moral and religious government.

Morally considered, God is the embodiment of eternal principles and wise designs; the attributes of love and universal fatherhood taught by Jesus is the most sublime conception ever arrived at.

Contemplating God as the great fountain of love, we cannot entertain the least doubt that his designs do not tend to the ultimate happiness of all His children. The doctrine of predestination and total depravity can only find credence in those diseased minds which are haunted by gloomy thoughts that lead to the lunatic asylum.

Philosophically considered, God is the infinite intelligence, the focus of infinite wisdom and knowledge, - a most complicated combination of perfections inconceivable to the human animalcula that crawl upon this planet. Philosophically considered, God governs our mind by fixed, stern principles, as he governs the Universe by immutable, eternal laws. The human mind has its wheels and pulleys, as our system has its internal laboratories of digestion, secretion, excretion etc.

Therefore, to my individual conception, God is not a personal potentate - a King of kings - a judge holding sitting, and attended by aide-de-camps, or angels. Shall I be called an atheist because this conception, essentially material, is as obnoxious to my mind as gross animal substances are refused assimilation by my digestive apparatus?

Scientifically considered, I contemplate God as the great mathematician, geometrician and architect of the universes; the great chemist, artist, musician, that inspired genius. Morally considered, I contemplate God as the universal Father whose love is secured to all his families for ever and ever. So impartial I believe him to be that I would not say he loves more the godly man than the criminal on his way to the gallows. Philosophically considered, I contemplate the Deity as the Divine influence - penetrating all the universe, and reaching the centre of the smallest atom.

I never importune God with prayers couched in the form of a demand, solicitation, or favor, etc. as I am fully aware that he knows my requirements better than myself. Where sectarians find the work of their imaginary devil, I discover the voice of God giving me a Divine warning. All mental sorrows are mental transitory disturbances leading to improvements, as volcanic eruptions improve the surface and fertility of the earth. All our social misfortunes and calamities are the lessons of His Holy Gospels; thus rectifying our artificially perverted functions, they constitute the infallible method of His teachings.

There is no such conflict upon the conception of God, viewed very differently by great philosophers, moralists, mathematicians, naturalists, physiologists, chemists, artists, &c., as there is between theologians of various sects. All sciences are engaged in the search of the laws and principles of God, and whenever there is one discovered, its enunciation constitutes a truth which will harmonize with all previous discoveries. “Theology” will never blend with philosophy, because repulsive to reason, the eyes of the developed understanding, and to nature - the only revelation of God authoritative to men.

Now that we have casually examined the most apparent attributes of God, it remains to determine His most appropriate name in the English language. I object to the word Creator, as being associated with a misconception of the Infinite Being. No mind can comprehend the possibility of creation, either of the primary elements of matter, time, or God himself. Alpha and Omega, and the First Cause, create another riddle that confuses the mind. The Alla of the Mahometan (the Only), is preferable, and also the Hebrew name (meaning The Eternal, or the one before now, and after). But the word God may remain, though so much misused since its origin.

What is God, considered theologically? If it takes a great artist to comprehend another great artist- a Socrates to comprehend a Socrates - a Newton to comprehend a Newton, etc., it will also require Another God as Omnipresent, as Omniscient, and infinite as the Deity to comprehend him Theo-logically. How can that be? We comprehend the Deity ns a Unity incomparable to any other unity. God only can consider himself Theo-logically or God-logically. Priests have considered him ecclesiastically, - through the opaque mirror that reflected the requirements of selfishness and ambition, - but theologically, never. Their “Theology" is a piece of greater sacrilege than the infallibility of the Pope, or the assumption of absolving sins. Their “Theology” has represented the world to be under the divided government of Four Deities, viz: - First, there is the God of Moses, who sanctions war, slavery, human massacre in cool blood, female degradation, incest, polygamy, and all other cruelties and monstrosities which Moses thought indispensable to carry on to succeed in ruling over a barbarous horde. The same Deity is in our day invoked by the richly salaried divine, to protect military ferocious thirst for blood, when a “Christian” nation prepares herself for great human slaughter. Secondly - There is the wicked, gay, joyous, alternately clever and foolish, but hideous and mischievous deity, called The Devil; always setting traps for poor, weak, frail humanity, and frightening grown up children as the hobgoblins do the younger ones. Thirdly - There is a good, divine, merciful Lord, who is his own son and father, in spite of all mathematicians so obstinate as to maintain that two entities can never make one entity. That gracious god is so good that, in order to reconcile the human family with himself, his own father, he came to be barbarously put to death. Here is an example of reconciliation for fathers (that have sons) who wish to make peace with an enemy! And fourthly - There is the god Ghost, who never does or did anything at all. Is it so? Divines, make that a subject for “Theological” subtleties, for which you are salaried

That assumed “Theology” has been and still is the worst enemy of mankind. Its crimes are beyond computation, and its atrocities pass all human madness; - it is a miserable myth, that will follow the obsequies of its parent, the Devil. As an exemplification of its mental aberrations, I will here give some extracts of its inspirations. The “Theologian” Emmons, an English sermon writer, gives vent to his religious acumen in the following:

The happiness of the elect in Heaven will consist in witnessing the torments of the damned in hell; and among these it may be their own children, parents, husbands, wives, and friends on earth. One part of the business of the blessed is to celebrate the doctrine of reprobation. While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the parts of those miserable objects, will say, ‘Amen ! Hallelujah ! Praise the Lord!’

Who would like to be saved in such blessed company? Certainly not I! Then follow some orthodox psalms, by a Rev. Dr. Watts:

There is a never ending Hell,
And never dying pains.
Where children must with demons dwell,
In darkness, tire, and chains.

Have faith the same with endless shame,
To all the Human race;
For Hell is crammed with infants damned,
Without a day of grace!

Such are the “Teachers” of Christ’s doctrine, who once said “Let the little children come to me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven!” That “Theology” has depraved humanity, and called man totally depraved from birth. It has been the hidden, malignant author of all contention and hatred, and asserted that man is surrounded by invisible enemies trying to lead him to perdition. It has ruined man’s highest faculty, reason, and represents him as lost “by the fall.” It has persecuted with cruelty and vengeance the pioneers of human progress, and kept humanity fascinated under the spell of “Divine” wrath. It has looked upon humanity as a rich reef, to be crushed to dust for its own sanctimonious benefit. Thanks to the martyrs of that Juggernaut, they have only penetrated through the stratum of popular credulity, and our riches will go to its legitimate owners. In all its contentions that “Theology” has exhibited the insensibility of maniacs, and claims holy communion with the great fountain of love. It has but I must stop, for I do not know what it has not done, except good.

Ah! they say, “Theology is not Christianity.” What is Christianity? “He that believes will be saved; he that disbelieves will be damned.” Believe what? - the “Truth.” Saved from what? - eternal damnation. What is that truth? - my bible, i.e. Theology. Saved from what? - eternal damnation, i.e., Theology. Now that we have gone round the vicious circle, we must present the question in another form: What light do the divine Revelations of Nature bring upon the words ascribed to the messenger of good news? Reason, in doing justice to the Great Teacher, sincerely admits that all his teachings were throughout harmonious with nature’s revelations. When he is alleged to say, “He that believes will be saved,” etc., His true meaning, evidently falsified by translators, was “He that believes what is true is saved from troubles; he that disbelieves is condemned to penalties proportionate to the violation.” Again he says, “ He that sinneth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.” The Holy Ghost is another name for the Heavenly Father, and it will be my endeavour to show that this noble saying is in harmony with nature’s revelation of the will of God. No violation against the laws of nature, and the moral laws of our conscience can possibly be forgiven, and no one has power to forgive an injury committed against him, however forbearing, lenient, and charitable he may be. What is called forgiveness is the promise not to degrade oneself by retaliation: every transgressor will meet with the adequate punishment that will set the transgressor right, and lead him to reform - which is the reconciliation with nature, But suppose that we disagree upon what is to be believed in order to be saved, is there any quotation to settle the riddle? I say yes; and theu it is still consistent with nature’s laws, but requiring some scientific explanation out of place at present. Jesus Christ said: - And these signs shall follow them that believe, etc. They shall take serpents, and they will not hurt them. They shall lay hands
on the sick, and they shall recover.’’ Where is the divine or the man who calls me an “infidel” willing to submit his sterling belief to these tests with me? I shall be the first to take up any snake, or to lay on the hands over the sick: the result will speak for itself.

What shall I say is Christianity? Christianity does not exist, and never will, for the glory of Jesus’ immortal memory: it is a fiction to serve ecclesiastical cupidity. God made men to become pure, not artificially altered. From the tenor of Christ’s fragmentary language it can be proved that he never intended to preach a particular doctrine upon which to engraft the creeds that smother religion ; and this is his great merit. Human doctrines or systems are all founded upon hypotheses the counterfeit of truth; whereas, science is the discovery of immortal laws. Moral cultivation is the research of those principles that develop spiritual aspirations - the department in which Jesus excels, and has found no parallel: “My doctrine is not mine,” said He, “ but His that sent me. His doctrine is no mystery: there is nothing covered that shall not be known.” Isaac Newton would as well have said, “ The law of attraction is not mine, but of the great manifest God, who has many others for discovery.” It would be as absurd to call astronomy after the name of Copernicus, as it is to term from Christ’s name the sacred immortal religion which was promulgated by his teaching and example, but not invented. Due veneration for his sublime character ought to make every honest thinker bold enough to face that idolatry that elevates him to the identity of the Almighty, in violation of his own humble remonstrance: - “Why callest thou me good? God is greater than I. There is none good but God! ” It is a mystery, will they say? To me their mystery is a palpable revelation of their gross ignorance. We shall try to be his “Brother,” by “Doing the will of his Father,” as commanded by him, and stand or fall for it.

“He that believes will be saved.” This is the boasted salvation anchor of professed Christians, the key to everlasting happiness; and disbelief the way to “perdition.” The authority that Jesus said so is that of the apostles, who disagree, as all other honest men might do, in relating mere matters of fact.

Can any intelligent man admit that Jesus was so ignorant of the nature of belief as he is alleged to be. Belief is the reflex of an involuntary impression of the mind, - as a bruise is the unavoidable effect of a blow - as sight is subsequent to light. The great teacher might as well be made to say that he that is not blind can see the light of the sun, &c. That anchor of saving belief will avail them as well as the heavy iron apparatus would when a shipwreck is imminent, and the poor infatuated victims rush and cling to it for keeping afloat, instead of depending upon their self efforts of swimming.

In conclusion, let me now appear with my own conception of God before a jury of twelve thus impanelled: a rabbi, an English bishop, a catholic cardinal, a Greek priest, a Swedenborgian minister, a mahometan dervish, a mandarin, a brahmin priest, a mormon, a shaker, and a wesleyan, presided over by the pope. In order to be acquitted of idolatry the verdict must be unanimous. Can there be one of the jury who would deny one of my affirmations? But what would it be if I were to change places with one of my judges, and the latter to be succeeded by another to undergo the same ordeal, and so on to the last? The verdict would unanimously be that I only am not guilty of idolatry.

In all that we do, in all what we say, in all what we profess, let us strive to prove that we are not wrong. Men will say that we are not right; but it is only the privilege of the Great Deity to say who is right or not, for He alone possesses the standard of right.