To the consideration of this now common pretension of Agnosticism to be the true FRIEND OF VIRTUE, in the room of the old delusion of religion, the following pages will be devoted. For the purposes of our particular argument and to avoid entangling ourselves with too many collateral questions, I shall treat it here as the _Assumption of the Moral Superiority of Atheism over Theism_. Is that assumption justifiable? I, for one, am entirely ready to admit that, _if_ there be anything in the faith in God and immortality which detracts from the highest conceivable perfection of human virtue,--if, in short, Atheism have a better morality to teach than Theism,--then the case of Theism must be abandoned. The religion which is _not_ the holiest conceivable by the man who holds it is condemned _ipso facto_. For the present, I may assume that no important difference of opinion exists as to the practical rules of morality. It is the proper _motives_ to a virtuous and self-sacrificing life which Agnostics claim to place on higher ground than that which has been hitherto given to them. They propose to tell us to “do justice and love mercy” both in a better and more disinterested way than while we added to those unquestionable duties the mistaken attempt to walk humbly with our God. The question lies in a nutshell,--Can they do it? Is there anything in the true Theistic faith detracting from the disinterestedness of virtue, or calculated to rob it of a single ray of purity and glory? This must be our first contention, since religion now stands on its defence as a basis of morality. When it is settled, it may perhaps appear that religion may justly again assume the offensive, and challenge Atheism to prove its capacity for serving equally efficiently as a support for the virtue of humanity; and, if it appear that to such a challenge no satisfactory reply can be given, then it will be manifest that, in their expressions of satisfaction and joy at the anticipated downfall of religion, Atheists display disregard of the moral interests of their race. Let the lists be cleared in the first place. I shall not be expected to defend all the base and demoralizing things which, in the misused name of Christianity, have been inculcated concerning “Other-worldliness,”--the doing good for the sake of getting to heaven, and avoiding evil from fear of hell. Since the day, recorded by Joinville, when the mysterious old woman carried her waterpot and torch before St. Louis, and told him she intended to put out the fires of hell and burn up heaven, so that men might learn to love God for his own sake, and not from fear or hope,--since that distant time, there have not been wanting righteous souls who have girned and spurned at the vile lessons current in the Churches, and asked with Kingsley,-- “Is selfishness,--for time, a sin,--stretched out into eternity, Celestial prudence?”