177 
Mr. Rrddie.— I beg leave to explain that the paper I am about to read 
was not written for such an audience as this. It was delivered in 1852 in 
the Mechanics’ Institute, Southampton Buildings, and it was written on 
account of a discussion which had taken place there between a Swedenborgian 
and an atheist, at which I was present, and where I thought the Sweden- 
borgian made but a poor defence indeed of his thesis. When this paper was 
originally read, I challenged public discussion on the subject, and it was 
then discussed. I may say that I differ from Dr. M‘Cann’s concluding 
words, that “ he who denies the existence of Deity is as unworthy of serious 
refutation as he who denies a mathematical demonstration ; ” for, to begin 
with, I have not met many gentlemen who understand a mathematical 
demonstration who deny the existence of Deity. But if we are to deal with 
this subject at all, we must deal with those who really do deny the existence 
of Deity ; and the object of my paper was to meet the case of such a person, 
a Mr. Nicholls, who really appeared to be perfectly sincere. I hope the 
meeting will remember that, in delivering this paper, I was addressing 
working men, and speaking with reference to a discussion that had already 
taken place. I did not cover so large a field as Dr. M‘Cann, but where I did 
travel, I think I went over the ground a little more minutely than he has 
done. I have not had time now to compress or re-write my paper, so as to 
make it more suitable for the present audience ; I hope you will therefore 
excuse its simplicity, and consider the class for whom it was intended, 
the class, perhaps, however, who most require to be addressed upon such a 
subject. 
Mr. Reddie then read his paper as follows 
ATHEISM CONFUTED BY A NEW ARGUMENT ; OR 
WHY MAN MUST BELIEVE IN GOD. (Being a 
Lecture ON NATURAL THEISM , originally delivered in 
the London Mechanics 9 Institution, Southampton Buildings, 
Holborn, on Thursday, 3rd June, 1852, with reference to 
a Discussion which took p>lace between a Svjedenborgian 
and an Atheist on 11 th May, 1852.) — By James Reddie, 
Esq., Hon. Sec., V.I. 
[I. TN the discussion which took place on the 11th of last 
X month in this hall, on the Being of a God, Mr. N 
(the Atheist), contented himself with merely objecting to the 
arguments brought forward by Mr. W (the Sweden- 
borgian), who affirmed the existence of a Deity; and, indeed, 
when challenged to disprove God's existence, after at first saying 
merely that he did not undertake to do so, he fell back upon a 
technical rule in evidence, which he employed as if it were a 
universal principle, and quite stretched beyond its legitimate 
