CHAPTER XXII. SELF-EXTENDING PRINCIPLES

"Prodigious actions may as well be done

By weaver's issue as by prince's son."

--Dryden.

SO FAR as Secularism is reasonable, it must be self-extending among all

who think. Adherents of that class are slowly acquired. Accessions begin

in criticism, though that, as we have seen, is apt to stop there. In

all movements the most critical persons are the least suggestive of

improvements. Constructiveness only excites enthusiasm in fertile

minds. After the Cowper Street Discussion with the Rev. Brewin Grant in

1853, see Chapter X, page 50, societies, halls, and newspapers adopted

the Secular name. In 1863 appeared the _Christian Reasoner_, edited by

the Rev. Dr. Rylance, a really reasoning clergyman, whom I afterwards

had the pleasure to know in New York. His publication was intended to be

a substitute for the _Reasoner_, which I had then edited for seventeen

years. But when the _Reasoner_ commenced, in 1846, Christian believing

was far more thought of than Christian reasoning. One line in Dr.

Rylance's _Christian Reasoner_ was remarkable, which charged us with

"forgetfulness of the necessary incompleteness of Re-velation."

So far from forgetting it, it was one of the grounds on which Secularism

was founded. However, it is to the credit of Dr. Rylance that he should

have preceded, by thirty years, the Bishop of Worcester in discerning

the shortcomings of Revelation, as cited in Chapter XIX, page 101.

In 1869 we obtained the first Act of Secular affirmation, which Mr. J.

S. Mill said was mainly due to my exertions, and to my example of never

taking an oath. In obtaining the Act, I had no help from Mr. Bradlaugh,

he being an ostentatious oath-taker at that time. It was owing to Mr.

G. W. Hastings (then, or afterwards, M. P.), the founder of the Social

Science Association, that the Affirmation clause was added to the Act of

1869. One of the objects we avowed was "to procure a law of affirmation

for persons who objected to take the oath."*

Another of our aims was stated to be: "To convert churches and chapels

into temples of instruction for the people.... to solicit priests to

be teachers of useful knowledge."** We strove to promote these ends

by holding in honor all who gave effect to such human precepts as were

contained in Christianity. This fairness and justice has led many to

suppose that I accepted the theological as well as the ethical passages

in the Scriptures. But how can a Christian preacher be inclined to risk

the suspicion of the narrower-minded members of his congregation, if no

one gives him credit for doing right when he does it?

* Secularism the Practical Philosophy of the People, p. 13;

1854. Fifteen years before the first Act was passed.

** Secularism the Practical Philosophy of the People, by G.

J. Holyoake, p. 12; 1854.

With our limited means and newness of doctrine, we could not hope to

rival an opulent hierarchy and occupy its temples; but we knew that the

truth, if we had it, and could diffuse it in a reasonable manner, would

make its way and gradually change the convictions of a theological

caste. The very nature of Free-thought makes it impossible for a long

time yet, that we should have many wealthy or well-placed supporters.

Where the platform is open to every subject likely to be of public

service--subjects suppressed everywhere else, and open to the discussion

of the wise or foolish present who may arise to speak, outrages of good

taste will occur. Persons who forget that abuse does not destroy use,

and that freedom is more precious than propriety, cease to support a

free-speaking Society. The advocacy of slave emancipation was once an

outrage in America. It is now regarded as the glory of the nation. In

an eloquent passage it has been pointed out what society owes to the

unfriended efforts of those who established and have maintained the

right of free speech.

"Theology of the old stamp, so far from encouraging us to love nature,

teaches us that it is under a curse. It teaches us to look upon the

animal creation with shuddering disgust; upon the whole race of man,

outside our narrow sect, as delivered over to the Devil; and upon the

laws of nature at large as a temporary mechanism, in which we have been

caught, but from which we are to anticipate a joyful deliverance. It is

science, not theology, which has changed all this; it is the atheists,

infidels, and rationalists, as they are kindly called, who have taught

us to take fresh interest in our poor fellow denizens of the world, and

not to despise them because Almighty Benevolence could not be expected

to admit them to Heaven. To the same teaching we owe the recognition

of the noble aspirations embodied in every form of religion, and the

destruction of the ancient monopoly of divine influences."*

* Leslie Stephens's Freetkinking and Plain Speaking.

Those who, in storm and stress, bring truth into the world may not be

able to complete its triumph, but it makes its own way, and finally

conquers the understanding of mankind.

Priestley, without fortune, with only the slender income of a Unitarian

minister, created and kept up a chemical laboratory. There alone he

discovered oxygen. Few regarded him, few applauded him; only a few

Parisian philosophers thanked him. He had no disciples to spread his new

truth. He was not even tolerated in the town which he endowed with

the fame of his priceless discovery. His house was burnt by a

Church-and-King mob; his instruments, books, and manuscripts destroyed;

and he had to seek his fortune in a foreign land.

Yet what has come out of his discovery? It has become part of the

civilisation of the world, and mankind owe more to him than they yet

understand.

When a young man, he forsook the Calvinism in which he was reared. "I

came," he said, "to embrace what is called heterodox views on every

question."* He cared for this world as well as for another, and hence

was distrusted by all "true believers." Though he had "spiritual hopes,"

he agreed that he should be called a materialist.

We have now had (1895) a London Reform Sunday, more than two hundred and

fifty (one list gave four hundred) preachers of all denominations

taking for their unprecedented text, "The Duties and Responsibilities

of Citizenship,"--a thing the most sanguine deemed incredible when

suggested by me in 1854.** Within twenty years Dr. Felix Adler has

founded noble Ethical Societies. Dr. Stanton Coit is extending them

in Great Britain. They are Secularist societies in their nature. South

Place Chapel now has taken the name of Ethical Society. Since the days

of W. J. Fox, who first made it famous, it has been the only successor

in London of the Moral Church opened by Thomas Holcroft.

* See Chambers's Encyclopaedia (1888); article: Priestley.

** We have now a Museum Sunday. Even twenty years ago those

who advocated the Sunday opening of museums were counted

irreverent and beyond the pale of grace. Their opening is

now legalised (1896).

Though modern Secular societies, to which these pages relate, have

been anti-theological mainly, the Secular Society of Leicester is a

distinguished exception. It has long had a noble hall of its own, and

from the earliest inception of Secularism it has been consistent and

persistent in its principles. As stated elsewhere,* the "Principles of

Secularism" were submitted to John Stuart Mill in 1854, and his approval

was of importance in the eyes of their advocates. In the first issue of

_Chambers's Encyclopaedia_ a special article appeared upon these views,

and in the later issue of that work in 1888 a new article was written

on Secularism. In the Rev. Dr. Molesworth's _History of England_ a very

clear account was given of the rise of Secularist opinions. This will be

sufficient information for readers unacquainted with the subject.

* Sixty Years of an Agitator's Life, Chap. CX.

The cause of reason has had more to confront than the cause of

Christianity, which has always been on the side of power since the days

of Christ. The two most influential ideas which, in every age since

Christianity arose, have given it currency among the ignorant and the

credulous, have been the ideas of Hell and prayer. Hell has been the

terror, and prayer the bribe, which have won the allegiance of the

timid and the needy. These two master passions of alarm and despair have

brought the unfortunate portions of mankind to the foot of the Cross.

The cause of reason has no advantages of this nature, and only the

intelligent have confidence in its progress. If we have expected to do

more than we have, we are not the only party who have been prematurely

sanguine. The Rev. David Bogue, preaching in Whitfield's Tabernacle,

Tottenham-Court Road, at the foundation of the Foreign Missionary

Society (1790) of the Congregational denomination, exclaimed amid almost

unequalled enthusiasm: "We are called together this evening to the

funeral of bigotry." Judging from what has happened since, bigotry

was not dead when its funeral was prepared, or it was not effectually

buried, as it has been seen much about since that day.

Bigotry, like Charles II., takes an unconscionable time in dying.

Down to Sir Charles Lyell's days, so harmless a study as geology was

distrusted, and Lyell, like Priestley, had to seek auditors in America.

While he lectured at Boston to 1,500 persons, 2,000 more were unable to

obtain tickets, which were bought at a guinea each extra. At our

great ancient seat of learning, Oxford, Buckland lectured on the same

interesting subject to an audience of three.

Secularism keeps the lamp of free thought burning by aiding and honoring

all who would infuse an ethical passion into those who lead the growing

army of independent thinkers. Our lamp is not yet a large one, and its

supply of oil is limited by Christian law; but, like the fire in the

Temple of Montezuma, we keep it burning. In all the centuries since the

torch of free thought was first lighted, though often threatened, often

assailed, often dimned, it has never been extinguished. We could not

hope to captivate society by splendid edifices, nor many cultivated

advocates; but truth of principle will penetrate where those who

maintain it will never be seen and never heard. The day cometh when

other torches will be lighted at the obscure fire, which, borne aloft by

other and stronger hands, will shed lasting illumination where otherwise

darkness would permanently prevail. As Elizabeth Barrett Browning has

said: "Truth is like sacramental bread,--we must pass it on."

SECULARIST CEREMONIES.

"Death is the decisive test of the value of the education

and morality of society; Secular funerals are the symbol of

the social renovation."

--J. P. Proudhon.

CERTAIN ceremonies are common to all human society, and should be

consistent with the opinions of those in whose name the ceremonies take

place. The marriage service of the Church contains things no bride could

hear without a blush, if she understood them; and the Burial Service

includes statements the minister ought to know to be untrue, and by

which the sadness of death is desecrated. The Secularist naturally seeks

other forms of speech. It being a principle of Secularism to endeavor to

replace what it deems bad by something better--or more consistent with

its profession--the following addresses are given. Other hands may

supply happier examples; but, in the meantime, these which follow may

meet with the needs of those who have no one at hand to speak for them,

and are not accustomed to speak for themselves.

ON MARRIAGE.

Marriage involves several things of which few persons think beforehand,

and which it is useful to call their attention to at this time. The

bridegroom, by the act of marriage, professes that he has chosen out

of all the women of the world, known to him, the one to whom he will

be faithful while life shall last. He declares the bride to be his

preference, and, whoever he may see hereafter, or like, or love, the

door of association shall be shut upon them in his heart for ever. The

bride, on her part, declares and promises the same things. The belief

in each other's perfection is the most beautiful illusion of love.

Sometimes the illusion happily continues during life. It may happen--it

does happen sometimes--that each discovers that the other is not

perfect. The Quaker's advice was: "Open your eyes wide before marriage,

but shut them afterwards." Those who have neglected the first part of

this counsel will still profit by observing the second. Let those who

will look about, and put tormenting constructions on innocent acts:

beware of jealousy, which kills more happiness than ever Love created.

The result of marriage is usually offspring, when society will have

imposed upon it an addition to its number. It is necessary for the

credit of the parents, as well as for the welfare of the children, that

they should be born healthy, reared healthy, and be well educated; so

that they may be strong and intelligent when the time comes for them to

encounter, for themselves, the vicissitudes of life. Those who marry

are considered to foreknow and to foresee these duties, and to pledge

themselves to do the best in their power to discharge them.

In the meantime, and ever afterwards, let love reign between you.

And remember the minister of Love is deference towards each other.

Ceremonial manners are conducive to affection. Love is not a business,

but the permanence of love is a business.

Unless there are good humor, patience, pleasantness, discretion, and

forbearance, love will cease. Those who expect perfection will lose

happiness. A wise tolerance is the sunshine of love, and they who

maintain the sentiment will come to count their marriage the beginning

of the brightness of life.

NAMING CHILDREN.

In naming children it is well to avoid names whose associations pledge

the child, without its consent, to some line of action it may have no

mind to, or capacity for, when grown up. A child called "Brutus" would

be expected to stab Caesar--and the Caesars are always about. The name

"Washington" destroyed a politician of promise who bore it. He could

never live up to it. A name should be a pleasant mark to be known by,

not a badge to be borne.

In formally naming a child it is the parents alone to whom useful words

can be addressed.

Heredity, which means qualities derived from parentage, is a prophecy of

life. Therefore let parents render themselves as perfect in health, as

wise in mind, and as self-respecting in manners as they can; for their

qualities in some degree will appear in their offspring. One advantage

of children is that they contribute unconsciously to the education

of parents. No parents of sense can fail to see that children are as

imitative as monkeys, and have better memories. Not only do they imitate

actions, but repeat forms of expression, and will remember them ever

after. The manners of parents become more or less part of the manners

and mind of the child. Sensible parents, seeing this, will put a guard

upon their conduct and speech, so that their example in act and word may

be a store-house of manners and taste from which their children may draw

wisdom in conduct and speech. The minds of children are as photographic

plates on which parents are always printing something which will

be indelibly visible in future days. Therefore the society, the

surroundings, the teachers of the child, so far as the parents can

control them, should be well chosen, in order that the name borne by the

young shall command respect when their time comes to play a part in the

drama of life. To this end a child should be taught to take care what he

promises, and that when he has given his promise he has to keep it, for

he whose word is not to be trusted is always suspected, and his opinion

is not sought by others, or is disregarded when uttered. A child should

early learn that debt is dependence, and the habit of it is the meanness

of living upon loans. There can be no independence, no reliance upon the

character of any one, who will buy without the means of payment, or who

lives beyond his income. Such persons intend to live on the income of

some one else, and do it whether they intend it or not. He alone can be

independent who trusts to himself for advancement. No one ought to be

helped forward who does not possess this quality, or will not put his

hand to any honest work open to him. Beware of the child who has too

much pride to do what he can for his own support, but has not too much

pride to live upon his parents, or upon friends. Such pride is idleness,

or thoughtlessness, or both, unless illness causes the inability.

Since offspring have to be trained in health and educated in the

understanding, there must not be many in the family unless the parents

have property. The poor cannot afford to have many children if they

intend to do their duty by them. It is immoral in the rich to have

many because the example is bad, and because they are sooner or later

quartered upon the people to keep them; or, if they are provided for

by their parents, they are under no obligation to do anything for

themselves, which is neither good for them nor good for the community,

to which they contribute nothing.

Believing this child will be trained by its parents to be an honor to

them, and a welcome addition to the family of humanity, it is publicly

named with pleasure.

OVER THE DEAD.

I.----READING AT A GRAVE.

Esdras and Uriel,

[An argument in which the Prophet speaks as a Secularist.]

And the angel that was sent unto me, whose name was Uriel, said:--I am

sent to show thee three ways, and to set forth three similitudes before

thee: whereof, if thou canst declare me one, I will show thee also the

way that thou desirest to see....

And I said, Tell on, my Lord.

Then said he unto me, Go thy way; weigh me the weight of the fire, or

measure me the blast of the wind, or call me again the day that is past.

Then answered I and said, What man is able to do that, that thou

shouldest ask such things of me?

And he said unto me, If I should ask thee how great dwellings are in the

midst of the sea, or how many springs are in the beginning of the deep,

or how many springs are above the firmament, or which are the outgoings

of Paradise, peradventure thou wouldst say unto me, I never went down

into the deep, nor as yet into Hell, neither did I ever climb up into

Heaven.

Nevertheless, now have I asked thee but only of the fire, and wind, and

of the day wherethrough thou hast passed, and of things from which thou

canst not be separated, and yet canst thou give me no answer of them.

He said, moreover, unto me, Thine own things, and such as are grown up

with thee, canst thou not know? How should thy vessel, then, be able to

comprehend the way of the Highest?....

Then said I unto him, It were better that we were not at all than

that we should live still in wickedness and to suffer, and not to know

wherefor.

He answered me and said, I went into a forest, into a plain, and the

trees took counsel, and said, Come, let us go and make war against the

sea, that it may depart away before us, and that we may make us more

woods.

The floods of the sea also in like manner took counsel, and said, Come,

let us go up and subdue the woods of the plain: that there also we may

make us another country.

The thought of the wood was in vain, for the fire came and consumed it.

The thought of the floods of the sea came likewise to nought, for the

sand stood up and stopped them.

If thou wert judge now betwixt these two, whom wouldest thou begin to

justify? or whom wouldest thou condemn?

I answered, and said, Verily it is a foolish thought that they both have

devised; for the ground is given unto the wood, and the sea also hath

his place to bear his floods.

Then answered he me and said, Thou hast given a right judgment; but why

judgest thou not thyself also? For like as the ground is given unto the

woods, and the sea to his floods, even so they that dwell upon the earth

may understand nothing but that which is upon the earth: and he that

dwelleth upon the heavens may only understand the things that are above

the height of the heavens.

Then answered I and said, I beseech thee, O Lord, let me have

understanding.

For it was not my mind to be curious of the high things y but of such as

pass by us daily.

Harriet Martineau's Hymn.*

* Which may be sung where it can be so arranged.

[The only hymn known to me in which a Supreme Cause is implied without

being asserted or denied, or the reader committed to belief in it.]

Beneath this starry arch

Nought resteth or is still,

But all things hold their march

As if by one great will:

Moves one, move all:

Hark to the footfall!

On, on, for ever!

Yon sheaves were once but seed;

Will ripens into deed.

As eave-drops swell the streams,

Day-thoughts feed nightly dreams;

And sorrow tracketh wrong,

As echo follows song,

On, on, for ever!

By night, like stars on high,

The hours reveal their train;

They whisper and go by;

I never watch in vain:

Moves one, move all:

Hark to the footfall!

On, on, for ever!

They pass the cradle-head,

And there a promise shed;

They pass the moist new grave,

And bid bright verdure wave;

They bear through every clime,

The harvests of all time,

On, on, for ever!

II.--AT THE GRAVE OF A CHILD.

The death of a child is alone its parents' sorrow. Too young to know,

too innocent to fear, its life is a smile and its death a sleep. As the

sun goes down before our eyes, so a mother's love vanishes from the

gaze of infancy, and death, like evening, comes to it with quietness,

gentleness, and rest. We measure the loss of a child by the grief we

feel. When its love is gone, its promise over, and its prattle silent,

its fate excites the parents' tears; but we forget that infancy, like

the rose, is unconscious of the sweetness it sheds, and it parts without

pain from the pleasure it was too young to comprehend, though engaging

enough to give to others. The death of a child is like the death of a

day, of which George Herbert sings:

"Sweet day, so clear, so calm, so bright

Bridal of the earth and sky;

The dew shall weep thy fall to-night--

For thou must die."

It is no consolation to say, "When a child dies it is taken from the

sorrows of life." Yes! it is taken from the sorrows of life, and from

its joys also. When the young die they are taken away from the evil, and

from good as well. What parents' love does not include the happiness of

its offspring? No! we will not cheat ourselves. Death is a real loss to

those who mourn, and the world is never the same again to those who have

wept by the grave of a child. Argument does not, in that hour, reach the

heart. It is human to weep, and sympathy is the only medicine of great

grief. The sight of the empty shoe in the corner will efface the most

relevant logic. Not all the preaching since Adam has made death other

than death. Yet, though sorrow cannot be checked at once by reason, it

may be chastened by it. Wisdom teaches that all human passions must

be subordinate to the higher purposes of life. We must no more abandon

ourselves to grief than to vice. The condition of life is the liability

to vicissitude, and, while it is human to feel, it is duty to endure.

The flowers fade, and the stars go down, and youth and loveliness vanish

in the eternal change. Though we cannot but regret a vital loss, it is

wisdom to love all that is good for its own sake; to enjoy its presence

fully, but not to build on its continuance, doing what we can to insure

its continuance, and bearing with fortitude its loss when it comes. If

the death of infancy teaches us this lesson, the past may be a charmed

memory, with courage and dignity in it.

III.--MEN OR WOMEN.

The science of life teaches us that while there is pain there is life.

It would seem, therefore, that death, with silent and courteous step,

never comes save to the unconscious. A niece of Franklin's, known for

her wit and consideration for others, arrived at her last hour at the

age of ninety-eight. In her composure a friend gently touched her. "Ah,"

murmured the old lady, "I was dying so beautifully when you brought

me back! But never mind, my dear; I shall try it again." This bright

resignation, worthy of the niece of a philosopher, is making its way in

popular affection.

Lord Tennyson, when death came near to him, wrote:

"Sunset and evening star,

And one clear call for me!

And may there be no moaning of the bar

When I put out to sea.

"Twilight and evening bell,

And after that the dark,

And may there be no sadness of farewell

When I embark."

There is just a touch of superstition in these genial lines. He writes:

"After death the dark." How did he know that? What evidence is there

that the unknown land is "dark"? Why not light? The unknown has no

determinate or ascertained color.

Where we know nothing, neither priest nor poet has any right to speak

as though he had knowledge. Improbability does not imply impossibility.

That which invests death with romantic interest is, that it may be a

venture on untried existence. If a future state be true, it will befall

those who do not expect it as well as those who do. Another world, if

such there be, will come most benefitingly and most agreeably to those who

have qualified themselves for it, by having made the best use in their

power of this. By best use is meant the service of man. Desert consists

alone in the service of others. Kindness and cheerfulness are the two

virtues which most brighten human life.

Wide-eyed philanthropy is not merely money-giving goodness, but the

wider kindness which aids the ascendancy of the right and minimises

misery everywhere.

Death teaches, as nothing else does, one useful lesson. Whatever

affection or friendship we may have shown to one we have lost,

Death brings to our memory countless acts of tenderness which we had

neglected. Conscience makes us sensible of these omissions now it is too

late to repair them. But we can pay to the living what we think we owe

to the dead; whereby we transmute the dead we honor into benefactors of

those they leave behind. This is a useful form of consolation, of which

all survivors may avail themselves.

Mrs. Ernestine Rose--a brave advocate of unfriended right--when age and

infirmity brought her near to death, recalled the perils and triumphs

in which she had shared, the slave she had helped to set free from the

bondage of ownership, and the slave minds she had set free from the

bondage of authority; she was cheered, and exclaimed: "But I have

lived."

The day will come when all around this grave shall meet death; but it

will be a proud hour if, looking back upon a useful and generous past,

we each can say: "I have _lived_."

IV.----ON A CAREER OF PUBLIC USEFULNESS.

In reasoning upon death no one has surpassed the argument of Socrates,

who said: "Death is one of two things: either the dead may be nothing

and have no feeling--well, then, if there be no feeling, but it be like

sleep, when the sleeper has no dream, surely death would be a marvellous

gain, for thus all futurity appears to be nothing more than one night.

If, on the other hand, death be a removal hence to another place, and

what is said be true, that all the dead are there, what greater blessing

can there be than this?"

Sir Edwin Arnold, in his _Secret of Death_, writes:

"Nay, but as when one layeth

His worn-out robes away,

And, taking new ones, sayeth,

'These will I wear to-day!'

So putteth by the spirit

Lightly its garb of flesh,

And passeth to inherit

A residence afresh."

This may be true, and there is no objection to it if it is. But the pity

is, nobody seems to be sure about it. At death we may mourn, but duty

ceaseth not. If we desist in endeavors for the right because a combatant

falls at our side, no battle will ever be won. "Life," Mazzini used

to say, "is a battle and a march." Those who serve others at their own

peril are always in

"battle." Let us honor them as they pass. Some of them have believed:

"Though love repine and reason chafe,

There came a voice without reply--

'Tis man's perdition to be safe,

When for the truth he ought to die.'"

They are of those who, as another poet has said, "are not to be mourned,

but to be imitated."* The mystery of death is no greater than

the mystery of life. All that precedes our existence was unseen,

unimaginable, and unknown to us. What may succeed in the future is

unprovable by philosopher or priest:

"A flower above and the mould below:

And this is all that the mourners know."**

The ideal of life which gives calmness and confidence in death is

the same in the mind of the wise Christian as in the mind of the

philosopher. Sydney Smith says: "Add to the power of discovering truth

the desire of using it for the promotion of human happiness, and

you have the great end and object of our existence."*** Putting just

intention into action, a man fulfils the supreme duty of life, which

casts out all fear of the future.

* W. J. Linton.

** Barry Cornwall.

*** Moral Philosophy.

A poet who thought to reconcile to their loss those whose lines have not

fallen to them in pleasant places wrote:

"A little rule, a little sway,

A sunbeam on a winter's day,

Is all the proud and mighty have

Between the cradle and the grave."

This is not true; the proud and mighty have rest at choice, and play at

will. The "sunbeam" is on them all their days. Between the cradle and

the grave is the whole existence of man. The splendid inheritance of

the "proud and mighty" ought to be shared by all whose labor creates and

makes possible the good fortune of those who "toil not, neither do they

spin"*, and whoever has sought to endow the industrious with liberty and

intelligence, with competence and leisure, we may commit to the earth in

the sure and certain hope that they deserve well, and will fare well, in

any "land of the leal" to which mankind may go.

End of Project Gutenberg's English Secularism, by George Jacob Holyoake

English Secularism: A Confession of Belief · 第 22 / 22 章