"It was one of the secrets of my craft in the old days, when
I wanted to weld iron or work steel to a fine purpose, to
begin gently. If I began, as all learners do, to strike my
heaviest blows at the start, the iron would crumble instead
of welding, or the steel would suffer under my hammer, so
that when it came to be tempered it would 'fly,' as we used
to say, and rob the thing I had made of its finest quality."
--Robert Coliyer, D. D.
"THEY who believe that they have truth ask no favor, save that of being
heard; they dare the judgment of mankind; refused co-operation, they
invoke opposition, for opposition is their opportunity." This was the
maxim I wrote at the beginning of the Secularistic movement, to show
that we were willing to accept ourselves the controversy, which we
contended was the sole means of establishing truth. No proposition, as
Samuel Bailey showed, is to be trusted until it has been tested by very
wide discussion. We soon found that the free and open field of Milton
was not sufficient. It needed a "fair" as well as a "free and open
encounter." Disputants require to be equally matched in debate as in
arms.
The Secularist policy is to accept the purely moral teaching of
the Bible, and to controvert its theology, in such respects as it
contradicts and discourages ethical effort. Yet theological questions
are always sought to be forced upon us. The Rev. Henry Townley followed
me to the _Leader_ office (1853-1854) to induce me to discuss the
question of the "existence of God." I never had done so, and objected
that it would give the impression that Secularism was atheistic. He was
so insistent and importunate that I consented to discuss the question
with him. Never after did I do so with any one. The Rev. Brewin Grant
endeavored to get my acceptance of propositions which pledged me to a
wild opposition to Christianity. Mr. Samuel Morley, honorable in all
things, admitted I had objected to it, but in the end I assented to
it, that the discussion might not be broken off. Thomas Cooper was
persistent that I should discuss with him the authenticity of the
Scriptures. What I proposed was the proposition that the authenticity of
the Scripture, its miracles, and prophecies are quite apart from moral
truth.
The discussion took place in the city of York, lasting five nights.
Canon Robinson and Canon Hey presided alternately. Mr. Cooper was an
able man in dealing with the stock propositions of Christianity; but
their relevance as tests of morality was an entirely new subject to him.
He protested rather than reasoned, and declared he would never discuss
the question of the ethical test of the truth of Scriptures; nor have I
ever found any responsible minister willing to do so down to this
day. Thus Christians should condemn with reservation the tendency in
Secularists to debate theology, seeing how reluctant they are to do
otherwise themselves. Christians seem incapable of understanding how
much the objection to their cause arises in the revolt of the moral
sense against it.
On first meeting Richard Carlile in 1842, some years before Secularism
took a distinctive form, he invited me to hear him lecture upon the
principles of the _Christian Warrior_,* of which he was editor, and to
give my opinion thereon. In doing so I explained the ideas from which
I have never departed; namely, that no theologic, astronomic, or
miraculous mode of proving Scriptural doctrine could ever be made even
intelligible, except to students of very considerable research.
Such theories, I contended, must rest, more or less, on critical and
conjectural interpretation, and could never enable a workingman to dare
the understanding of others in argument. Scientific interpretation laid
entirely outside Christian requirements, and seemed to Christians
as disingenuous evasion of what they took to be obvious truths. My
contention was that the people have no historic or critical knowledge
enabling them to determine the divine origin of Christianity.
* The last periodical Mr. Carlile edited.
On the platform he who has most knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
will always be able to silence any dissentient who has not equal
information. If by accident a controversialist happen to possess this
knowledge, it goes for nothing unless he has credit for classical
competency. In controversy of this nature it is not enough for a man
to know; he must be known to know before his conclusions can command
attention. To myself it was not of moment whether the Scriptures were
authentic or inspired. My sole inquiry was, Did they contain clear moral
guidance? If they did, I accepted that guidance with gratitude. If I
found maxims obviously useful and true, judged by human experience, I
adopted them, whether given by inspiration or not. If precepts did not
answer to this test, they were not acceptable, though all the apostles
in session had signed them. To miracles I did not object, nor did I see
any sense in endeavoring to explain them away. We all have reason to
regret that no one performs them now. It was our misfortune that the
power, delegated with so much pomp of promise to the saints, had not
descended to these days. If any preacher or deacon could, in our day,
feed five thousand men on a few loaves and a few small fishes, and leave
as many baskets of fragments as would run a workhouse for a month, the
Poor Law Commissioners would make a king of that saint. But if a precept
enjoined me to believe what was not true, it would be a base precept,
and all the miracles in the Scriptures could not alter its character;
while, if a precept be honest and just, no miracle is wanted to attest
it; indeed, a miracle to allure credence in it would only cast suspicion
on its genuineness. The moral test of the Scriptures was sufficient,
since it had the commanding advantage of appealing to the common sense
of all sorts and conditions of men, of Christian or of Pagan persuasion.
Ethical criticism has this further merit, that on the platform of
discussion the miner, the weaver, or farm-laborer is on the same level
as the priest. A man goes to heaven upon his own judgment; whereas,
if his belief is based on the learning of others, he goes to heaven
second-hand.
When Mr. J. A. Froude wrote for John Henry Newman the Life of St.
Belletin, he ended with the words: "And this is all that is known, _and
more than all_, of the life of a servant of God." In the Bible there
appears to be a great deal more than was ever known. This does not
concern the Secularist, though it does the scholar. If there be moral
maxims in the Scripture, what does it matter how they got there?