one of the most effective arts of priestcraft has been the misrepresentation and slander of heretics. to give the unbeliever a bad name is to prejudice believers against all communication with him. by this means a twofold object is achieved; first, the faithful are protected from the contagion of scepticism; secondly, the notion is propagated that there is something essentially immoral involved in, or attendant upon, unorthodox opinions; and thus the prevalent religious ideas of the age become associated with the very preservation and stability of the moral order of human society.

this piece of trickery cannot, of course, be played upon the students of civilisation, who, as mill remarked, are aware that many of the most valuable contributions to human improvement have been the work of men who knew, and rejected, the christian faith. but it easily imposes on the multitude, and it will never be abandoned until it ceases to be profitable.

sometimes it takes the form of idle stories about the death-beds of freethinkers, who are represented as deploring their ill-spent life, and bewailing the impossibility of recalling the wicked opinions they have put into circulation. at other times it takes the form of exhibiting their failings, without the slightest reference to their virtues, as the sum and substance of their character. when these methods are not sufficient, recourse is had to insinuation. particular sceptics are spared perhaps, but freethinkers are depicted—like the poor in tennyson's "northern farmer"—as bad in the lump. it is broadly hinted that it is a moral defect which prevents them from embracing the popular creed; that they reject what they do not wish to believe; that they hate the restraints of religion, and therefore reject its principles; that their unbelief, in short, is only a cloak for sensual indulgence or an excuse for evading irksome obligations.

we are so accustomed to this monstrous theory of scepticism in religious circles, that it did not astonish us, or give us the least surprise, to read the following paragraph in the christian commonwealth—

"free life, and no compulsory virtue, was the title of a placard borne by a pamphlet seller of the public highway a few days ago. what the contents of the pamphlets were we do not know, but the title is a suggestive sign of the times, and a rather more than usually plain statement of what a good deal of modern doubt amounts to. lord tennyson was severely taken to task a few years ago for making the atheist a villain in his 'promise of may,' but he was about right. much of the doubt of the day is only an outcome of the desire to discredit and throw off the restraints of religion and moral law in the name of freedom, wrongly used. free love, free life, free divorce, free sundays, in the majority of cases, are but synonyms for license. those who hold the darwinian doctrine of descent from a kind of ape may yet see it proved by a reversion to the beast, if men succeed in getting all the false and pernicious freedom they want."

now, in reply to this paragraph, we have first to observe that our contemporary takes lord tennyson's name in vain. the villain of the "promise of may" is certainly an agnostic, but are not the villains of many other plays christians? lord tennyson does not make the rascal's wickedness the logical result of his principles; indeed, although our contemporary seems ignorant of the fact, he disclaimed any such intention, a press announcement was circulated by his eldest son, on his behalf, that the rascal was meant to be a sentimentalist and ne'er-do-well, who, whatever his opinions, would have come to a bad end. when the commonwealth, therefore, talks of lord tennyson as "about right," it shows, in a rather vulgar way, the danger of incomplete information. were we to copy its manners we might use a swifter phrase.

that atheists, in the name of freedom, throw off the restraints of moral law, is a statement which we defy the commonwealth to prove, or in the slightest degree to support, and we will even go to the length of suggesting how it might undertake the task.

turpitude of character must betray itself. moral corruption can no more be hidden than physical corruption. wickedness "will out," like murder or smallpox. a man's wife discovers it; his children shun him instead of clinging about his knees; his neighbors and acquaintances eye him with suspicion or dislike; his evil nature pulsates through an ever-widening circle of detection, and in time nis bad passions are written upon his features in the infallible lines of mouth and eyes and face. how easy, then, it should be to pick out these atheists. the most evil-looking men should belong to that persuasion. but do they? we invite our contemporary to a trial. let it inquire the religious opinions of a dozen or two, and see if there is an atheist among them.

again, a certain amount of evil disposition must produce a certain percentage of criminal conduct. accordingly the gaols should contain a large proportion of atheists. but do they? statistics prove they do not. when the present writer was imprisoned for "blasphemy," and was asked his religion, he answered "none," to the wide-eyed astonishment of the official who put the question. atheists were scarce in the establishment. catholics were there, and red tickets were on their cell-doors; protestants were there, and white tickets marked their apartments; jews were there, and provision was made for their special observances; but the atheist was the rara avis, the very phoenix of holloway gaol.

let us turn to another method of investigation. during the last ten years four members have been expelled from the house of commons. one of them was not expelled in the full sense of the word; he was, however, thrust by brute force from the precincts of the house. his name was charles bradlaugh, and he was an atheist. but what was his crime? simply this: he differed from his fellow members as to his competence to take the parliamentary oath, and the ultimate event proved that he was right and they were wrong. now what were the crimes of the three other members, who were completely and absolutely expelled? captain verney was found guilty of procuration for seduction, mr. hastings was found guilty of embezzlement, and mr. de cobain was pronounced guilty of evading justice, while charged with unnatural offences. mr. jabez spencer balfour might also have been expelled, if he had not accepted the chiltern hundreds. now all these real delinquents were christians, and even ostentatious christians. compare them with charles bradlaugh, the atheist, and say which side has the greatest cause for shame and humiliation.

are atheists conspicuous in the divorce court? is it not christian reputations that are smirched in that inquisition? do atheists, or any species of unbelievers, appear frequently before the public as promoters of bubble companies, and systematic robbers of orphans and widows? is it not generally found, in the case of great business collapses, that the responsible persons are christians? is it not a fact that their profession of christianity is usually in proportion to the depth of their rascality?

not long since the bishop of chester, backed up by mr. waugh, of the society for the prevention of cruelty to children, publicly declared that the worst ill-users of little ones were artisan secularists. he was challenged to give evidence of the assertion, but he preferred to maintain what is called "a dignified silence." mr. waugh was challenged to produce proofs from the society's archives, and he also declined. it is enough to affirm infamy against freethinkers; proof is unnecessary; or, rather, it is unobtainable. singularly, there have been several striking cases of brutal treatment of children since mr. waugh and bishop jayne committed themselves to this indefensible assertion, and in no instance was the culprit a secularist, though some of them, including mrs. montagu, were devout christians.

there are other methods of inquiry into the wickedness of atheists, but we have indicated enough to set the commonwealth at work, and we invite it to begin forthwith. and while it is getting ready we beg to observe that theologians have always described "free-dem" as "license," whereas it is nothing of the kind. freedom is the golden mean between license and slavery. the breaking of arbitrary fetters, forged by ignorance and intolerance, does not mean a fall into loose living. the heretic in religion, while resenting outside control, by his very perception of the vast and far-reaching consequences of human action, is often chained to "the most timid sanctities of life."

with respect to "the darwinian theory of descent from a kind of ape," we have a word for our contemporary. the annual meeting of the british association was held at oxford in 1860. darwin's descent of man had recently been published, and the air was full of controversy. bishop wilberforce, in the course of a derisive speech, turned to professor huxley and asked whether it was on the mother's or father's side that his grandfather had been an ape. huxley replied that man had no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for a grandfather. "if there is an ancestor," he continued, "whom i should feel shame in recalling it would be a man"—one who meddled with scientific questions he did not understand, only to obscure them by aimless rhetoric, and indulgence in "eloquent digressions and appeals to religious prejudice." this rebuke was administered thirty-three years ago, but it is still worth remembering, and perhaps the commonwealth may find in it something applicable to itself.