"The adoption of the term Secularism is justified by its
including a large number of persons who are not Atheists,
and uniting them for action which has Secularism for its
object, and not Atheism. On this ground, and because, by the
adoption of a new term, a vast amount of impediment from
prejudice is got rid of, the use of the name Secularism is
found advantageous."--Harriet Martineau. _Boston
Liberator_.--Letter to Lloyd Garrison, November, 1853.
EVERY one observant of public controversy in England, is aware of its
improved tone of late years. This improved tone is part of a wider
progress, 'Increase of wealth has led to improvement of taste, and the
diffusion of knowledge to refinement of sentiment. The mass are better
dressed, better mannered, better spoken than formerly. A coffee-room
discussion, conducted by mechanics, is now a more decorous exhibition
than a debate in Parliament was in the days of Canning.* Boisterousness
at the tables of the rich, and insolence in the language of the poor,
are fast disappearing. "Good society" is now that society in which
people practise the art of being genial, without being familiar, and in
which an evincible courtesey of speech is no longer regarded as timidity
or effeminacy, but rather as proof of a disciplined spirit, which
chooses to avoid all offence, the better to maintain the right
peremptorily punishing wanton insult. Theologians, more inveterate
in speech than politicians, now observe a respectfulness to opponents
before unknown. That diversity of opinion once ascribed to "badness of
heart" is now, with more discrimination, referred to defect or diversity
of understanding--a change which, discarding invective, recognizes
instruction as the agent of uniformity.
* From whose lips the House of Commons cheered a reference
to a political adversary as "the revered and ruptured
Ogden."
Amid all this newness of conception it must be obvious that many old
terms of theological controversy are obsolete. The idea of an "Atheist"
as one warring against moral restraints--of an "Infidel" as one
treacherous to the truth--of a "Freethinker" as a "loose thinker,"*
arose in the darkness of past times, when men fought by the flickering
light of their hatreds--times which tradition has peopled with monsters
of divinity as well as of nature. But the glaring colours in which the
party names invented by past priests were dyed, no longer harmonize with
the quieter taste of the present day. The more sober spirit of
modern controversy has, therefore, need of new terms, and if the term
"Secularism" was merely a neutral substitute for "Freethinking," there
would be reason for its adoption. Dissenters might as well continue
the designation of "Schismatics," or Political Reformers that of
"Anarchists," as that the students of Positive Philosophy should
continue the designation "Atheism," "Infidelism," or any similar term by
which their opponents have contrived to brand their opinions. It is
as though a merchant vessel should consent to carry a pirate flag.
Freethinker is, however, getting an acceptable term. Upon the platform,
Christian disputants frequently claim it, and resent the exclusive
assumption of it by others. These new claimants say, "We are as
much Freethinkers as yourselves," so that it is necessary to define
Freethinking. It is fearless thinking, based upon impartial inquiry,
searching on both sides, not regarding doubt as a crime, or opposite
conclusions as a species of moral poison. Those who inquire with
sinister, pre-possessions will never inquire fairly. The Freethinker
fears not to follow a conclusion to the utmost limits of truth,
whether it coincides with the Bible or contradicts it. If therefore any
pronounce the term "Secularism" "a concealment or a disguise," they
can do so legitimately only after detecting some false meaning it is
intended to convey, and not on the mere ground of its being a change
of name, since nothing can more completely "conceal and disguise"
the purposes of Freethought than the old names imposed upon it by its
adversaries, which associate with guilt its conscientious conclusions
and impute to it as outrages, its acts of self-defence.
* As the Reverend Canon Kingsley has perversely rendered it.
Besides the term Secularism, there was another term which seemed to
promise also distinctiveness of meaning--namely, Cosmism, under which
adherents would have taken the designation of Cosmists. Rut this name
scientific men would have understood in a purely physical sense,
after the great example of Humboldt, and the public would not all have
understood it--besides, it was open to easy perversion in one of
its declinations. Next to this, as a name, stands that of
Realism--intrinsically good. A Society of Realists would have been
intelligible, but many would have supposed it to be some revival of the
old Realists. Moralism, a sound name in itself, is under Evangelical
condemnation as "mere morality." Naturalism would seem an obvious name,
were it not that we should be confounded with Naturalists, to say
no more. Some name must be taken, as was the case with the
Theophilan-thropists of Paris. Many of them would rather not have
assumed any denomination, but they yielded to the reasonable argument,
that if they did not choose one for themselves, the public would bestow
upon them one which would be less to their liking. Those who took the
name of Philantropes found it exposed them to a pun, which greatly
damaged them: _Philantropes_ was turned into _filoux en troupe_.
Historical characteristics, however, seemed to point to a term which
expressed the Secular element in life; a term deeply engrafted in
literature; of irreproachable associations; a term found and respected
in the dictionaries of opponents, and to which, therefore, they might
dispute our right, but which they could not damage. Instead, therefore,
of finding ourselves self-branded or caricatured by this designation,
we have found opponents claiming it, and disputing with us for its
possession.