I.
SECULARISM means the moral duty of man in this life deduced from
considerations which pertain to this life alone. 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 a policy of life to those who
do not accept Theology. Secularity draws the line of separation between
the things of time and the things of eternity. That is Secular which
pertains to this world. The distinction may be seen in the fact that the
cardinal propositions of Theology are provable only in the next life,
and not in this. If I believe in a given creed it may turn out to be the
true one; but one must die to find that out. On this side of the grave
all is doubt; the truth of Biblical creeds is an affair of hope and
anxiety, while the truth of things Secular becomes apparent in time.
The advantages arising from the practice of veracity, justice, and
temperance can be ascertained from human experience. If we are told to
"fear God and keep His commandments," lest His judgments overtake us,
the indirect action of this doctrine on human character may make a
vicious timid man better in this life, supposing the interpretation
of the will of God, and the commandments selected to be enforced, are
moral; but such teaching is not Secular, because its main object is to
fit men for eternity. Pure Secular principles have for their object to
fit men for time, making the fulfilment of human duty here the standard
of fitness for any accruing future. _Secularism purposes to regulate
human affairs by considerations purely human_. Its principles are
founded upon Nature, and its object is to render man as perfect as
possible in this life. Its problem is this: Supposing no other life to
be before us, what is the wisest use of this? As the Rev. Thomas Binney
puts it, "I believe * * that even * * if there were really no God over
him, no heaven above, or eternity in prospect, things are so constituted
that man may turn the materials of his little life poem, if not always
into a grand epic, mostly into something of interest and beauty; and it
is worth his while doing so, even if there should be no sequel to the
piece." Chalmers, Archbishop Whately, and earlier distinguished divines
of the Church of England, the most conspicuous of whom is Bishop Butler,
have admitted the independent existence of morality, but we here cite
Mr. Binney's words because among Dissenters this truth is less readily
admitted. A true Secular life does not exclude any from supplementary
speculations. Not until we have fulfilled our duty to man, as far as we
can ascertain that duty, can we consistently pretend to comprehend
the more difficult relations of man to God. Our duties to humanity,
understood and discharged to the best of our ability, will in no way
unfit us to "reverently meditate on things far beyond us, on Power
unlimited, on space unfathomed, on time uncounted, on 'whence' we came,
and 'whither' we go."** The leading ideas of Secularism are humanism,
moralism, materialism, utilitarian unity; Humanism, the physical
perfection of this life--Moralism, founded on the laws of Nature, as
the guidance of this life--Materialism, as the means of Nature for the
Secular improvement of this life--Unity of thought and action upon these
practical grounds. Secularism teaches that the good of the present
life is the immediate concern of man, and that it should be his
first endeavour to raise it. Secularism inculcates a Morality founded
independently upon the laws of Nature. It seeks human improvement
through purity and suitableness of material conditions as being a method
at once moral, practical, universal, and sure.
* "How to make the best of both worlds," p. 11.
** F. W. Newman.
II.
The province of Positivism is not speculation upon the origin, but study
of the laws of Nature--its policy is to destroy error by superseding it.
Auguste Comte quotes, as a cardinal maxim of scientific progress, the
words "nothing is destroyed until it is replaced," a proverbial form
of a wise saying of M. Necker that in political progress "nothing is
destroyed for which we do not find a substitute." Negations, useful in
their place, are iconoclastic--not constructive. Unless substitution
succeeds destruction--there can be no sustained progress. The Secularist
is known by setting up and maintaining affirmative propositions. He
replaces negations by affirmations, and substitutes demonstration for
denunciation. He asserts truths of Nature and humanity, and reverses
the position of the priest who appears as the sceptic, the denier, the
disbeliever in Nature and humanity. Statesmen, not otherwise eager for
improvement, will regard affirmative proposals. Lord Palmerston could
say--"Show me a good and I will realize it--not an abuse to correct."
III.
"All science," says M. Comte, "has prevision for its end, an axiom which
separates science from erudition, which relates to events of the past
without any regard to the future. No accumulation of facts can effect
prevision until the facts are made the basis of reasonings. A knowledge
of phenomena leads to prevision, and prevision to action;" or, in other
words, when we can foresee what will happen under given circumstances,
we can provide against it. It by no means follows that every Secularist
will be scientific, but to discern the value of science, to appreciate
and promote it, may be possible to most. Science requires high qualities
of accurate observation, close attention, careful experiment, caution,
patience, labour. Its value to mankind is inestimable. One physician
will do more to alleviate human suffering than ten priests. One physical
discovery will do more to advance civilization than a generation of
prayer-makers. "To get acquaintance with the usual course of Nature
(which Science alone can teach us), is a kind of knowledge which pays
very good interest."*
* Athenaeum, No. 1,637, March 12, 1850.
The value of this knowledge becomes more apparent the longer we live.
There may be a general superintending Providence--there may be a Special
Providence, but the first does not interfere in human affairs, and the
interpositions of the second are no longer to be counted upon. The age
of Prayer for temporal deliverance has confessedly passed away.
But without disputing these points, it is clear that the only help
_available_ to man, the sole dependence upon which he can _calculate_,
is that of Science. Nothing can be more impotent than the fate of that
man who seeks social elevation by mere Faith. All human affairs are a
process, and he alone who acts upon this knowledge can hope to control
results. Loyola foresaw the necessity of men acting for human purposes,
as though there were no God. "Let us pray," said he, "as if we had no
help in ourselves; _let us labour as if there was no help for us in
heaven_." Society is a blunder, not a science, until it ensures good
sense and competence for the many. Why this process is tardy, is that
creedists get credit for hoping and meaning well. Creedists of good
intent, who make no improvement and attempt none, are very much in
the way of human betterance. The spiritualist regards the world
theoretically as a gross element, which he is rather to struggle against
than to work with. This makes human service a mortification instead
of pure passion. We would not deify the world, that is, set up the
sensualism of the body, as spiritualism is set up as the sensualism
of the soul. Secularism seeks the material purity of the present life,
which is at once the _means_ and _end_ of Secular endeavour. The most
reliable means of progress is the _improvement of material condition_,
and "purity" implies "improvement," for there can be no improvement
without it. The aim of all improvement is higher purity. All power,
art, civilization and progress are summed up in the result--purer life.
Strength, intellect, love are measured by it. Duty, study, temperance,
patience are but ministers to this. "There is that," says Ruskin, "to be
seen in every street and lane of every city, that to be found and
felt in every human heart and countenance, that to be loved in every
road-side weed and moss-grown wall, which, in the hands of faithful men,
may convey emotions of glory and sublimity continual and exalted."
IV.
It is necessary to point out that Sincerity does not imply
infallibility. "There is a truth, which could it be stamped on every
human mind, would exterminate all bigotry and persecution. I mean the
truth, that worth of character and true integrity, and, consequently,
God's acceptance, are not necessarily connected with any particular
set of opinions."* If you admit that Mark and Paul were honest, most
Christians take that to be an admission of the truth of all related
under their names. Yet if a man in defending his opinions, affirm his
own sincerity, Christians quickly see that is no proof of their truth,
and proceed to disprove them. Sincerity may account for a man holding
his opinions, but it does not account for the opinions themselves.
Nothing is more common than uninformed, misinformed, mistaken, or
self-deluded honesty. But sincere error, though dangerous enough, has
not the attribute of crime about it--personal intention of mischief.
"Because human nature is frail and fallible, the ground of our
acceptance with God, under the Gospel, is _sincerity_. A sincere desire
to know and do the will of God, is the only condition of obtaining the
Christian salvation. Every honest man will be saved."** But Sincerity,
if the reader recurs to our definition of it, includes a short
intellectual and moral education with respect to it. Those worthy of
the high descriptive "sincere," are those who have thought, inquired,
examined, are in earnest, have a sense of duty with regard to their
conviction, which is only satisfied by acting upon it. These processes
may not bring a man to the truth, but they bring him near to it. The
chances of error are reduced hereby as far as human care can reduce
them. Secularism holds that the Protestant right of private judgment
includes the moral innocency of that judgment, when conscientiously
formed, whether for or against received opinion; that though _all
sincere opinion is not equally true, nor equally useful, it is yet
equally without sin_; that it is not sameness of belief but sincerity of
belief which justifies conduct, whether regard be had to the esteem of
men or the approval of God. Sincerity, we repeat, is not infallibility.
The conscientious are often as mischievous as the false, but he who acts
according to the best of his belief is free from criminal intention.
The sincerity commended by the fortuitous, insipid, apathetic, inherited
consent, which so often passes for honesty, because too indolent or too
cowardly to inquire, and too stupid to doubt. The man who holds merely
ready-made opinions is not to be placed on the same level with him whose
convictions are derived from experience. True sincerity is an educated
and earnest sentiment. Secularist is an active sentiment seeking the
truth and acting upon it.
* Dr. Price.
** John Foster's Tracts on Heresy,
V.
In the formation and judgment of opinions we must take into account the
consequences to mankind involved in their adoption. But when an opinion
seems true in itself and beneficial to society, the consequences in the
way of inconvenience to ourselves is not sufficient reason for refusing
to act upon it. If a particular time of enforcing it seem to be one when
it will be disregarded, or misunderstood, or put back, and the sacrifice
of ourselves on its behalf produce no adequate advantage to society, it
may be lawful to seek a better opportunity. We must, however, take
care that this view of the matter is not made a pretext of cowardice or
evasion of duty. And in no case is it justifiable to belie conscience or
profess a belief the contrary of that which we believe to be true. There
may in extreme cases be neutrality with regard to truth, but in no case
should there be complicity in falsehood. So much with respect to this
life. With respect to Deity or another life, we may in all cases rely
upon this, that in truth alone is safety. With God, conscience can have
no penal consequences. Conscience is the voice of honesty, and honesty,
with all its errors, a God of Truth will regard. "We have," says Blanco
White, "no revealed rule which will ascertain, with moral certainty,
which doctrines are right and which are wrong--that is, as they are
known to God."--"Salvation, therefore, cannot depend on orthodoxy;
it cannot consist in abstract doctrines, about which men of
equal abilities, virtue, and sincerity are, and always have been,
divided."--"No error on abstract doctrines can be heresy, in the sense
of a wrong belief which endangers the soul." "The Father of the Universe
accommodates not His judgments to the wretched wranglings of pedantic
theologians, but every one who seeks truth, _whether he findeth it or
not_, and worketh righteousness, will be accepted of Him."*
* Bishop Watson's Theological Tracts. Introductory.
Thomas Carlyle was the first English writer, having the ear of the
public, who declared in England that "sincere _doubt_ is as much
entitled to respect as sincere _belief_."
VI.
Going to a distant town to mitigate some calamity there, will illustrate
the principle of action prescribed by Secularism. One man will go on
this errand from pure sympathy with the unfortunate; this is goodness.
Another goes because his priest bids him; this is obedience. Another
goes because the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew tells him that all such
persons will pass to the right hand of the Father; this is calculation.
Another goes because he believes God commands him; this is piety.
Another goes because he believes that the neglect of suffering will not
answer; this is utilitarianism. But another goes on the errand of mercy,
because it is an errand of mercy, because it is an immediate service
to humanity; and he goes to attempt material amelioration rather than
spiritual consolation; this is Secularism, which teaches that goodness
is sanctity, that Nature is guidance, that reason is authority, that
service is duty, and that Materialism is help.
VII.
The policy of Secular controversy is to distinguish and assert its own
affirmative propositions. It is the policy of Secularism not so much
to say to error "It is false," as to say of truth "This is true." Thus,
instead of leaving to the popular theology the prestige of exclusive
affirmation accorded to it by the world, although it is solely employed
in the incessant re-assertion of error, Secularism causes it to own
and publish its denial of positive principle; when the popular theology
proves itself to be but an organized negation of the moral guidance of
nature and its tendencies to progress. A Secularist sees clearly upon
what he relies as a Secularist. To him the teaching of Nature is as
clear as the teaching of the Bible: and since, if God exists, Nature
is certainly His work, While it is not so clear that the Bible is--the
teaching of Nature will be preferred and followed where the teaching of
the Bible appears to conflict with it. A Secular Society, contemplating
intellectual and moral progress, must provide for the freest expression
of opinion on all subjects which its members may deem conducive to their
common objects. Christianism, Theism, Materialism, and Atheism will be
regarded as open questions, subject to unreserved discussion. But these
occasions will be the opportunity of the members, not the business of
the society. All public proceedings accredited by the society should
relate to topics consistent with the common principles of Secularism.
"In necessary things, unity: in doubtful things, liberty: in all things,
charity."* The destruction of religious servitude may be attempted in
two ways. It may be denounced, which will irritate it, or it may be
superseded by the servitude of humanity. Attacking it by denunciation,
generally inflames and precipitates the persecution of the many upon the
few; when the weak are liable to be scattered, the cowardly to recant,
and the brave to perish.
VIII.
The essential rule upon which personal association can be permanent, or
controversy be maintained in the spirit in which truth can be
evolved, is that of never imputing evil motives nor putting the worst
construction on any act. Free Inquiry has no limits but truth, Free
Speech no limits but exactness, Policy (here the law of speech) no
limits but usefulness. Unfettered and uncompromising are they who pursue
free inquiry throughout--measured and impassable may those become, who
hold to a generous veracity. Far both from outrage or servility--too
proud to court and too strong to hate--are those who learn to discard
all arts but that of the austere service of others, exacting no
thanks and pausing at no curse. Wise words of counsel to Theological
controversialists have been addressed in a powerful quarter of public
opinion: "Religious controversy has already lost much of its bitterness.
Open abuse and exchange of foul names are exploded, and even the
indirect imputation of unworthy motives is falling-into disuse.
Another step will be made when theologians have learnt to extend their
intellectual as well as their moral sympathies, to feel that most truths
are double edged, and not to wage an unnecessary war against opinion
which, strange, incongruous, and unlovely as they may at first appear,
are built, perhaps, on as firm a foundation, and are held with equal
sincerity and good faith, as their own."** This is advice which both
sides should remember.
* Maxim (much unused) of the Roman Catholic Church.
** Times Leader of November 8, 1855.
IX.
"No society can be in a healthy state in which eccentricity is a matter
of reproach." Conventionality is the tyranny of the average man, and
a despicable tyranny it is. The tyranny of genius is hard to be
borne--that of mediocrity is humiliating. That idea of freedom which
consists in the absence of all government is either mere lawlessness,
or refers to the distant period when each man having attained perfection
will be a law unto himself. Just rule is indispensable rule, and none
other. The fewer laws consistent with the public preservation the
better--there is, then, as Mr. Mill has shown in his "Liberty," the more
room for that ever-recurring originality which keeps intellect alive in
the world. Towards law kept within the limits of reason, obedience is
the first of virtues. "Order and Progress," says Comte, which we should
express thus:--Order, without which Progress is impossible; Progress,
without which Order, is Tyranny. The world is clogged with men of dead
principles. Principles that cannot be acted upon are probably
either obsolete or false. One certain way to improvement is to exact
consistency between profession and practice; and the way to bring this
about is to teach that the highest merit consists in having earnest
views and in endeavouring to realize them--and this whether the
convictions be contained within or without accredited creeds. There will
be no progress except within the stereotyped limits of creeds, unless
means are found to justify independent convictions to the conscience.
To the philosopher you have merely to show that a thing is true, to the
statesman, that it is useful, but to a Christian, that it is safe. The
grace of service lies in its patience. To promote the welfare of others,
irrespective of their gratitude or claims, is to reach the nature of
the Gods. It is a higher sentiment than is ascribed to the Deity of
the Bible. The abiding disposition to serve others is the end of all
philosophy. The vow of principle is always one of poverty and obedience,
and few are they who take it--and fewer who keep it. If hate obscure
for a period the path of duty, let us remember nothing should shake our
attachment to that supreme thought, which at once stills human anger and
educates human endeavour--the perception that "the sufferings and
errors of mankind arise out of want of knowledge rather than defect of
goodness."
X.
A leading object of Secularism is the promotion of the material purity
of the present life--"material purity," which includes personal as well
as external condition. The question of Spiritualism (without employing
it and without disparaging it) it regards as a distinct question, and
hence the methods by which Secularists attempt "improvement" will be
"material" as being the most reliable. The tacit or expressed aim of all
Freethinking, has ever been true thinking and pure thinking. It has been
a continued protest against the errors Theology has introduced, and the
vicious relations it has conserved and sanctified. It is necessary
to mark this, and it can be done by insisting and keeping distinctly
evident that the aim of Secularism is the purity of material influences.
This precludes the possibility of Secularism being charged either with
conscious grossness or intentional sin. Secularism concerns itself with
the work of to-day. "It is always yesterday or to-morrow, and never
to-day,"* is a fair description of life according to theologies.
Secularism, on the contrary, concerns itself with the things of
"to-day."
To know
That which before us lies in daily life
Is the prime wisdom.
* Story of Boots, by Dickens.
The cardinal idea of the "popular Theology" is the necessity of
Revelation. It believes that the light of Nature is darkness, that
Reason affords no guidance, that the Scriptures are the true chart, the
sole chart, and the sufficient chart of man, and it regards all attempts
to delineate a chart of Nature as impious, as impracticable, and as a
covert attack upon the Biblical chart in possession of the churches.
Knowing no other guidance than that of the Bible, and disbelieving the
possibility of any other, theology denounces Doubt, which inspires it
with a sense of insecurity--it fears Inquiry, which may invalidate its
trust--and deprecates Criticism, which may expose it, if deficient.
Having nothing to gain, it is reluctant to incur risk--having all to
lose, it dreads to be disturbed-having no strength but in Faith, it
fears those who Reason--and less from ill-will than from the
tenderness of its position, it persecutes in self-defence. Such are the
restrictions and the logic of Theology.
XI.
On the other hand, Rationalism (which is the logic of Nature) is in
attitude and spirit quite the reverse. It observes that numbers are
unconvinced of the fact of Revelation, and feel the insufficiency, for
their guidance, of that offered to them. To them the pages of Nature
seem clearer than those of the Apostles. Reason, which existed before
all Religions and decides upon all--else the false can never be
distinguished from the true--seems self-dependent and capable of
furnishing personal direction. Hence Rationalism instructed by facts,
winning secrets by experiments, establishing principles by reflection,
is assured of a morality founded upon the laws of Nature. Without the
advantage of inductive science to assist discoveries, or the printing
press to record corroborations of them, the Pre-Christian world created
ethics, and Socrates and Epictetus, and Zoroaster and Confucius,
delivered precepts, to which this age accords a high place. Modern
Rationalists therefore sought, with their new advantages, to augment and
systematize these conquests. They tested the claims of the Church by the
truths of Nature. That Freethought which had won these truths applied
them to creeds, and criticism became its weapon of Propagandism. Its
consciousness of new truth stimulated its aggression on old error. The
pretensions of reason being denied as false, and rationalists themselves
persecuted as dangerous, they had no alternative but to criticise in
order to vindicate their own principles, and weaken the credit and power
of their opponents. To attack the misleading dogmas of Theology was to
the early Freethinkers well understood self-defence. In some hands
and under the provocations of vindictive bigotry, this work, no doubt,
became wholly antagonistic, but the main aspiration of the majority was
the determination of teaching the people "to be a law unto themselves."
They found prevailing a religion of unreasoning faith. They sought to
create a religion of intelligent conviction, whose uniformity consisted
in sincerity. Its believers did not all hold the same tenets, but they
all sought the same truth and pursued it with the same earnestness.
It was this inspiration which sustained Vanini, Hamont, Lewes, Kett,
Legate, and Wightman at the stake, and which armed Servetus to prefer
the fires of Calvin to the creed of Calvin, which supported Annet in
the pillory, and Woolston and Carlile in their imprisonments. It was
no capricious taste for negations which dictated these deliberate
sacrifices, but a sentiment purer than interest and stronger than
self-love--it was the generous passion for unfriended truth.
XII.
The intellectual, no less than the heroic characteristics of Freethought
have presented features of obvious unity. Tindal, Shaftesbury, Voltaire,
Paine, aad Bentham, all vindicated principles of Natural Morality.
Shelley struggled that a pure and lofty ideal of life should prevail,
and Byron had passionate words of reverence for the human character of
Christ.*
* Thus we read, Canto xv. stanza xviii., of Don Juan:--
Was it not so, great Locke? and greater Bacon?
Great Socrates? And thou Diviner still
Whose lot it is by man to be mistaken,
And thy pure creed made sanctions of all ill?
Redeeming world to be by bigots shaken,
How was thy toil rewarded?
To this stanza Lord Byron adds this note:--
"As it is necessary in these times to avoid ambiguity,
I say that I mean by "Diviner still" Christ.
If ever God was man--or man God--he was both.
I never arraigned his creed, but the use--or abuse--made of it."
The distrust of Prayer for temporal help was accompanied by trust in
Science, and all saw in material effort an available deliverance from
countless ills which the Church can merely deplore. Those who held that
a future life was "unproven," taught that attention to this life was of
primary importance, at least highly serviceable to humanity, even if a
future sphere be certain. All strove for Free Inquiry--Rationalism owed
its existence to it; all required Free Speech--Rationalism was diffused
by it; all vindicated Free Criticism--Rationalism established itself
with it; all demanded to act out their opinions--Rationalism was denuded
of conscience without this right. In all its mutations, and aberrations,
and conquests, Freethought has uniformly sought the truth, and shown
the courage to trust the truth. Freethought uses no persecution, for it
fears no opposition, for opposition is its opportunity. It is the cause
of Enterprise and Progress, of Reason and Duty--and now seeking the
definite and the practical, it selects for its guidance the principle
that "human affairs should be regulated by considerations purely
human."** These--the characteristics which the term Secularism was
designed to express--are therefore not inventions, not assumptions, but
the general agreements of the Freethought party, inherent, traditional,
and historic. That which is new, and of the nature of a development, is
the perception that the positivism of Freethought principles should
be extended, should be clearly distinguished and made the subject of
energetic assertion--that the Freethought party which has so loudly
demanded toleration for itself, should be able to exercise it towards
all earnest thinkers, and especially towards all coworkers--that those
who have protested against the isolation of human effort by sectarian
exclusiveness, should themselves set the example of offering, in good
faith, practical conditions of unity, not for the glory of sects, or
coteries, or schools, but for the immediate service of humanity.
** L. H. Holdreth.
XIII.
The Relation of Secularism to the future demands a few words. To seek
after the purity and perfection of the Present Life neither disproves
another Life beyond this, nor disqualifies man for it. "Nor is
Secularism opposed to the Future so far as that Future belongs to the
present world--to determine which we have definite science susceptible
of trial and verification. The conditions of a future life being
unknown, and there being no imaginable means of benefiting ourselves
and others in it except by aiming after present goodness, we shall
confessedly gain less towards the happiness of a future life by
speculation than by simply devoting ourselves to the energetic
improvement of this life."* Men have a right to look beyond this world,
but not to overlook it. Men, if they can, may connect themselves with
eternity, but they cannot disconnect themselves from humanity without
sacrificing duty. Secular knowledge relates to this life. Religious
knowledge to another life. Secular instruction teaches the duties to
man. Religious instruction the duties to God apart from man. Religious
knowledge relates to celestial creeds. Secular knowr-ledge relates to
human duties to be performed. The religious teacher instructs us how to
please God by creeds. The Secular teacher how to serve man by sympathy
and science.
* F. W. Newman
Archbishop Whately tells the story of a lady at Bath, who, being
afraid to cross a tottering bridge lest it should ghre way under her,
fortunately bethought herself of the expedient of calling for a sedan
chair, and was carried over in that conveyance. Some of our critics
think that we shall resemble this ingenious lady. But those who fear
to trust themselves to the ancient and tottering Biblical bridge, will
hardly get into the sedan chair of obsolete orthodoxy, and add the
weight of _that_ to the danger. They prefer going round by the way of
reason and fearless private judgment.
XIV.
Secularism, we have said, concerns itself with four rights:--
1. The right to Think for one's self, which most Christians now admit,
at least in theory.
2. The right to Differ, without which the right to think is nothing
worth.
3. The right to Assert difference of opinion, without which the right to
differ is of no practical use.
4. The right to Debate all vital opinion, without which there is no
intellectual equality--no defence against the errors of the state or the
pulpit.
It is of no use that the Protestant concedes the right to think unless
he concedes the right to differ. We may as well be Catholic unless we
are free to dissent. Rome will concede our right to think for
ourselves, provided we agree with the Church when we have done; and when
Protestantism affects to award us the right of private judgment, and
requires us to agree with the thirty-nine Articles in the end--or when
Evangelical Ministers tell us we are free to think for ourselves, but
must believe in the Bible nevertheless, both parties reason on the
Papist principle; both mock us with a show of freedom, and impose the
reality of mental slavery upon us. It is mere irony to say "Search the
Scriptures," when the meaning is--you must accept the Scriptures whether
they seem true or not. Of the temper in which theological opinions
ought to be formed, we have the instruction of one as eminent as he
was capable. Jefferson remarks, "In considering this subject, divest
yourself of all bias, shake off all fears and servile prejudices, under
which weak minds crouch: fix reason in her seat firmly; question with
boldness, even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must
approve the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Read
the Bible as you would Tacitus or Livy. Those facts in the Bible which
contradict the laws of Nature must be examined with care. The New
Testament is the history of a person called Jesus. Keep in your eye what
is related. They say he was begotten by God, but born of a virgin (how
reconcile this?); that he was crucified to death, and buried; that he
rose and ascended bodily into heaven: thus reversing the laws of Nature.
Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear, and if it ends in a
belief that the story is not true, or that there is not a God, you will
find other incitements to virtue and goodness. In fine, lay aside all
prejudices on both sides, neither believe nor reject anything because
others have rejected or disbelieved it Your reason is the only oracle
given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness,
but for the uprightness of your opinion; and never mind evangelists,
or pseudo-evangelists, who pretend to inspiration."* It is in vain the
Christian quotes the Pauline injunction, "Prove all things; hold fast
that which is good," if we are to hold fast to his good, which may be
evil to us. For a man to prove all things needful, and hold fast to
that which he considers good, is the true maxim of freedom and progress.
Secularism, therefore, proclaims and justifies the right to Differ, and
the right to assert conscientious difference on the platform, through
the press, in civil institutions, in Parliament, in courts of law, where
it demands that the affirmation of those who reject Christianity shall
be as valid as the oath of those who accept it.
* "Jefferson: Memoirs." Vol. II. Quoted by Sir G. Cockburn,
in his "Confessions of Faith, by a Philosopher," pages 4 and
5.
XV.
Yet some opponents have professed that Secular cannot be distinguished
from Christian rights. Is this so? The right to think for ourselves has
been emphatically and reiteratedly declared to be a Christian right:*
it "belongs essentially to Christianity." Now Christianity has no such
right. It has the right to think the Bible true, and nothing else.
* "Six Chapters on Secularism," by Dr. Parker, Cavendish
Pulpit, Manchester.
The Christian has no right to think Christianity untrue, however untrue
it may appear. He dare not think it false. He dare no more think it
false than the Catholic dare differ from the dictum of the Church, or
the Mahomedan differ from the text of the Koran, or the Hindoo differ
from the precepts of the Brahmin. Therefore, the Christian's right to
think for himself is simply a compulsion to believe. A right implies
relative freedom of action; but the Christian has no freedom. He has no
choice but to believe, or perish everlastingly. The Christian right to
think for himself is, therefore, not the same as the Secular right. We
mean by the right to think, what the term right always implies--freedom
and independence, and absence of all crime, or danger of penalty through
the honest exercise of thought and maintenance of honest conclusions,
whether in favour of or against Christianity. Our assertion is that
"Private judgment is free and guiltless." The Christian is good enough
to say, we have "a right to think, provided we think rightly." But what
does he mean by "rightly?" He means that we should think as he thinks.
This is his interpretation of "rightly." Whoever does not fall in with
his views, is generally, in his vocabulary, a dishonest perverter of
scripture. Now, if we really have the right to differ, we have the right
to differ from the Minister or from the Bible, if we see good reason
to do so, without being exposed to the censure of our neighbours, or
disapprobation of God. The question is not--does man give us the right
to think for ourselves? but, does God give it to us? If we must come
to a given opinion, our private judgment is unnecessary. Let us know at
once what we are to believe, that we may believe it at once, and secure
safety. If possible disbelief in Christianity will lead to eternal
perdition, the right of private judgment is a snare. We had better
be without that perilous privilege, and we come to regard the Roman
Catholic as penetrative when he paints private judgment as the
suggestion of Satan, and the Roman Catholic no less merciful than
consistent when he proscribes it altogether. We must feel astonishment
at him who declares the Secular right to be essentially a Christian
right, when it is quite a different thing, is understood in an entirely
different sense, and has an application unknown and unadmitted by
Christianity. This is not merely loose thinking, it is reckless
thinking.
XVI.
It has been asserted that the second right, "the right to differ," is
also a Christian right. "Christianity recognizes the claim to difference
of opinion. Christians are not careful to maintain uniformity at the
expense of private judgment." This is omitting a part of the truth.
Christians often permit difference of opinion upon details, but not upon
essentials, and this is the suppression made. The Christian may differ
on points of church discipline, but if he differ upon the essential
articles of his creed, the minister at once warns him that he is in
"danger of the judgment." Let any minister try it himself, and his
congregation will soon warn him to depart, and also warn him of that
higher Power, who will bid him depart "into outer darkness, where there
will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." With respect to the third right,
"the right of asserting difference of opinion," this is declared to
be not peculiar to Secularism; that "Christian churches, chapels,
literature and services, are so many confirmations of the statement that
Christians claim the right of speaking what they think, whether it be
affirmative or negative." Yes, so long as what they speak agrees with
the Bible. This is the Christian limit; yet this is the limit which
Secularism expressly passes and discards. It is the unfettered right
which makes Secularism to differ from Christianity, and to excel it.
XVII.
The right of private judgment, always in set terms conceded to us, means
nothing, unless it leads to a new understanding as to the terms in which
we are to be addressed. In the "Bible and the People," it is described
as "an insolence to ignore Christianity."* We do not understand this
language. It would be insolence to Deity to ignore a message which we
can recognize as coming from Him, but it may rather imply reverence
for God to reject the reports of many who speak in His name. Were we to
require Christians to read our books or think as we think, they would
resent the requirement as an impertinence; and we have yet to learn
"that it is less an impertinence when Christians make these demands of
us." If Christians are under no obligation to hold our opinions, neither
are we under obligation to hold theirs.
* No. I. Vol. I., p. 8. Edited by the Rev. Brewin Grant.
By our own act, or at their solicitation, we may study "sacred"
writings, but at dictation, never! So long as Secularists obey the laws
enacted for the common security, so long as they perform the duties of
good citizens, it is nothing to Christians what opinions they hold.
We neither seek their counsel nor desire their sentiments--except
they concede them on terms of equality. The light by which we walk is
sufficient for us; and as at the last day, of which Christians speak,
we shall there have, according to their own showing, to answer for
ourselves, we prefer to think for ourselves; and since they do not
propose to take our responsibility, we decline to take their doctrines.
Where we are to be responsible, we will be free; and no man shall
dictate to us the opinions we shall hold. We shall probably know as well
as any Christian how to live with freedom and to die without fear. It
is in vain for Christians to tell us that Newton and Locke differed from
us. What is that to us unless Newton and Locke will answer for us? The
world may differ from a man, but what is the world to him, unless it
will take his place at the judgment-day? Who is Paul or Apollos, or
Matthew or Mark, that we should venture our eternal salvation on his
word, any more than on that of a Mahomedan prophet, or a Buddhist
priest? Where the danger is our own, the faith shall be our own.
Secularism is not an act conceived in the spirit of pride, or vanity, or
self-will, or eccentricity, or singularity, or stiff-neckedness. It is
simply well-understood self-defence. If men have the right of private
judgment, that right has set them free; and we own no law but reason, no
limits but the truth, and have no fear but that of guilt. We may say we
believe in honour, which is respecting the truth--in morality, which
is acting the truth--in love, which is serving the truth--and in
independence, which is defending the truth.
XVIII.
Confucius declared that the foundation of all religion was reverence and
obedience.* The Religious sentiment is the intentional reverence of
God. The Christian is ever persuaded that there is only one way of doing
this, and he arrogantly assumes that he has that way. Whereas the ways
are as diverse as human genius. Let those who deny that Secular Truth
meets the emotional part of their nature, settle what is the nature
of the emotions they desiderate. The miser wants money--the sensualist
wants the cook--the scholar wants knowledge--and the mother desires the
life, growth, and happiness of her child. But what can man want in a
rational sense which Nature and humanity may not supply? Do we not meet
the demand of the many when we show that Secularism is sufficient for
progress; that it is moral, and therefore sufficient for trust; that it
builds only upon the known, and is therefore reliable? It is the highest
and most unpresumptuous form of unconscious worship. It is practical
reverence without the arrogance of theoretical homage. We at least feel
confident of this, that the future, if it come, will not be miserable.
There _may_ be a future--this remains to awaken interest and perennial
curiosity. If Nature be conscious, it will still design the happiness
of man, which it now permits--this assurance remains, stilling fear and
teaching trust.
* Sir John Bowring.
XIX.
In surveying the position of Christianism in Great Britain there
is found to exist a large outlying class, daily increasing, who for
conscientious reasons reject its cardinal tenets. Hence arises the
question:--Are good citizenship and virtuous life on Secular principles,
possible to these persons? Secularism answers, Yes. To these, excluded
by the letter of scripture, by the narrowness of churches, by the
intrinsic error and moral repulsiveness of doctrine, Secularism
addresses itself; to these it is the word of Recognition, of Concert
and Morality. It points them to an educated conscience as a security of
morals, to the study of Nature as a source of help, and seeks to win the
indifferent by appeals to the inherent goodness of human Nature and the
authority of reason, which Christianism cannot use and dare not trust.
If, however, the Secularist elects to walk by the light of Nature,
will he be able to see? Is the light of Nature a fitful lamp, or a brief
torch, which accident may upset, or a gust extinguish? On the contrary,
the light of Nature may burn steady, clear, and full, over the
entire field of human life. On this point we have the testimony of an
adversary, who was understood to address us, a testimony as remarkable
for its quality as for its felicity of expression:--"There is the
ethical mind, calm, level, and clear; chiefly intent on the good
ordering of this life; judging all things by their tendency to this end,
and impatient of every oscillation of our nature that swings beyond
it. There is nothing low or unworthy in the attachment which keeps this
spirit close to the present world, and watchful for*its affairs. It is
not a selfish feeling, but often one intensely social and humane, not
any mean fascination with mere material interests, but a devotion to
justice and right, and an assertion of the sacred authority of human
duties and affections. A man thus tempered deals chiefly with this
visible life and his comrades in it, because, as nearest to him, they
are better known. He plants his standard on the present, as on a vantage
ground, where he can survey his field, and manoeuvre all his force,
and compute the battle he is to fight. Whatever his bearings fervours
towards beyond his range, he has no insensibility to the claims that
fall within his acknowledged province, and that appeal to him in the
native speech of his humanity. He so reverences veracity, honour, and
good faith, as to expect them like the daylight, and hears of their
violation with a flush of scorn. His word is a rock, and he expects that
yours will not be a quicksand. If you are lax, you cannot hope for his
trust; but if you are in trouble, you easily move his pity. And the
sight of a real oppression, though the sufferer be no ornamental hero,
but black, unsightly, and disreputable, suffices perhaps to set him
to work for life, that he may expunge the disgrace from the records of
mankind. Such men as he constitute for our world its moral centre of
gravity; and whoever would compute the path of improvement that has
brought it thus far on its way, or trace its sweep into a brighter
future, must take account of their steady mass. The effect of this style
of thought and taste on the religion of its possessor, is not difficult
to trace. It may, no doubt, stop short of avowed and conscious religion
altogether; its basis being simply moral, and its scene temporal, its
conditions may be imagined as complete, without any acknowledgment of
higher relations."*
* Professor Martineau, in Octagon Chapel, Norwich, 1856.
XX.
Nature is. That which is, is the primary subject of study. The study
of Nature reveals the laws of Nature. The laws of Nature furnish safe
guidance to humanity. Safe guidance is to help available in daily
life--to happiness, self-contained--to service, which knows how "to
labour and to wait." For authority, Nature refers us to Experience and
to Reason. For help, to Science, the nearest available help of man.
Science implies disciplined powers on the part of the people, and
concert in their use, to realize the security and sufficiency necessary
to happiness. Happiness depends on moral, no less than on physical
conditions. The moral condition is the full and fearless discharge of
Duty. Duty is devotion to the Right. Right is that which is morally
expedient. That is morally expedient which is conducive to the happiness
of the greatest numbers. The service of others is the practical form
of duty; and endurance in the service of others, the highest form of
happiness. It is pleasure, peace, security, and desert.
XXI.
We believe there is sufficient soundness in Secular principles to make
way in the world. All that is wanted is that advocates of them shall
have clear notions of the value of method in their work. To the novice
in advocacy policy seems a crime--at least, many so describe it. Unable
himself to see his way, the tyro fights at everything and everybody
equally; and too vain to own his failure, he declares that the right
way. Not knowing that progress is an art, and an art requiring the union
of many qualities, he denies all art, cries down policy, and erects
blundering into a virtue. Compare the way which Havelock reached
Lucknow, and the way in which Sir Colin Campbell performed the same
feat, and you see the difference between courage without, and
courage with strategy. It was because magnitudes existed, which were
inaccessible and incapable of direct measurement, that mathematics
arose. Finding direct measurement so often impossible, men were
compelled to find means of ascertaining magnitude and distance
indirectly. Hence mathematics became a scientific policy. Mathematics is
but policy of measurement--grammar but the policy of speech--logic
but the policy of reason--arithmetic but the policy of
calculation--temperance but the policy of health--trigonometry but the
policy of navigation--roads but the policy of transit--music but the
policy of controlling sound--art but the policy of beauty--law but the
policy of protection--discipline but the policy of strength--love but
the policy of affection. An enemy may object to our having a policy,
because it suits his purpose that we should be without one; but that a
friend should object to our having a policy is one of those incredible
infatuations which converts partisans into unconscious traitors. The
policy adopted may be a bad policy, and no policy at all is idiotcy. If
a policy be bad, criticise and amend it; but to denounce all policy
is to commit your cause to the providence of Bedlam. If, therefore,
throughout all intelligent control of Nature and humanity, policy is the
one supreme mark of wisdom, why should it be dishonourable to study the
policy of opinion? He who consistently objects to policy, would build
railway engines without safety valves, and dismiss them from stations
without drivers; he would abolish turnpike roads and streets, and leave
us to find our way at random; he would recommend that vessels be made
without helms, and sail without captains, that armies fight without
discipline, and artillery-men should fire before loading, and when
pointing their guns, should aim at nothing. In fine, a man without
policy, honestly and intelligently opposed to policy, would build his
house with the roof downwards, and plant his trees with their roots in
the air; he would kick his friend and hug his enemy; he would pay wages
to servants who would not work, govern without rule, speak without
thought, think without reason, act without purpose, be a knave by
accident, and a fool by design.