"If you think it right to differ from the times, and to make
a stand for any valuable point of morals, do it, however
rustic, however antiquated, however pedantic it may appear;
do it, not for insolence, but seriously--as a man who wore a
soul of his own in his bosom, and did not wait till it was
breathed into him by the breath of fashion."--The Rev. Sidney
Smith, Canon of St Paul's.
IN a passage of characteristic sagacity, Dr. J. H. Newman has depicted
the partisan aimlessness more descriptive of the period when this little
book first appeared, sixteen years ago, than it is now. But it will be
long before its relevance and instruction have passed away. I therefore
take the liberty of still quoting his words:--
"When persons for the first time look upon the world of politics
or religion, all that they find there meets their mind's eye, as a
landscape addresses itself for the first time to a person who has just
gained his bodily sight. One thing is as far off as another; there is
no perspective. The connection of fact with fact, truth with truth, the
bearing of fact upon truth, and truth upon fact, what leads to what,
what are points primary and what secondary, all this they have yet to
learn. It is all a new science to them, and they do not even know their
ignorance of it. Moreover, the world of to-day has no connection in
their minds with the world of yesterday; time is not a stream, but
stands before them round and full, like the moon. They do not know what
happened ten years ago, much less the annals of a century: the past does
not live to them in the present; they do not understand the worth of
contested points; names have no associations for them, and persons
kindle no recollections. They hear of men, and things, and projects, and
struggles, and principles; but everything comes and goes like the wind;
nothing makes an impression, nothing penetrates, nothing has its place
in their minds. They locate nothing: they have no system. They hear
and they forget; or they just recollect what they have once heard, they
cannot tell where. Thus they have no consistency in their arguments;
that is, they argue one way to-day, and not exactly the other way
to-morrow, but indirectly the other way at random. Their lines of
argument diverge; nothing comes to a point; there is no one centre
in which their mind sits, on which their judgment of men and things
proceeds. This is the state of many men all through life; and miserable
politicians or Churchmen they make, unless by good luck they are in safe
hands, and ruled by others, or are pledged to a course. Else they are at
the mercy of the wind and waves; and without being Radical, Whig, Tory,
or Conservative, High Church or Low Church, they do Whig acts, Tory
acts, Catholic acts, and Heretical acts, as the fit takes them, or as
events or parties drive them. And sometimes when their self importance
is hurt, they take refuge in the idea that all this is a proof that they
are unfettered, moderate, dispassionate, that they observe the mean,
that they are no 'party men;' when they are, in fact, the most helpless
of slaves; for our strength in this world is, to be the subjects of the
reason and our liberty, to be captives of the truth."*
How the organization of ideas has fared with higher class societies
others can tell: the working class have been left so much in want of
initiative direction that almost everything has to be done among
them, and an imperfect and brief attempt to direct those interested
in Freethought may meet with some acceptance. To clamour for objects
without being able to connect them with principles; to smart under
contumely without knowing how to protect themselves; to bear some
lofty name without understanding the manner in which character should
correspond to profession--this is the amount of the popular attainment.
* "Loss and Gain." ascribed to the Rev. Father Newman.
In this new Edition I find little to alter and less to add. In a passage
on page 27, the distinction between Secular instruction and Secularism
is explained, in these words:--"Secular education is by some confounded
with Secularism, whereas the distinction between them is very
wide. Secular education simply means imparting Secular knowledge
separately--by itself, without admixture of Theology with it. The
advocate of Secular education may be, and generally is, also an advocate
of religion; but he would teach religion at another time and treat it as
a distinct subject, too sacred for coercive admixture into the hard
and vexatious routine of a school. He would confine the inculcation of
religion to fitting seasons and chosen instruments. He holds also that
one subject at a time is mental economy in learning. Secular education
is the policy of a school--Secularism is the policy of life to those who
do not accept Theology."
Very few persons admitted that these distinctions existed when
this passage was written in 1854. This year, 1870, they have been
substantially admitted by the Legislature in concession made in the
National Education. Bill. It only remains to add that the whole text has
been revised and re-arranged in an order which seems more consecutive.
The portion on Secular Organizations has been abridged, in part
re-written, explaining particulars as to the Secular Guild.
A distinctive summary of Secular principles may be read under the
article "Secularism," in Chambers's Cyclopaedia.