33 
governs it.” I could have wished that Dr. Irons, when in this vein of 
thought, had gone a little further, and not contented himself with that 
strong, true, and well-put sentence with respect to the Pantheistic view of 
an impersonal existence as the supreme governing power, — as implying that 
all our deontology is presided over by a mechanical and unconscious influence, 
that in fact there is left us no such thing as a moral system at all. I could 
have wished that he should have shown us that people who do not believe in 
a personal God should at once call themselves Atheists ; and that Positivists 
should not call themselves Pantheists at all. It appears to me that the use 
of that word Pantheism is calculated to mislead us. Indeed we have no 
Pantheism, except Atheism, which borrows the phraseology of Pantheism in 
order that it may hide its own nakedness. Let Atheists set to work to 
write logically ; and consistently banish out of their phraseology everything 
which implies a governing mind, or providential ruler. Let them banish 
all that means that there is in truth, external to us, a moral or intellectual 
plan in the universe. Of course the plan must either be in us individually, 
or else it must be in the Maker ; it cannot be nowhere ; and if there is no 
maker or ruler outside of us, then is there no plan in the cosmos, in the 
universe, except what has been put into it by us, — what has been imagined 
and invented by us or for us. Therefore let all language which seems to 
imply a plan, a unity of purpose, — all, in fact, which the very principles of 
Atheism deny ; let all this be done away with, and let Atheism stand forth 
in honest nakedness, in utter denial that there is any real system outside of 
us, or any true comprehensive unity. Let Atheists write all their books, 
teach all their ethics, do all their business, with this plain meaning, placing 
their principles before the world in the midst of the human world of affec- 
tions, hopes, motives, and impulses ; then I think they would so strike upon 
the consciences of all, that the result would be that there would be very 
much less Atheism in the world than at present exists. (Applause.) 
Mr. Reddie. — I think it will perhaps be desirable, after the concluding 
remarks of Dr. Rigg, that I should remind you that Dr. Irons’s paper is not 
yet complete. What we have heard is only one part of the subject ; and 
probably some of the last remarks might not have been made, if we had 
had the whole matter before us. But there is one thing I should like to say 
with regard to some observations of Dr. Rigg. He seems to find fault with 
Dr. Irons for not calling his adversaries names which they do not like. I 
know that this is very tender ground among our opponents, whether they 
call themselves Positivists or Atheists or Pantheists. Mr. Holyoake as well 
as some other professed Atheists were invited to be here this evening ; and 
he has stated in a letter that he is sorry, as he was obliged to be in Glasgow, 
that he could not be present. His letter is couched in language very com- 
plimentary to Dr. Irons, from whom the invitation had been received. We 
are most anxious to have such subjects thoroughly discussed ; but I think 
there are few Atheists or Pantheists who would venture to discuss this paper 
off-hand, though in all probability we may look for some answer to it in a 
written form. Any Atheist who came forward to reply to such a logical array 
YOL. IY. D 
