2
10
13
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3224db3aa937b7de80b81813628c309c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uVMVr2BIRGxvQU1-1js5jkFitlKfUTxS5g0CmXi4BkjLIllyRYUStKFzKy0PCMrnuH743GHVF36Ova7j-LXvFaIJFGvj2twn6rUVLKB%7E5EcWbp44PftfYQzB39lrh4UHC7ljJ-UOE2y30V6T3s6SmbVLU8SIiDLyHcSoZCnFhhrpHH0wHAmenOoulqCDIMtrIioUQs1Cql2el9hHodP3MbJ7NTRzEQWTHmuOwiAWCQ5VdKOzMGQicmO1Tfpp5PcUrMADg6UbgSvOChDFjq0x46dJsDpzngflrYAttix4NTrsquiRBx54XNw9NsQEEBBGgFNNuKH3YPmLNXXnb-lQFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7d058292252481749b9e91f9ce8eb03e
PDF Text
Text
THEOLOGICAL
PRESUMPTION
AN
LETTER
OPEN
TO
THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALIFAX, N.S.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ^Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,'’ “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,”
“
Superstition of the Christian Sunday : A
Plea for Liberty and Justice, ” ‘ ‘ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” Ac., Ac.
In this Letter the following subjects are dealt with : 1. Why do the
Clergy Avoid Debate 1 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towar Is
Christianity. 3. Freethought and Men of Science. 4. The Dif
ference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ and Heroism.
6. Christianity and Slavery.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
-
5
CENTS.
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMP1ION.
-AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALTFAX, N.S.
Reverend Sir :—In No. 1 of The Theologue, a magazine issued
apparently under the auspices of the Presbyterian College at
Halifax, N.S., you have published a lengthy article purporting to
be a reply to “ A Canadian Agnostic,” although it is evidently
intended to refer to myself. You commence by saying:—“ For
between two and three years past the Maritime Provinces have
received periodical visits from the chief champion of Agnosticism
in Canada.” Is it not rather surprising that a reverend gentle
man of your position, influence, and ability should have remained
so long silent and allowed this “ Canadian Agnostic ” to have
made his “periodical visits,” and to have given utterance to what
you are pleased to term “ unsupported statements and pitiful
perversions,” without seeking to reply to him face to face, cor
recting the mischief which you suppose that he wrought upon
the minds of his hearers ? Is it not your duty as a Christian
minister to “ defend the faith ” in the presence of those before
whom it is attacked ? Are you not aware that the Bible enjoins,
«tnd that your Master and his chief successor, St. Paul, set you
the example, to “ Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself ” ?
t(Prov. 25:9). Do we not read in the “ Word of God,” “ Come
now and let us reason together ” (Isaiah 1 : 18) ; also, that very
•early in his career Jesus was found in the temple in the midst of
doctors, “ both hearing them and asking them questions,” and
that St. Paul “ disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and
with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them
that met with him, and spake boldly for the space of three
months ” (Acts 17 : 17 ; 19: 8). Pardon me, Reverend Sir, for
sasking what reason you assign for avoiding the injunction of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
3
your “ sacred book,” and the “ sublime example ” set you by
Christ and St. Paul ? Are we to regard such neglect upon your
part as an illustration of practical Christianity ? How many
Secular halls have you gone into and “ spake boldly ” with
Agnostics ? Is your absence from these “ temples and syna
gogues ” to be ascribed to the fact that you have discovered that
such “ disputing ” would not be profitable to your cause, or that
for personal reasons you have found that in this, as in many
other instances, it is not always wise for rev. gentlemen to at
tempt in this practical age to emulate their Lord and Master ?
While your discretion in thus “ avoiding the enemy ” may indi
cate your sagacity, it does not show that you have too much con
fidence in the faith you preach. Rest assured, Rev. Sir, that
principles or systems that will not stand the test of honest criti
cism in fair and gentlemanly debate, have but little claim upon
the intelligence of the present day.
Probably you may urge that you have come to the rescue of the
Faith in the article. you have penned in The Theologue. But
purely that mode of warfare can scarcely be looked upon as being
either very safe or very heroic. You virtually admit, in the
article in question, that you base your comments upon mere hear
say of what your opponent is supposed to have said at periods
varying from one to three years ago, and you deal with the
“ reports ” of his statements where he is unable to correct or
answer you. Moreover, the probability is that but few of your
readers ever heard one of his lectures, and therefore they have
only an ex parte account from which to judge. Now, does it not
occur to you that it would have been far more heroic and “ Christlike ” in you, and would have given greater satisfaction to the
public, had you attended the “ Canadian Agnostic’s ” lectures and
availed yourself of the opportunity always afforded on such
occasions to reply there and then ? In that case, “ the bane and
antidote ” would both have been offered to those present, al
lowing them to decide for themselves which was the bane and
which was the antidote. If, however, for some reason this
^arrangement was not convenient to you, why did you omit to
�4
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
accept his invitation, which was published more than once in the
Halifax papers, to a public debate ? Can it be that you fail to
realise the force of Milton’s opinion that truth will never suffer
.in its conflict with error ? The policy adopted by the orthodox
clergy of shunning public controversy may please the older
members of the Churches, who unfortunately have been trained
to accept their views upon trust, but it will never satisfy the
young and intelligent minds seeking to know the reason why
they should endorse the faith submitted to them. Blind belief
and passive submission belong to the theological darkness of the
past, not to the intellectual light of the present.
Your article appears to me to be remarkable for its theological
presumption and groundless allegations. I wish you to particu
larly understand that I do not use the term presumption in any
offensive sense whatever. It is not my custom or desire to know
ingly initiate the very objectionable feature, too prevalent in
some discussions, of unnecessarily wounding the feelings of thosewho differ from me. Such conduct too often inflames the
passions but seldom wins the assent of reason. All controversy
should be governed by intellectual discrimination, not by angry
disputation. Truth should invariably be the goal in such con
flicts, and the best and most dignified me'ans of reaching it is
calm and kind investigation. By applying the word presump
tion to your article I wish it to be understood that in it you
make statements upon mere supposition and that you substitute
opinions for facts. In no one instance throughout the article do
you deign to make an effort to prove what you assert, but you
urge with marvellous confidence your allegations as if they were
beyond question. This, I regret to say, is a common practice
with theologians; they seldom acquaint themselves with the real
nature of the opinions or principles they assail, and thus they
; frequently mislead their hearers or readers with unfair conclu
sions drawn from false premises. You say : “ Very pertinent and
' pointed was the reply of Sir Isaac Newton to the astronomer
Haley when he spouted infidelity in his presence. ‘ Sir,’ said
that Prince of philosophers, ‘ you have never studied these sub-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION,
5
jects and I have. Do not disgrace yourself as a philosopher by
presuming to judge on questions you have never examined.’ ”
If this anecdote is a fair reflex of Newton’s mind it is clear that
his theology, which, by the way, was exceedingly small from an
orthodox point of view, did not protect him from a fair share of
egotism and conceit. This incident, however, which you have
selected, has a most significant meaning in reference to your
article in The Theologue, for, evidently, “ you have not studied ”
with too great care the subjects upon which you therein write.
For instance, where did you obtain from Agnostic philosophy a
justification for your assertion that Agnosticism was “a system
of accumulated negation,” and that it taught, “ we are sure only
of what is present and visible ? ” This, Sir, is a pure theological
fiction, caused by an utter lack of knowledge upon the part of
the assertor as to the facts about which he was writing.
You seem to entirely misunderstand our position as Secularists
and Agnostics in reference to Christianity. It may, therefore,
be of some service to inform you in a few words what that posi
tion really is. There are three principal modes of criticising the
modern Orthodox pretensions set forth on behalf of popular
Christianity. First, it is alleged such pretensions are entirely
destitute of truth, and that they have been of no service what
ever to mankind. This view we certainly cannot endorse.
Many of the superstitions of the world have been allied with
some fact, and have in their exercise upon the minds of a portion
of their devotees served, for a time no doubt, a useful purpose.
In the second place, certain opponents of Christianity regard it
as being deserving of immediate extinction. This, in our opinion,
is unjust to its adherents, who have as much right to possess
what they hold to be true as we have to entertain views which
we believe to be correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted
by intellectual growth, not crushed by dogmatic force. The
third and, probably, the most sensible and fair mode of dealing
with Christianity is to regard it as not being the only system of
truth; as not having had a special origin ; as not being suited to
all minds; as having fulfilled its original purpose, and as possess-
�6
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
ing no claim of absolute domination. This is the true position of
Secularism and of Agnosticism towards popular orthodoxy.
Such a position is based upon the voice of history, the law
of mental science, and the philosophy of the true liberty of
thought.
Having dealt with these introductory points, the main issuesin your article are reached, and here your “ sins of omission and
of commission ” come glaringly to view.
Your “ sins of omission ” consist mainly in your not even
making the attempt to prove what you so readily assert
n your article, and not in any way verifying your nu
merous allegations. You reproduce old statements that have
been refuted again and again, and leave your innocent readers
to suppose that what is advanced are undisputed facts. Such an
orthodox procedure may be expected from the pulpit, but it is
sadly out of place in a magazine, particularly where you profess
to answer an Agnostic opponent. You apparently penned the
article under the impression that your Christian friends would
be satisfied, without evidence of the correctness of your position,
and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that your desire was to
convince those who are adverse to your theological views. But
surely you are not so oblivious of the intellectual activity of the
times as not to recognise that for you to succeed in this laudable
effort something more than vague assertion is necessary. This,
Sir, is not an age of mere blind belief or of passive submission,—
at least, it is not so outside the church. Facts are required, and
evidence is necessary, when dealing with the Agnostic position,
and it is your neglect in supplying these very essentials that
constitutes, in my estimation, your “ sins of omission.”
You accuse “ A Canadian Agnostic ” of misapplying the term
Freethought to certain “ leaders in the departments of Science
and Statesmanship, of Literature and the Arts,” but you do not
furnish a single verification of your charge. What “ names ” of
“leaders” has the Agnostic claimed as belonging to the Freethought ranks who were not Freethinkers ? You omit to men
tion one in support of your statement. True, you say, “ Some
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
7
of the names noted, e.g., Darwin, Huxley, Martineau (both Har
riet and James), cannot be included in the Infidel class.” If, Sir,
by the term “ Infidel ” you mean a disbeliever in orthodox Chris
tianity, then undoubtedly the four persons whose names you.
mention were “Infidels” in the fullest sense of the word. Is itnot a fact, wThen in 1859 Darwin published his “ Origin of.
Species,” and when in 1877 he issued his “Descent of Man/’ thathe was branded by both the press and the pulpit as an “ Infidel ?”
Even such a high-class journal as the Saturday Review said
of the assault Darwinism made upon religion:—“ It tends to
trench upon the territory of established religious belief,” and.
the Quarterly Review exclaimed that the teachings of Darwin
were “ absolutely incompatible, not only with single expressions
in the word of God on that subject of natural science with
which it is not immediately concerned, but .... with the
whole representation of that moral and spiritual condition of
man which is its proper subject matter.” Dr. Andrew Dickson
White, in his “ Warfare of Science” (p. 149,) quotes Bishop
Cummings, who wrote: “Christians should resist to the last
Darwinism ; for that it is evidently contrary to Scripture.” Tne
Dr. also refers (p. 147,) to the Rev. Dr. Hodge as saying,.
Darwinism “is a denial of every article of the Christian faith/
In 1871 the Rev. W. Mitchell, Vice-President of the Victoria
Institute, wrote : “ Any theory which comes in with an attempt
to ignore design as manifested in God’s creation, is a theory, I
say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the theory of Dar
win does endeavour to do ... So far as I can understand the
arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavour
to eject out of the idea of evolution the personal work of the
deity.” Another amiable minister of the “ Gospel of love ” in 1882
went so far as'to say that Charles Darwin, who had then recently
died, “ was burning in hell.” Do you not know, Sir, that both
Darwin and Huxley openly and frankly avowed themselvesAgnostics ? Professor Huxley was the originator of the term as it /
is at present understood, and he is now on,e of its ablest exponents.
Freethought is an essential element in Agnosticism, and, there-
�8
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
fore, was it not quite right to name these two scientists as Free
thinkers? You utterly ignore these facts, which either shows
that you were not acquainted with them, or else that you pur
posely omitted to mention them. In either case the omission is
not calculated to enhance your reputation as a trustworthy
student and expositor of history.
You mention Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Goethe, Carlyle and
others to substantiate your views upon Christianity and the
Bible ; yet it is to be regretted that you make no effort to vindi
cate in what way either of those writers refutes the position taken
upon these subjects by “ A Canadian Agnostic.” Surely you do
not contend that those “ burning and shining lights ” regarded
orthodox Christianity as being perfect or the Bible as an infallible
book. The whole tenor of Locke’s philosophy is based on know
ledge, while theological teachings are founded on faith. Newton
contended that the universe was guided by natural law, and not
as your system alleges, by the alleged supernatural. As for
Carlyle, Professor Tyndall and Moncure Conway have recently
demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the “ Sage of
Chelsea ” was a thorough sceptic to the orthodox religion.
It is clear from your article that you are under the delusion
that “ A Canadian Agnostic ” sees no good in the Bible, while
the fact is that he recognises much in that book which is true
and useful; but he also finds much therein that is erroneous, and
which would, if acted upon, be injurious both to individual and na
tional progress. Forgive me, Rev. Sir, if I am unable to accept the
■Queen of England, or “the dying words of Sir Walter Scott” as
authorities upon the true value of the Bible. The English throne
•or a death bed are not the best places fiom which to obtain
efficient and impartial evidence to justify claims that are contra
dicted by investigations made at the seats of learning by such
men as Davidson, Jones, Westcott and the author of “Super
natural Religion,” while they were in health and possessing
mental vigour. It is upon the candid researches of scholars like
these that Freethinkers rely for the facts as to the history, na
ture and worth of the Bible. If it be true that Walter Scott
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
9
whispered just -before his death, “ Bring me the Book,” meaning
the Bible, he did no more than probably a devout believer in
the Vedas, the Zendavesta or the Koran would have done under
similar circumstances. But, again, you omit to do the very thing
which it was necessary you should have done in your case,—
namely, to show in what possible manner such a request could
prove that your Bible was superior to all other existing books.
You appear to attach too much importance to the opinions of
eminent men without first ascertaining upon what grounds such
■opinions are formed. This is a grave omission upon the part of
a rev. gentleman in your position. Of course every person has
a right to entertain his or her opinion, but its real value can
only be estimated by discovering its relation to facts. Moreover,
when you cite opinions in support of your contentions it is due
to the cause of truth that your citations should, so far as they
•affect the questions at issue, be given fairly and in full. This
you have not done in your article.
For instance, in reference
to your testimony to the character of Christ, you only produce
partial statements and thereby cause an erroneous conclusion to
be arrived at. Take as an illustration of the truth of my charge
the following passage from your article: “ Men the reverse of
friendly to Christianity, as we understand it, such as Strauss,
Theodore Parker, Renan, and Rousseau, have endorsed Richter’s
judgment on Jesus,‘He is the purest among the mighty, the
mightiest among the pure.’ ” Now, Sir, you ought to know that,
as you have put these words, they are likely to mislead your
readers. Not one of the four men you have quoted “ endorsed”
what you teach from your pulpit as to the character and mission
of Christ. Why did you not state that Rousseau’s “ testimony ”
was put into the mouth of his “ Vicar of Savoy,” who subse
quently adds in reference to the Gospel containing the supposed
sayings and doings of Christ, “ Nevertheless this same gospel is
full of incredible things, things which contradict reason, and
which it is impossible for any sensible man to conceive or admit.”
You might also have added that Renan in his “ Life of Jesus”
says that: Christ had “no knowledge of the general conditions
�10
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with science, “ be
lieved in the devil, and that diseases were the work of demons ”
(pp. 79-80) ; he was “ harsh ” towards his family, and was “ no
philosopher ” (pp. 81-83); he “ went to excess ’(p.174); he “ aimed
less at logical conviction than at enthusiasm “ sometimes his in
tolerance of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and ap
parently absurd ” (pp. 274,275); and “Bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart ” (p. 278).
I have now sufficiently supplied your omissions to enable a
better opportunity for a just judgment to be formed as to the
worth of the opinions of your witnesses upon the character of'
Christ. I would not have you mistake my objections to
omissions. I grant that at times it may be right, nay necessary,
to omit certain things, but the sin comes in when persons are
misled by the omissions as to the facts of the matter under con
sideration. Such is the great drawback pertaining to a large
portion of your article. It bears the semblance more of special
pleading, than a candid statement of the whole truth. It reads
like the production of the partial theologian, instead of the
work of a just and equitable reasoner.
Your article is so replete with inaccurate statements, bold asser
tions and erroneous conclusions, that it would occupy more space
than I have allowed myself to deal with all of your “ sins of
commission.” A few instances, however, will suffice to show
your lack of historical precision and logical deduction.
You say that George Washington declared, “ It is impossible
to govern the world without God,” and you refer to him as if he
were a Christian, whereas you should know that he was a Deist
and did not in any way accept orthodox Christianity. The God
in whom* Washington believed was certainly not the Bible Deity,
and his religion was far more Secular than it was theological.
You next insinuate that I slander the character of Christ
Now, Sir, to slander is to utter that which is false and maliciouswhich I have never done in reference to Christ. Judging from
his alleged biographies, I admit that he possessed some excellent
traits of character, and I applaud his strong denunciation of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
11
certain evils of his day. Regarding him as one possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavourable influences for in
tellectual acquirements, belonging to a family not very remarkable
for literary culture, retaining many of the failings of his pro
genitors, and having but little care for the world or the things
of the world, there is much to admire in the life and conduct
of Jesus. But when he is raised upon a pinnacle of great
ness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom, surpassing the
production of any age or country, being equal to God himself ,
he is then exalted to a position which, in my opinion, he does
not merit, and which deprives him of that credit which other
wise he would be entitled to. True, I cannot endorse your
unsupported assertion that Christ was perfect and that he “ died
the death of a god,” for if your teaching be correct, he came on
earth with a mission to perform, a part of which was to die on
the Cross ; yet, when the time arrived for his destiny to be ful
filled, he sought to avoid his fate, and shrank from that death which
was said to give life to a fallen world. So ovei vhelmed was he
with grief and anxiety of mind, that he “ began to be sorrowful
and very heavy.” “ My soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even
unto death.” At last, overcome with grief, he implores his
father to rescue him from the death which was then awaiting
him. If Christ knew in three days he should rise again ; that
his death was to be little more than a sleep of a few hours’
duration; if he were conscious that ultimately he should tri
umph over death, wherefore all this trouble and mental suffering ?
In reference to the statement of “ A Canadian Agnostic ” that
Christianity is not original you exclaim : “ He however took
good care not to attempt showing it.” If you will read my
pamphlet on “Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence,’’
you will find that I did attempt to show it; and if you require
additional proof it is only for you to accept an invitation, which
I now offer you, to discuss the claims of Christianity either upon
the platform or through the pages of The Theologue, where your
article appeared, and in Secular Thought.
In speaking of Christ you remark he “ imperceptibly drew all
�12
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
classes of men to him—lifted them up from the horrible pit in
which they were imbedded, into heavenly places, till poverty
gave place to comfort, intellectual degradation to intellectual
development.” This statement is almost an unpardonable sin
upon the part of a scholar who should know that “ all classes of
men ” never were drawn to Christ either in the past or at the
present time. Even the Rev. Dr. A. Burns, of Hamilton, Ont.,
admits: “ No dialectical skill, nor witchery of logic or rhetoric,
can justify the attitude of the church toward the nine hundred
millions who have yet to hear the first Christian sermon. On
what principle can the Church affirm that Christianity is
for the healing of the nations ? Do Christians believe that ?
Could they make the sceptic believe that they were sincere ? ”
As to your allegation that comfort and intellectual development
replaced poverty and degradation under the influence of the
church, history records the very opposite as being the fact;
poverty and submission are the essential teachings ascribed to
Christ, and during the greater part of seventeen hnndred years
of Christian rule the masses throughout Christendom were the
victims of want, misery, ignorance, and mental degradation.
If you read Professor Draper’s “ Conflict between Religion and
Science,” and “ The History of European Morals,” by Lecky,
you will discover that for centuries, when Christianity was
paramount and unrestrained, there was “ A night of mental and
moral darkness,” as recorded by Lecky, who further adds:
“Nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . . The splendid discoveries of physical
science would have been impossible but for the scientific scepti
cisms of the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of
Europe passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till
Mohammedan science and classical Freethought and industrial
independence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the
intellectual revival of Europe begin.”
Equally reprehensible is it on your part to allege that the
Church has been opposed to slavery and that “ its complete sup-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
13-
pression is due mainly to the operation of Christian influences.”
It would be almost impossible for a more groundless assertion
than this to be uttered; and if such reckless writing is to be
taken as a fair sample of the historical knowledge possessed by
the clergymen of Halifax, no marvel that they avoid debate and
publish their perversions of facts where no correction can be
given. It is thus that theological presumption thrives and ortho
dox errors are perpetuated. The truth is that slavery is a Bible
institution, that while some professed Christians opposed the
crime it was fostered by the Church, and many of those who
condemned its cruelty and injustice were designated by Chris
tians as “ Infidels.’ Lecky and Gibbon have shown that the
condition of slaves was, in some instances, better before than it
was after the introduction of Christianity. Prior to Christianity
many of the slaves had political power, they were educated, and
allowed to mix in the domestic circles of their masters, but subse
quent to the Christian advent the fate of the slave was far more
ev ere; hence, Lecky observes, “ The slave code of imperial
Rome compares not unfavourably with those of some Christian
countries.” (“ Hist, of Morals,” Vol. I, p. 327.) The Council of
Laodicea actually interdicted slaves from Church communion
without the consent of their masters. The Council of Orleans
(541) ordered that the descendants of slave parents might be
captured and replaced in the servile condition of their ancestors.
The Council of Toledo (633) forbade Bishops to liberate slaves
belonging to the Church. Jews having made fortunes by slave
dealing, the Council of Rheims and Toledo both prohibited the
selling of Christian slaves except to Christians. Slavery laws
were also passed by the Council of Pavia (1082) and the Latern
Council (1179). During all those ages, priests, abbots and bishops
held slaves. The Abbey of St, Germain de Pres owned 80,000
slaves, and the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours 20,000. Let me
suggest that you carefully read that excellent work : “ Acts of
the Anti-Slavery Apostles,” by Parker Pillsbury, and “The
American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery,” by
James G. Birney, and you will then learn how the Churches op-
�14
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
posed the abolition of the slave trade. It is stated in “ The
Life and Times of Garrison ” that at a convention held in May,
1841, Mr. Garrison proposed : “ That among the responsible
classes in the non-slaveholding States, in regard to the existence
of slavery, the religious professors, and especially the clergy,
stand wickedly pre-eminent, and ought to be unsparingly ex
posed and reproved before all the people.” In a recent editorial
in Voice (N.Y.) appears the following: “Even the powerful
East New York M. E. Conference publicly reprimanded five of
its members, one of whom was the late Rev. Dr. Curry, for the
sin of attending an Abolition meeting addressed by Wendell
Phillips ! This is the way Mr. Phillips found it necessary to
lash the hesitating, time-serving clergy of Boston in his speech
on the surrender of Sims in 1852 : ‘ I do not forget that the
Church all the while this melancholy scene was passing [the
surrender of the fugitive slave Sims] stood by and upheld a
merciless people in the execution of an inhuman law, accepted
the barbarity and baptised it Christian duty.’ ” Theodore Parker
said that if the whole American Church had “ dropped through
the Continent and disappeared altogether, the anti-slavery cause
would have been further on.” (His Works, Vol. 6, p. 233). He
pointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract among all
its thousands, against property in human flesh and blood; and
that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by
Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists. Even Wilberforce himself
declared that the American Episcopal Church “ raises no voice
against the predominant evil; she palliates it in theory, and in
practice she shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious of
the bishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.”
Your identifying Secularism with “ Robert Elsmere ” and
calling it the “ Gospel of Despair ” is evidence that you do not
understand what Secular philosophy really is. It is not pre
tended that “ Robert Elsmere ” was a Secularist. Permit me to
remind you that Secular principles enable a man to live a noble
and a happy life and die a contented and peaceful death, with the
belief that if there be another existence or a continuation of the
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
15
present one, he is safe to realise all its advantages. With the
Secularist there is no despair, no fear of hell with its inhuman
tortures, but the highest consolation born of confidence in the
result of meaning well and of doing well.
I have now pointed out enough of your sins of omission and
of commission to exhibit to the candid reader how recklessly you
have written upon matters to which you clearly have not given
.much thought and attention. In conclusion allow me to express
a sincere hope that in future you will seek to learn the facts of
anything you oppose before hastily condemning it, and that
thereby you may avoid violating the Bible command not to
“ bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Charles Watts.
SECULARISM :
Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient to
Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING
MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS,
EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT.
WITH PREFATORY LETTERS
BY
GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE
and
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN
60 pages, price 25 cents.
H.
GARDENER.
Secular Thought Office, Toronto.
�Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity. 96 pages. Price 25 cents.
SECULARISM : IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND? Debate be
tween the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by George Jacob Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents.
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S “ TACTICS of INFIDELS.”
20 cents, post free.
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION : THEIR
CAUSES.
24 pages, price 10 cents
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. 22
pages in cover ; price 10c.
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price 10 cents.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 10 cents.
SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH ? 24 pages in cover : price 10c.
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.” 22 pages in cover; price 10c.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL; or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE.
24 pages, price 10 cents.
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the Justice of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover; price 10c.
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.
Dr- R. F Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
r6 pages, price 5c.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
Just published.
CHRISTIANITY : DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARY.
By
Kate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price 10 cents.
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? II. “ Our Father which art in
Heaven.” III. The Fall and the Atonement. IV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity, V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA841
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Agnosticism
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bfc2d0adea1377e29071531f3536bd7a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TliiGpUjsiKs6nFfoV1fCfPYs%7E%7ETORHqgBNHBDdk4arXrzabt4hTmZjRgL-Zc2G2n5oDCXQk6zKZ5VikN7zbdbCUfgAmzBmmv0vwjGJIAD8mzBVQN48dzLsgiVnG1El66b1PukwljPfimvDWhJB2%7Ekz0zms6wooBqy8US439iMM-qZ6JehG34xsFAsF8Dojn3wLUevSgNf2ccZ3OOR4VE3gYjHMmZID7hwMFqse0LZJ3zheanyWpZbaxglxccpG7tUz%7EPSKvxBcrLq%7ENDcTGGXpz8UbjFtf0NZ59R4wNM9PNXkMyqaWWKunjCgs-mBPX1sRcHj3cdBkXLll3tqAyQA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
67677de598a438f6d8053e9ede309360
PDF Text
Text
of Secularism
Tl?e
COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought
CONTENTS.
Physical Teachings
Intellectual Teachings
Present Condition of Society
Morality
Ethics add Religion
Secularism and the Supernatural
Secularism at the hour of Death
Secularism in Theory
Secularism in Practice
Secularism more Reasonable than Christi
anity
Secularism more Noble than Christi
anity
Secularism more Beneficial than Christi
anity
Secularism Progressive
Secularism, its Triumphs
Secularism, its Service to Mankind
Secularism, its Struggles in the Past
Secularism, in the Future
Secularism, Summing up
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
��Tfye Teacfyin^s of Secularism
COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought
CONTENTS
Physical Teachings
Intellectual Teachings
Present Condition of Society
Morality
Ethics and Religion
Secularism and the Supernatural
Secularism at the hour of Death
Secularism in Theory
Secularism in Practice
Secularism more Reasonable than Christi
anity
Secularism more Noble than Christi
anity
Secularism more Beneficial than Christi
anity
Secularism Progressive
Secularism, its Triumphs
Secularism, its Service to Mankind
Secularism, its Struggles in the Past
Secularism, in the Future
Secularism, Summing up
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
��SECULAR TEACHINGS.
I. PHYSICAL.
♦
As Secularism has been so thoroughly misrepresented of late in
the press and pulpits of Toronto, we purpose in the following pages
to explain to our readers what true Secular principles really are.
We commence at the very foundation of our philosophy. The first
subject of importance to man is his physical health. His bodily
organization, from any point of view, demands special concern.
With an abnormal condition of body a normal state of mind is
hardly possible ; and certain it is that there must be an entire ab.sence of comfort and pleasure where the physical frame is subject
to the ailments of disease. Of all the branches of knowledge that
civilized man has engaged in that which relates to his own health
is of supreme importance.
Man is related to everything that surrounds him. The sun influ
ences his daily life, and the moon and stars light him to his couch
■of repose. The earth furnishes him with the ten thousand needs of
his bodily frame, and the very winds are his servants. Electricity,
and the other mighty forces of nature, he makes subservient to his
will, while the lower animals and plants he employs for his daily
food. Wherever he looks, and with whatever object he comes into
^contact, he finds materials ready made to his hands, to be moulded
into new forms for new uses all subservient to his life and happi
ness. It is of the highest importance, however, how he uses those
agents. For while they are all adapted to supply health and com
fort, they are also calculated to spread abroad disease and death.
The most beneficial object with which he is called upon to deal
frequently becomes the vehicle of some fatal malady. Great care,
�2
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
therefore, is requisite in dealing with these. That which is, under
ordinary circumstances, the most productive of good, may become
the deadliest of poisons. The water we drink may contain the
seeds of death, and the very atmosphere become the means of dis
seminating contagion. What is called physical education is. there
fore, deemed by Secularism of paramount importance.
It has been said that self-preservation is the first law of nature,
yet in respect to health it is frequently most terribly neglected. In
this age, when enlightenment has become so wide-spread, and edu
cation so general, it is lamentable to see how coldly indifferent
many persons are with regard to the laws upon which their health
depends. A sound mind in a sound body every person extols in
theory, but in practice, alas ! how rarely do we come across either
the one or the other ? Health all agree to be the chief good of
life, the principal aim of man ; and yet how few pursue it as though
they considered it worth the seeking for. Money, fame, the
“ bubble-reputation,” ambition, men struggle to obtain, overcoming
what appear to be insurmountable difficulties in the contest; but
health, which is of a thousand times more importance than all the
others put together, they scarcely bestow a thought upon, until it
is irretrievably ruined and incapable of being restored. Then
physicians are asked in vain to do that which was once so easy,
but has now become impossible. It was Voltaire, I think, who de
fined a physician as a man who was asked every day to perform a
miracle—viz., to reconcile health with intemperance. But it is not
simply intemperance, in the sense in which that word is usually
employed, that destroys health, but a thousand apparently harmless
acts which are every day performed, which eat into and destroy
the most vigorous frame and strongest constitution. The neglect
of the important laws of life is one of the deplorable evils of the
present age, and it is to be found, not simply amongst the illiterate,
but it reigns supreme in the midst of the halls of intellect, the
temples of genius, and even the places where Science should hold
her sway. In this age, when knowledge of natural law is so
general, and when most persons are aware that defective health is
to be largely traced to a derangement of one or more of the vital
functions, such as digestion, circulation, respiration, and that these
functions are to a large extent mutually dependent in the economy
of the human frame, we should expect them all to be most assidu
ously attended to and cultivated. Unfortunately, this is not so, for
it too often happens that if one of these functions receive any at-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
3
tention, the rest will be completely neglected, and eyen the utter
neglect of them all is far from being uncommon. Sir Philip Sidney
has well said that :—
“ The ingredients of health and long life are,
Great temperance, open air, light labour, little care.*
All these are most terribly neglected in these modern times. Our
business pursuits, as a rule, shut out the whole of these ingredients,
and hence the prevalent disease and premature deaths that abound
amongst us.
The relations of the human body to the aliment which sustains
it is a point of the greatest moment. As is the food of a people, so
will the people be. Gross diet makes gross men and women ; an
extravagant and luxurious regimen will result in indolence and
apathy on the part of those who indulge in it, and pure, healthy,
and unstimulating food will give rise to (other things being equal)
a pure, virtuous, and healthy population. There can be no doubt
that the downfall of the great Roman Empire, so long the mistress
of the world, was largely due to the extravagant and luxurious
living of the Emperors. From this came indolence, effeminacy,
and finally the overthrow of the whole Empire. There is one fact
in connection with food which may be mentioned here ; it is that
nature has placed within us certain sensations, which point out to
us, in an infallible manner, when we require afresh supply. These,
of course, we do not fail to attend to in some way or other, since to
neglect them is painful. But we violate great and important laws
bearing on the question notwithstanding. We eat too rapidly, we
do not allow the requisite time for digestion, and, above all, we are
not careful as to the kind of food we take. We study our appetites
rather than our health. The consequence of all this may be easily
foreseen. As we have to go in search of our food, we require to
labour to procure it, and hence some sort of forethought and judg
ment is essential to the obtaining it, which fact of itself no doubt
causes us to devote a larger share of attention to the subject than
we otherwise should do ; but still with all this the neglect is terrible
to contemplate.
With the air we breathe the case is very different from the food.
Except under circumstances attending its entire exclusion, we ex
perience no sensations as to the need of it at all corresponding to
the appetite for food. Neither does any sense analogous to taste
enable us to detect its impurities. True, this is done to a certain
�4
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
texent with the nose, but only in a very partial degree. The at
mosphere of a room may be deteriorated to an extent highly preju
dicial to health, and we may remain in entire ignorance of the fact.
The consequence is that our negligence here is a thousand times
greater than in regard to food, and hence the innumerable train of
diseases that flow from the inhaling of impure air, with which
every student of sanitary science is familiar.
Impure air is one of the chief causes of disease at the present
time, and it is also a source of enfeebled intellect and deteriorated
morals. For virtue and health are more nearly allied than many
persons imagine. And the intellect cannot be clear in an atmos
phere that is not fit to breathe. The great thinkers of the past
spent most of their time in the open air. Sir Isaac Newton made
his greatest discovery in a garden where he was accustomed to
carry on his studies. To go farther back, the Peripatetics, the
most enlightened philosophers, perhaps, of their age, used to walk
up and down in the porches of the Lyceum at Athens. And of old
Homer, who spent most of his life in wandering from placetoplace
in the open air, it is said ;—
“ Seven cities contend for Homer dead,
Through which the living Homer begged his bread.”
This is not the place to enlarge in detail upon the advantages of
pure air or sound food ; but to point out the great importance of
attending to the laws of health is the duty of every Secular teacher,
for what is true Secularism but to make the very best use of the
world in which we live ? Hence the health of the body should
claim the foremost attention amongst Secular duties.
II. INTELLECTUAL.
The great John Locke well remarked that 11 In the sciences every
one has as much as he really knows and comprehends. What he
believes only, and takes upon trust, are but shreds which, however
Well in the whole piece, make no considerable addition to his stock
who gathers them. Such borrowed wealth, like fairy money, though
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
5
it were gold in the hand from which he received it, will be but leaves
and dust when it comes to use.” Knowledge is to-day diffused over
a larger surface in society than it ever was before. Yet, unfortu
nately, through indolence or inability, or some other cause, the
great mass of mankind are content to skim lightly over its surface,
leaving the sweets of its inner mysteries untasted. Such persons
are like tourists who content themselves with congregating upon
the frontiers of a country, but do not care to penetrate into the
interior. It is to be regretted that most men’s information upon
the great questions of science and philosophy is extremely super
ficial. As a rule, men are not thinkers ; thinking is a process, which,
being laborious, becomes tiresome and fatiguing to all but a few
who have cultivated their intellectual powers to such a degree as
to render it easy and agreeable. The consequence is, that for every
one who possesses anything like profound information upon any '
particular topic there are ten thousand who simply repeat other
men’s opinions, having none of their own, nor any real material
stored in their minds out of which such could be manufactured.
The bright side of this state of things is that it has greatly tended
to the multiplication of elementary books on the various branches
of science. These books, elementary as they are, usually show a
considerable improvement upon the knowledge of former days, and
prove, therefore, conclusively the direction in which humanity is
moving. That mankind are advancing intellectually there can be
no doubt. Looking back to the infancy of our race, at least as
near to that time as history will allow us to approach, and contrast
ing the state of things then existing with what we experience to
day, we cannot but be struck with surprise at the enormous changes
that have occurred. Yet in science more real progress has been
made in the last half century than in all the previous ages. The
present is, therefore, essentially a scientific age. And although the
general knowledge, of mankind is on the surface, still it is a great
improvement on the past, which argues well for the future. Our
task—the task of to-day—is rather to help on the movement than
to complain that it has not gone further on, or struck its roots deeper
into the soil of human nature.
Civilization, says Guizot, embraces two elements—the improve
ment of society and the improvement of the man ; and the ques
tion which he says is put to all events is, What have they done for
the one or the other ? I stop not here to enter upon a discussion
fraught with difficulty, and yet full of interest, as to which of these
�6
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
is the cause and which the effect, or whether they may not each be
cause and effect in turn. Guizot himself seems to think—and he
quotes Collard on that side—that the individual is made to advance
society. But much might be said on the other side. Our real busi
ness as Secularists, however, is to see that some kind of advance
does take place, and to help it on to the utmost extent of our power.
No doubt, mental progress is a law of the race, and as such will
force its way on at any risk or cost. As the poet has said:—
“ Go bid the ocean cease to heave,
The river cease to flow,
Bid smiling Spring retrace her steps,
And flowrets cease to blow.
Go drive the wild winds to their home,
The lightning to its nest,
Then bid the car of progress stay,
Whose courses never rest.”
In this matter we should resolve to aid in pushing on the great
car of progress ; and he who does not, but stands in its way, is very
likely to get crushed after the fashion of the victims of Juggernaut,
beneath its wheels. All progress is intellectual, all improvement
refers to the mind ; hence, the importance of intellectual discipline.
There can be no doubt that the publication of so large a number
of books at the present time tends greatly to the spread of know
ledge and the deepening of the intellectual character of the age.
The printing press has been the instrument employed for furthering
education and increasing mental culture. “ In these late ages,”
says old Vicesimus Knox, “ there is scarcely a subject which can
reasonably excite human curiosity on which satisfactory informa
tion may not be acquired by the perusal of books ; and books, too,
from their multitude and cheapness, obvious to all who are disposed
to give them their attention. Poetry, history, eloquence, and phil
osophy, in all their ramifications, are. constantly at hand, and ready
to gratify the mental appetite with every variety of intellectual sub
stance. The imagination can at all times call up, by the medium
of books, the most vivid representations of every object which the
physical and moral world have been known in any age or country
to produce. Exempt from the inconvenience of foreign travel, from
the dangers of a military life, from the narrow escapes of the voy
ager, from the tumult of political engagements, the student can
enjoy, in the comfortable retreat of his library, all that has em-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
7
ployed the active faculties of man in every department of life.”
Books are brilliant stars in the intellectual hemisphere, and their
value must not be underrated nor their advantages neglected. Mind
receives its necessary pabulum by communing with mind, and this
it can do more easily and more perfectly in books than perhaps any
where else. Hence books are the greatest and most powerful agents
in mental development. Some one has curiously described a book
as a brain preserved in ink—not a bad description, remembering
that the mightiest thoughts of the mightiest brains are there pre
served.
In almost every department of knowledge has the genius of im
provement and invention been at work, and the results may be seen
scattered abundantly around us whichever way we look. The en
tire earth has been converted into a huge observatory or laboratory
for man, in almost every part of which he is found daily working in.
comparing results and communicating knowledge. Could the great
men of the past, who devoted themselves to physical science—fore
most amongst whom was Aristotle—rise from their graves, and catch
a glimpse of the present state of things, how, after the first feeling
of surprise was ovar, would‘their hearts be gladdened by the spec• taele they would then behold ! Astronomical, geological, physio
logical, and chemical discoveries, throwing all the science of the
past into the shade, form the heritage of the poorest and most in
significant of mankind. True, the great problem of life is yet un
solved, and a score of metaphysical questions still remain unan
swered ; but in physical science the discoveries that have been made,
and the improvements that have taken place, are startling even to
contemplate. In all that concerns the practical, in all that has to
do with the subjugation of natural forces and the direction of the
laws of the Universe to new issues conducing to the happiness of
man, modern progress has been rapid almost beyond conception.
The simplicity of the processes by which some of the mightiest and
grandest of the discoveries of the age have been made, and the
elementary character of the laws concerned in their production, are
exceedingly pleasing to the man of intellect. “ Almost all the great
■combinations of modern mechanism,” remarks Sir John Herschel,
“ and many of its refinements and nicest Improvements, are creations
of pure intellect grounding its exertions upon a moderate number
of very elementary propositions in theoretical mechanics and geo
metry.” The truth of these remarks will be apparent to every scien
tific student.
�8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
In what position do we as Secularists stand intellectually towards
the present age ? This is a question that each and all of us should
carefully consider. Every Secularist should make it his especial
business to practise mental culture, and to induce others to do the
same. A man who. neglects the discipline of his intellectual powers
is a stranger to the highest enjoyments of existence ; he is no re- x
cipient of that lofty influence which emanates from the pure foun
tain of intellectual treasures. Secularists profess not to waste their
time in attempting to solve problems that defy solution, nor to search
for discoveries in the field of metaphysics as impossible as the object
of alchemy. We are taught by our principles to have to do with
the real side of human life, and to care only for the speculative in
so far as it has a direct influence on practical things. Intellectual
culture is a reality. We know what it means, and we prefer to deal
with it from a practical standpoint, and on its useful side. The
moment we stop to discuss the question, What is the intellect in its
nature and essence? we bid fair to leave the well-beaten track of the
real, to wander in fields of speculative ether, where there are no'
highways and no places to which they could lead. What do we
know of the exact nature of what is termed the human mind after
thousands of years of theorising on the part of philosophers ? We
simply employ the word “ mind ” as having reference to the intel
lectual part of our organisation. But as to what constitutes its
essence little or no progress has been made towards that discovery,
since the days of the great Stagyrite, and, perhaps, earlier. Such
is not the case with experimental science. Our obvious duty, there
fore, is to cultivate our intellectual powers, and no Secularist ought
to neglect it. As I have said, the age is superficial in its knowledge.
Let it be our business to remedy this state of things as far as pos
sible, and to render it deep and profound ; at any rate, we can do
this in the case of ourselves. Good books exist around us ; let us
read them with care and profit. Much of the literature of the age
I know is worthless and even worse ; but there is, after all, a great
deal that will pay for more serious reading and thinking over. Es
pecially is it a Secular duty to discriminate between the two, and,
having done so, to reject the weeds, and devote our time and ability
to the cultivation of the flotvers. We, of all people, should prize
good books, and turn them to good account, and at the same time
emphatically denounce bad ones, that are likely, not only to mislead
human thought, but also to corrupt and deprave, rather than to ele
vate, the intellect of man.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
9
III. THE PRESENT CONDITION OF SOCIETY.
“ Physician, heal thyself,” is most excellent advice, especially de
serving of application in these days of “ Mind-other-people’s-business-instead-of-your-own. ” Morally, the theological opinions of
neighbours are too. frequently considered before personal ethical
culture; politically, public attention is often directed to foreign
affairs rather than to home questions ; socially, the condition of the
heathen is regarded with the greatest solicitude, while the disgrace
ful state of our own poor is sadly neglected ; religiously, the soul's
salvation of the semi-savage abroad is deemed of far greater impor
tance than the moral regeneration of people at home. What has
been the result of such policy ? The present condition of society,
morally diseased to its very core, supplies the answer. After eight
een hundred years of the active reign of Christian theology, what
do we discover in our very midst ? A deplorable lack of real
physical comfort among the masses of the people ; a thoroughly
s unhealthy moral tone, no less in the religious than in the political
and commercial world ; and an air of artificiality permeating most
phases of society., Both in public and private life the real is dis
carded for the imaginary, and the shadow is accepted in lieu of the
substance. Principle is sacrificed to selfish interest, and fidelity to
conviction is made subordinate to popular favour. Theological
professions we have in abundance ; but a marked inconsistency
robs them of true ethical potency. The blessings of peace are
preached, while the humane observer stands aghast at the world’s
record of the blood and carnage of a brutal warfare. Love is ex
alted to a pinnacle of sublime admiration by the same people who
dim its transcendent lustre with dense clouds of theological hatred
and spite. Liberty, with its golden blossoms, is adored in name,
while many of its most sacred rights are ruthlessly trampled under
the feet of a self-appointed authority. The brotherhood of man is
loudly proclaimed at the same time that its fraternal bonds are being
divided by the monopoly of wealth and the false ideas associated
with class distinctions. The poor are blessed by the teachings of
theology and cursed by the laws and customs fostered and defended
by the Church and its priests. Might takes the place of right, false-
�IO
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
hood is substituted for truth, and law stands for justice. Society
may not be, sick unto death ; but its health is sadly impaired, and
a skilful physician is indeed required. Where is this Saviour of the
race to be found ? Not in the domain of theology, for from its
school have come so many moral quacks that its genuine reputation
cannot be maintained. Evidently these theological physicians do
not understand the nature of the disease they profess to cure, and
consequently they apply a false remedy. Regarding all moral dis
eases as being alike, they have only one remedy for each and all,
and that remedy is theology. Thus we have the introduction of
the “ kill or cure ” principle, and there can be no doubt that the
moral deaths far outnumber the patients cured through the adoption
of this alleged panacea. The lesson of history clearly demonstrates
that theology is impotent to rid society of those moral evils which
now so extensively mar the happiness of the human race; the true
requirement, therefore, is a correct knewledge and application of
ethical science.
The human race is in reality governed by the two great princi
ples of good and evil, right and wrong. Upon one of these princi
ples must the construction of society, and the character of those
beings who compose it, be based. The old religion of the Persians
appears to have sprung from the recognition of this fact, and mod
ern legislation has proceeded upon a similar acknowledgment. By
the term good, when applied to man’s activity, we mean that line
of conduct based upon truth, leading to unity and general happiness.
By evil we understand those actions founded on falsehood and de
ceit, ending in disunion, vice, and wretchedness.
Taking society as it is, there are few persons who will contend
that it is constituted as firmly as it should - be upon the principles
of goodness, union, and mutual love. Theoretically—from the
Christian standpoint—this certainly should be the character of so
ciety, for so many years have gone by since, according to the
orthodox belief, the angels of an omnipotent God came down through
the blue vault, of the firmament with the welcome message of
“ Peace on earth, goodwill towards men.” Instead, however, of
such a peace and goodwill having been inaugurated, the centuries
that have flown by since those words were supposed to have been
uttered, have been notorious for their falsehood, disunion, and
misery ; and up to the present time little or no fundamental im
provement has taken place. Many of our institutions, having em-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
II
anated from laws based upon ignorance of the real requirements
■of human nature, have been the means of keeping the people im
becile in mind and wretchedly poor in body. These institutions
and laws still keep many in idleness who would gladly be employed
in adding to the general wealth ; they allow others to be a dead
weight upon industry; they perpetuate pauperism, foster bad hab
its, and encourage crime. The great ethical science is ignored,
and while the primary causes of physical diseases are lost sight of
or neglected, millions of money and much valuable time are wasted
in every generation in futile endeavours to effect a partial cure cf
the diseases thus engendered. Throughout Europe we find a bitter
feud existing between the aristocracy and the democracy, leading
to conspiracies, ostracisms, and the maintenance of huge standing
armies. In short, the present state of society is something worse
than artificial: it is opposed to the welfare of mankind, it causes
■degradation, injustice and. cruelty; hence it is that in so many
'countries there are conspiracies—men banding together, and pledged
to effect, at any risks, immediate social revolution.
The same evil conditions existing around us affect even the rising
generation. Those who know what the tuition of the ordinary
street Arab is, who have instituted comparisons between the gutter
child with his fluttering rags, his unkempt hair, dirty face, obscene
■and ribald language, habits of theft, lying, etc., and the well-clad,
neat, dainty, and “ respectable ” scion of the aristocrat or plutocrat,
can well appreciate the necessity for radical reformation. In the
image of God, says the theologian, are they all made; but shame
to the hypocrisy which, Pharisee-like, suffers this neglected gutter
urchin to give the lie direct to its own loud professions of love to
God and man. To-day, under the shadow of our proud cathedrals
and lofty domes, under which incense burns and gaudily-vested
priests and choristers chant praises to God for having done all
things well; to day, be it remembered, beneath the shadows of the
towers and pinnacles of the many churches and chapels, staring'
with gaunt countenance, hollow cheek,"and hungry eye, rustling the
gay dresses of fine ladies as they pass, dying ever and anon on door
steps, or being carted away enclosed in a parish coffin, are thou
sands of those “images ” for whom apparently God has done no
thing, and society, if possible, even less.
That improvement of a very fundamental character is considered
necessary is evident from the fact that in all civilised countries the
�12
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
major portion of the population are urgently demanding reform.
The question is, what is the remedy for existing evils, and to whoni
shall we look to obtain it ? To my mind, the true remedy is to be
found in the highest moral, physical, and intellectual development
of human nature, the acquirement and application of genuine edu
cation, and the destruction of all priestly and imperial power which
seeks to fetter human thought and despotically control individual
action. The highest outcome of ancient civilisation in Greece and
Rome was at a time when true freedom adorned their history. In
Athens and Republican Rome we have glorious illustrations of this
fact. Potent in arms, able at one period to defend and preserve
their liberties against every aggressor, these States were mighty in
other and nobler fields. In philosophy, science, literature, art, and
all that enriches and elevates mankind, these grand democracies
were unequalled. Even to-day they are to us as luminaries—they
“ being dead yet speak ” to all posterity.
The great object that Secularists should keep in view is to pro
mulgate principles capable of re-moulding society in such a man
ner that the greatest possible liberty and happiness may be secured
to the individual and to the general community. To obtain this
thoroughly, a knowledge of the causes of good and evil to man must
be acquired. Ignorance is admitted to be an evil which directly
impedes human progress and stands in the way of human happi
ness. This ignorance many of us regard as being possible to re
move, and to substitute in its place a knowledge of the pathway
leading to goodness, truth and virtue.
It must distinctly be understood that no sudden revolution, in
recklessly overturning the social equilibrium, by fire and sword, is
recommended by Secularism. All such attempts would be cruelly
disastrous ; besides, the misery and bloodshed thereby engendered
and caused would in all probability “ put back the hands of the
clock,” and hand society over to the tender mercies of some other
unprincipled tyrants and oppressors. Having established a sound
system of education; having secured a knowledge of the power and
duty of man ; of the value of truth ; of the necessity of fidelity toconviction ; of the recognition of the rights of others ; of the impo
tence of all theologies as reforming agencies ; of the service of
science ; of the nobility of self-reliance ; of the necessity of intellec
tual discipline and moral purity, our attention should then be di
rected to the best means of extending the usefulness of these re-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
13
quirements, and of applying them to the practical duties of daily
life.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the panacea for the wrongs
and woes of the time is not to be found in Church doctrines or
•dogmas. Old creeds have had their day, and before the power of
modern thought the superstition that those creeds bolstered up is
rapidly tottering to its basis. Society, as now constituted, with its
strongly-marked distinctions between rich and poor, its blatant
hypocrisy, its wicked extravagance and abject penury, has been
too long supported by the theories of so-called Divine predestina
tion and ordination. These theories are, fortunately, becoming
more and more discredited by the intelligence of the nineteenth
century. The world of man is waiting and struggling for some
signs of its redemption by human agencies. The priest, with his
incantations and conjurings, will, we hope, shortly be known only
as an evil of the past, and then will be inaugurated a new era,
wherein we shall all be true kings and priests—kings in our own
free individuality, and priests in the grand temple of nature, offer
ing up daily and hourly an uninterrupted and unselfish sacrifice of
duty and devotion for the benefit of an enlightened and a progres
sive humanity.
IV. MORALITY.
Secularism accepts as its moral code the system of ethics known
as Utilitarian. There are hundreds of acts which we agree with
all believers in an alleged supernatural religion in considering
vicious, as there are hundreds of others that all men, whatever may
be the particular system of ethics that they accept, admit to be vir
tuous. About these there is no dispute. The reasoning by which
the conclusion is arrived at, that one set of actions are moral, and
another set immoral, can in no sense affect the question as to our
duty in relation to them, when their moral or immoral character
has been once made out. This world is the scene of our deeds, be
they good or bad. The most enthusiastic advocate of a future life
admits that his duties lie in this world whilst he remains in this
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
world. Herein, therefore, we are agreed. To him there may be—
and no doubt are—many duties which we, as Secularists, should
not recognize as such ; our business is not with them, but with the
large class of acts about which we are agreed, and in reference to
which, therefore, there is no dispute.
As soon as a human being comprehends the relation in which he
- stands to other human beings, there must arise between them a
' system of morals. This is based upon the fact that the one ought
to exercise certain dispositions, and display certain feelings towards,
the other. At the same time he expects similar conduct from the
rest towards himself. “ It is manifest to everyone,” says Wayland,
“ that we all stand in various and dissimilar relations to all the
sentient beings created and uncreated with which we are acquaint
ed. Among our relations to created beings are those of man to
man, or of that of substantial equality, of parent and child, of
benefactor and recipient, of husband and wife, of brother and sister,
citizen and magistrate, and a thousand others.” These relation
ships involve certain duties, which we call moral acts, and the best
state of society is that in which they are the most perfectly
practised.
Now, that morality to-day is terribly defective no one can doubt..
There are fearful vices amongst us, which are eating into the
heart’s core of society. Drunkenness, debauchery, and hypocrisy
prevail to an extent that is alarming, and things apparently are
growing worse and worse. In trade, morality is at a very low ebb.
The commercial world seems to have amoral (?) code of its own,
to which it strictly adheres, but this code is not one of which a
moralist can approve. In self-defence a civilised man has often to
become a semi-savage ; so it frequently happens that a scrupulous,
trader is driven to become unscrupulous, in order to compete with
men less honest than himself. Mr. Darwin somewhere says that
the law of the animal kingdom is “ eat and be eaten
in the trad
ing community there is a sort of parallel in “ cheat and be cheated.”
This state of things is much to be deplored, and it is our business,
as Secularists, to do what we can to remedy it. What is needed
is a purified public feeling, and this can only be accomplished by
the individuals of which society is composed doing their duty.
The business of the Secularist in these cases is to set an example
to his religious neighbours. We pride ourselves on having out
grown old and obsolete superstitions; we must, therefore, show
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
15
that with us morality is of paramount importance. It is often
urged that even if religion be not true, yet it exercises certain re
straints over men that would render it extremely dangerous to
society to remove its influence, and thus turn the quondam devotee
adrift without a guide. Perhaps there is some truth in this when
applied to ignorant and uncultivated men ; let Secularists show by
their superior morals that the remark does not apply to them.
Our business is to do the best that we can to promote the welfare
of society. Of all people in the world, therefore, we must not
neglect the sphere in which our whole duty lies. The Secularis.
who does not look properly after the affairs of this life is an anomaly
and a paradox. To him this life is the only life—at least, the onljr
one that he knows anything of—and, therefore, his every energy
should be devoted to making the best of his present state. The
Science of Morals it becomes the Secularist essentially to study,
and not only to study theoretically, but to put into practice. The
eyes of all men are upon us, watching for an opportunity of tri
umphing over our failings. It behoves us, therefore, to be exceed
ingly careful how we act. People who are content to run in the
old grooves will be excused should they stumble ; but those who
chalk out a new path for themselves must keep erect, not even
allowing a foot to slide, or heavy penalties will be visited upon their
heads.
There is great room for improvement in this respect amongst
mere Sceptics, arid hence the necessity of obedience to the moral
law being enforced as a Secular duty. Many persons are too much
inclined to run into an opposite extreme from that which prevails
in the religious world. While some rely entirely on faith as their
rule of life, others seem to attach too much importance to the want
of faith. The latter cry out loudly that belief cannot save man
kind, but they appear to forget that neither can unbelief. The
world wants deeds—great, noble, and consistent deeds. Society
can only be reformed by works—i. e., by moral acts, which carr^ in
their train all the real blessings of peace, gentleness, kindness, jus
tice, truth, and love. To perform work that will bring about these
desirable results is the highest morality.
Among the systems of moral philosophy that have been promul
gated as guides for human conduct, Utilitarianism occupies the
foremost place. It appears to Secularists as more definite and sat
isfactory than any other, and certainly at the present time it is more
�16
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
generally accepted by thinkers and that class of men whose views
mould the intellectual opinions of the age. The principle of Utili
tarianism has a regard solely to the uses of things ; hence all actions
by it are to be judged of by their use to society, and the morality of
an action will consequently depend upon its utility. An important
question here suggests itself: What is Utility, and how is it to be
judged of and tested ? What, it is urged, may appear useful to one
man, another may regard as altogether useless ; who, therefore, is
to decide respecting the utility of an act ? The answer will be found
in the greatest-happiness principle, which is of itself a modern de
velopment of the doctrine, and somewhat in opposition to the first
form of Utilitarianism. “ Usefulness,” observes David Hume, “is
agreeable, and engages our approbation. This is a matter of fact,
confirmed by daily observation. But useful ? For what ? For
somebody’s interest, surely. Whose interest, then? Not our own
only, for our approbation frequently extends farther. It must,
therefore, be the interest of those who are served by the characters
or action approved of ; and these we may conclude, however re
mote, are not totally indifferent to us. But, opening up this
principle, we shall discover one great source of moral distinction.”
Here it is clear that with Hume the doctrine of utility was intim
ately associated with approbation—in fact, the two were insepar
ably connected. The greatest-happiness principle, as will be seen,
grew very naturally out of this, but is a much more recent devel
opment. '
The utility of acts and objects have doubtless had much to do
with the estimation in which these are held in society, whether the
fact be recognised or not. Hume says : “It seems so natural a
thought to ascribe to their utility the praise which we bestow on
the social virtues that one would expect to meet with this principle
everywhere in moral writers, as the chief foundation of their
reasoning and enquiry. In common life we may observe that the
circumstances of utility is always appealed to; nor is it supposed
that a greater eulogy can be given to any man than to display his
usefulness to the public, and enumerate the services which he has
performed to mankind and to society.” That this is so there can
not be the slightest doubt. Nor is this principle a purely selfish
one, as some have contended, since the use of arts refers not
simply to their operation upon ourselves individually, but upon
society at large. Self-love is no doubt involved here, as, in
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
-
k
fact, it is in everything we do. But self-love is not the ruling
principle any further than that it is identical with the love of hu
manity. The great fact of mutual sympathy here comes in. The
reciprocal feeling of joy or sorrow has been experienced probably
by every person. The pleasures and pains of our fellows affect us
largely, whether we will or no. There is no man so selfish but he
finds his joys increased when they are shared by others, and his
griefs lessened when he sorrows in company. This fact Hume has
worked out at great length, with a view to show why it is that
utility pleases. Viewing Utilitarianism, therefore, as simply a
question of utility in the lowest sense of that word, it is yet a most
potent agent in society, and has much more to do with' forming our
conclusions as to the morality of certain acts than is usually im
agined. The man of use is the man whom society delights to
honour; and very properly, for he is the real benefactor of his
species. To say that a thing is useful is to bestow upon it a high
degree of praise, while no greater condemnation can be passed upon
any piece of work than to say that it is useless. Even the supposed Gods have been estimated by their utility ; for Cicero charges
the Deities of the Epicureans with being useless and inactive, and
declares that the Egyptians never consecrated any animal except
for its utility.
The principle of Utilitarianism as a moral system cannot be said
to have received a definite shape until it was advocated by Jeremy
Bentham. Even with him it did not appear in that clear and
explicit form which John Stuart Mill has since imparted to it. In
his writings we have for the first time something like philosophic
precision. Pleasure and pain are shown to form the basis of utility,
and to furnish us with the means of judging of what is useful and
what is oot.
To speak of pain and pleasure to ordinary persons conveys no ,
idea as to the welfare or otherwise of society, but leads the mind
to revert to its own individual good or evil, and then to impart a.
selfish basis to the whole thing. This was not what was meant by
Bentham, as the following passage from his work will show : “ By
utility is meant that property in any object whereby it tends to
produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this,
in the present case, comes to the same thing), or (what comes
kgain to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain,
•
.
* <
�i8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if
that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the
•community; if a particular individual, then the happiness of that
individual.” Bentham takes great pains to show that the com
munity is a “ fictitious body composed of the individual persons
who are considered as constituting, as it were, its members,” and
that, therefore, the interest of the community is simply “ the sum
•of the interests of the several members who compose it.” He then
goes on to affirm that “ an action may be said to be conformable to
the principle of utility, or, for shortness' sake, to utility (meaning
with respect to the community at large), when the tendency it has
to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has
to diminish it,” which is really another way of saying the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, or, to use a far more preferable
phrase, the greatest amount of happiness for all. “The words
ought and right and wrong, and others of that stamp,” take their
meaning from this principle. This philosophy was full of the prac
tical spirit of the age which gave it birth, and it exhibited an utter
■disregard for the unproductive theories of the past. The idea of
happiness very largely took the place of the old idea of duty,
■wherein was seen a powerful reaction against the sentimental ethics
that had prevailed so long. Its attempt was to base virtue on moral
legislation, rather than on feeling, and to construct an ethical code
out of the most matter-of-fact materials. Thus self sacrifice, which,
of course, is one of the highest and noblest duties of man, is in no
way incompatible with Utilitarianism and the pursuit of happiness;
since, whatever pleasures he who practises self-denial may volun
tarily forego, it is always with a view of procuring, if not for him
self, yet for his fellows, some greater good. The martyr at the
stake, the patriot in the field of battle, the physician penetrating
into the midst of the death-breathing miasma with a view to allevi
ate pain, each feels a sense of satisfaction in the act, which is really
the intensest kind of happiness to himself, and, what is more im.
portant, he is procuring happiness on a large scale for his fellow
creatures. It is not individual, but general, happiness that the
Utilitarian has to keep before his eye as the motive of all his
actions.
Secularism submits that acts are moral which produce the
greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number. This view
i
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
x9
of morality is justified by a knowledge of two important principles
—namely,1 the doctrine of circumstances, and the doctrine that
general utility should be the object of all our endeavours. Secu
larism urges that it is. the duty of society to acknowledge these
principles, to study their operation, and to develop their influence.
The doctrine of circumstances teaches us the mutual relations of
man and society, indicating how they affect and are affected by
each other. The doctrine of utility shows that those relations may
'be improved by the proper encouragement of beneficial influences.
The scientific definition of any particular object of our contempla
tion is, that it is the sum of all the causes which produced it. If
one of the causes which tended to produce that particular pheno
menon had been deducted, or if additional influence had been
added, the result then produced would have differed from the re
sult as it now stands, in precise proportion to the efficacy of the
cause which had been added or withdrawn. Now, Secularism
views human nature in this harmonious light. Man is as much the
consequence of all the causes and circumstances which have affect
ed him and his development previous to and since his birth as any
•one tree or mountain.
The influence of circumstances on human conduct is forcibly
illustrated by a reference to the science of botany. In England
the myrtle is a small shrub or plant, but in the north of Africa it is
an immense tree.
The English lily is remarkably fine and
delicate, but within a few miles of Madrid it is a huge tree of some
ten or fifteen feet in its dimensions. Botanists inform us that this
difference is in consequence of the different circumstances by which
each shrub or plant is surrounded. The influences in Africa and
Spain are more favourable to the extensive development of those
plants than they are in England. The same principle is shown,
■in the various productions of the soil. We take a wild flower
from the woods for the purpose of improving its appearance and
value. It has grown up under what is named natural circum
stances ; we transplant it to a garden, and endeavour to modify its
condition. According to the end we have in .view, so are, to use
technical language, the “ artificial causes” we bring to act upon its
particular condition. We begin with an examination into its con
stitution and character. If it has faults and blemishes, we imme<liately remove those chemical causes, or protect it from those
�20
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
climatic influences which produced such faults. If it be its half
developed beauties which we wish to foster into full maturity, wemultiply and stimulate those conditions which we have discovered
by experience to have a positive influence on the better part
of its nature. The change in its condition and appearance
has been produced by the modification and encouragement
here, discouragement there, depression in one quarter, elevation
in another of causes, all of which were in existence and operation as
much when the flower grew in its wild state as now when it adorns
the house garden with its breadth of foliage. Now to apply this
to the argument under consideration. Secularism may be here
designated as the science of human cultivation. The problem that
it sets to itself with reference to man in his moral relations to so- ✓
ciety is, to bring him from the condition of the wild flower to
that of the garden flower. And as with the uncultivated flower, so
it is in many respects with the wild, uneducated man. The flower
is what it is, and the wild, undisciplined man is what he is, in con
sequence of the aggregate of causes which have made them both
what they are. Secularism recognizes these influences of circum
stances. It cannot, therefore, regard man as naturally bad; onthe contrary, it believes in the goodness of human nature, remem
bering that man frequently lacks improvement as the result of
being surrounded by imperfect conditions, through the neglect of
correct discipline, and a want of proper understanding of his moral
and intellectual faculties.
In any moral system it is essential that not only should the code
laid down be clear, but the motive to obey it should also be made
apparent.
In other words, what is termed the sanction of the
principle must be pointed out. It would be of little value to have
a perfect method in morals unless the sanctions were such as were
likely to influence mankind. Now, Mr. Mill has not overlooked,
this fact in connection with Utilitarianism, but has devoted con
siderable space to its consideration. He seems to think, however,
that no new sanctions are needed for Utilitarianism, since in time
—and in an improved state of society—it will have at command
all the old ones. He says : “ The principle of utility either has,,
or there is no reason why it might not have, all the sanctions which
belong to any other system of morals. These sanctions are either
external or internal.” He then enlarges upon these with a view
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
21
to show that the greater number of them belong as much to Utili
tarianism as to any other ethical code. The sanction of duty, upon
which so much stress is laid by the opponents of Utilitarianism,
becomes as clear and as powerful under the new system as under
■the old. Whatever may be the standard of duty, and whatever
the process by which the idea has been attained, the feeling will
in all cases be very much the same.
The pam occasioned by a
violation of what is called the moral law, constituting what is
usually termed conscience, will be felt quite as keenly when the
law has been arrived at by a Utilitarian process of reasoning, and
when the moral nature has been built up upon Utilitarian princi
ples, as in any other case. The ultimate sanction of all morality
is very much the same—a subjective feeling in our own minds, re
sulting from physical conditions, country, and education.
This, then, is briefly the Utilitarianism which we hold to consti
tute a sufficient guide in morals, and to be worthy to supplant the
■old and erroneous systems that now prevail. As Secularists, we
are content to be judged by this standard. This system we accept
as the ethical code by which we profess to regulate our conduct.
There can hardly be conceived a higher aim than happiness,
-especially the happiness of the race. That perfect happiness is
not attainable we, of course, admit ; but neither is anything else
in perfection. Nothing, however, can be more certain than the
fact that very many of the present causes of unhappiness could be
removed by well-directed effort on the part of society, and the
result be a state of things of which, at the present time, we can
hardly form any conception. The duty of each of us is to do as
much as possible towards bringing this about.
In Mr. Mill’s work upon “ Utilitarianism ” the following passage
•occurs : “ The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals
■utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness ; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure and the absence of pain ; by unhappiness, pain
and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by this theory, much more requires to be said; in
particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and plea
sure ; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these
supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life upon
�22
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
which this theory of morality is grounded—namely, that pleasure and
freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, and that all
desirable things (which are as numerous in the Utilitarian as in any
other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in them
selves, or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the preven
tion of pain.” It must be understood that the word pleasure here
is used in its very highest sense, and includes, consequently, such
enjoyments as arise from the culture of the intellect, the develop
ment of the sentiments, the use of the imagination, and the action
of the emotions. One of the errors into which the opponents of
Utilitarian happiness frequently fall is that of confounding pleasure
with the mere gratification of the animal propensities. If this were
so, the whole system would be a most despicable one, and unworthy
the attention of men of intelligence and moral worth. But it is
not; and he who brings this as a charge against it does so either
in gross ignorance, or with a view to pervert the truth. Perhaps it
was not wise to use the words pleasure and happiness as being syn
onymous, seeing that they are usually employed to mean two very
different things; but the explanation having been given that they
are so used, no one can plead this use as an excuse for falling into
orror on the subject.
Secular morality is based upon the principle that happiness is the
chief end and aim of mankind. And although there are, doubtless,
persons who would warmly dispute this fundamental principle, it is
very questionable whether their objection is not more verbal than
anything else. That all men desire happiness is certain. The
doctrine enunciated in the well-known line of Pope is frequently
quoted, and generally with approval :
“ Oh, happiness I our being’s end and aim.”
When we meet with persons who profess to despise this aspira
tion, it will be generally found that it is only some popular con
ception of happiness of which they are careless, while they really
pursue a happiness of their own, in their own way, with no less
ardour than other people. A definition of happiness itself is not
easy to give. Each person would, were he asked to define it, in all
probability furnish a somewhat different explanation ; but the true
meaning of all would be very much the same. To refer again to
Pope, what truth there is in the following couplet !—
“ Who can define it, say they more or less
Than this, that happiness is.happiness ? ”
�SECULAR' TEACHINGS.
2?
With one it is the culture of the intellect ; with another, the ex
ercise of the emotions ; with a third, the practice of deeds of phil
anthropy and charity ; and with yet another—we regret to say—
the gratification of the lower propensities. In each case it is the
following of the pursuit which most accords with the disposition of
the individual. And wherever this course does not interfere with
the happiness of others, and is not more than counterbalanced by
any results that may arise from it afterwards, it is not only legiti
mate, but moral. Broadly, then, Secular efforts for the attainment
of. happiness may be said to consist in endeavouring to perform
those actions which entail no ill effects upon general society, and
leave no injurious effects upon the actors. Such conduct as is here
intimated involves the practice of truth, self-discipline, fidelity to
conviction, and the avoidance of knowingly acting unjustly to
others.
Mr. Mill points out—and herein he differs from Bentham—that
not only must the quantity of the pleasure of happiness be taken into
consideration, but the quality likewise. He remarks : “ It would
be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is con
sidered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be
disposed to depend on quantity alone.” True, it may not always
be easy to estimate the exact respective value of the different quali
ties of pleasure ; but this is not necessary. An approximation to
it can he obtained without difficulty. In all those who have had
experience both of the higher and lower kinds of pleasure—that
is, of the culture of the intellect and the gratification of the pas
sions—a preference is generally shown, at least in theory, for the
higher. And the rest are in no position to fairly judge. It may be
urged that many a man who possesses the rare wealth of a cultured
mind will be found sometimes grovelling in the mire of sensuality,
thereby showing a preference for a time for the lowest kind of plea
sure. To this it may be replied that the fact is only temporary, and
cannot, therefore, be set against the experience of months and
years—perhaps of the greatest portion of a life ; and, secondly, he
does not in his own opinion, even while descending to indulge in
the lower pleasure, give up his interest in the higher ; so that the
defection cannot be looked upon in the light of an exchange. He
feels that he will be able to go back again to his intellectual pur
suits, and enjoy them as before. Ask him to make, a permanent
exchange—to give up for ever the higher pleasures, on the condition
�24
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
that he shall have a continuance of the lower to his heart’s content,
and probably he will treat the offer with scorn. “ Few human
beings,” observes Mr. Mill, “ would consent to be changed into
any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of
a beast’s pleasure ; no intelligent human being would consent to be
a fool; no instructed person would be an ignoramus ; no person of
feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they
should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better
satisfied with his lot than they with theirs. They would not resign
what they possess more than he for the most- complete satisfaction
of all the desires which they have in common with him.” Those
who neglect their capacities for enjoying the higher pleasures may
probably imagine that their happiness is greatest; but their opinion
on the subject is worthless, because they only know one side. On
this question, therefore, we find a unanimity—at least with all who
are competent to judge of the question.
The most important point to be considered in connection with
this question of Secular happiness is that it is not the pleasure of
the individual that is considered paramount, but of the community
of which he forms a part. The principle of the greatest happiness
is often treated in a discussion of this subject as though it meant
the greatest possible pleasure that the individual can procure for
himself by his acts, regardless of the welfare of his fellow creatures,
which would be selfishness in the extreme. Nothing can be more
unselfish than Secular morality, since the sole object it has in view
is the happiness of the community at large. And every act of the
individual must be performed with this in view, and will be consid
ered moral or not in the proportion in which this is done. In cor
roboration of this view, Mr. Mill truly remarks : “ According to
the greatest-happiness principle, as above explained, the ultimate
end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are
desira-ble (whether we are considering our own good or that of other
people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as
rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality;
the test of quality and the rule for measuring it against quantity
being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of ex
perience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness
and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of compari
son. This being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of
human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
25
may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human con
duct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been
described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all
mankind ; and not to them only, but to the whole sentient creation.”
Two facts of great importance are to be noticed in this extract;
first, that happiness is the end of existence, and that all human
■effort should be bent as far as possible to the attainment of this
•object; and, secondly, that here, and here only, can the true stan
dard of morality be found. The second principle flows as a neces
sary consequence from the first. All human action must, therefore,
be brought to the test of how far it is conducive to the promotion
of the greatest happiness of society at large. The consistent per
formance df such action will tend to promote the Secular idea of
human happiness and the welfare of mankind.
The question is asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adher
ents as being superior to theological and other speculative theories
•of the day ? The answer is (1) because we believe its moral basis
to be more definite and practical than other existing ethical codes ;
and (2) because Secular teachings appear to us to be more reason
able and of greater advantage to general society than the various
theologies of the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in particular.
First, compare Secular views of morality with the numerous and
■conflicting theories that have been put forward at various times on
the important topic of moral philosophy. From most of those
theories it is not easy to reply satisfactorily to the question, Why
is one act wrong and another right ? The.re is no difficulty, gen
erally speaking, in pointing out what acts are vicious and what
others virtuous ; but to say why one is immoral and another moral
is a very different matter. Ask for a definition of virtue, and you
receive in reply an illustration. You will be told that it is wrong
to lie, to steal, to murder, etc.—about which there is no dispute ;
but why it is wrong to indulge in these acts, and right to perform
others, is the business of ethical science to discover. But here
again the method that will be resorted to, with a view to reply to(
this query, will depend upon the moral code believed in by the per
son to whom the question is put. This method it is, in point of
fact, which constitutes what is called ethical science. On looking
over the history of moral philosophy, apart from Secularism, we
find such diversified and conflicting theories advanced on this sub-
' J
/
>
�26
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ject that it is frequently difficult to arrive at the conclusion that
there can be any certainty in the matter whatever. Some hold,
with Dr. Samuel Clarke, that virtue consists in the fitness of things;
others, with Adam Smith, discover its basis in Sympathy ; others,
with Dr. Reed, Dr. Thomas Brown, and Dugald Stewart, contend
for a moral sense ; another class, with Miss Cobbe, maintain, that
there is such a thing as intuitive morality ; others, with Paley, as
sert that virtue consists in doing good to mankind in obedience to
the will of God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness ; others,
with Dr. Johnson, are content with the will of God as a basis, with
out adding the motive introduced by Paley; and yet others, with
George Combe, fancy they have a key to the whole thing in phren
ology. Now, all these theories are resolvable broadly into three
great classes—first, those who regard the “ will of God ” as the
basis of moral action ; secondly, those who contend that the true
guide of man in morality is something internal to himself—call it
conscience, moral sense, intuition, or any other name that you
please to give it; and, thirdly, those who urge that moral science
is, like other science, to be discovered by the study of certain ex
ternal facts. To the latter of these the Utilitarian or Secular sys
tem belongs.
A small section of professing Christians have now given up the
will of God as the groundwork of their morality. This, however,
seems to us inconsistent with their faith, for the following reasons .i. If the Bible God be the father of all, surely to act in accordance
with his will should be the best guide in life. 2. Christian morality
is supposed to consist of the teachings of the Bible, the alleged
record of the will of God. 3. If God’s will is not the basis of Chris
tian ethics,.what is, from the Christian standpoint ? As Secular
ists, we cannot regulate our conduct by the Bible records of God’s,
will, inasmuch as " that book is so thoroughly contradictor}' in its
interpretation of the said will. In one passage the killing of human
beings is forbidden by God, and in another passage special instruc
tions are given by the same being to commit the prohibited crime.
The same conflicting injunctions are to be found in the “ inspired
word ” in reference to adultery, lying, retaliation, love, obedience to
parents, forgiveness, individual and general salvation, and many
other acts which form part of the conduct of human life.
As to the internal guide to morality, nothing can be more clear
than the fact that, even if man possesses a moral sense with which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
*7
he is born into this world, and which is inherent in his nature, its
teachings are not very distinct, and the code of law based upon it
is by no means definite. For not only do the inhabitants of differ
ent countries vary considerably in regard to the dictates of con
science, according to the nature of their education, but the people
of the same country will be found to be by no means agreed as to
what is right and what wrong, except in a few well-marked deeds.
One man feels a conscientious objection to doing that which an
other man will positively believe to be a praiseworthy act. In this,
as in other matters, education is all-potent over the mental char
acter. It would indeed be difficult to reconcile these facts with the
existence of any intuitive moral power.
Recognizing the difficulties and drawbacks pertaining to the
above theories, Secularists seek for a solution of this moral-philo
sophy problem elsewhere—that is to say, in the eternal results of
the acts themselves upon society, and in the effects that invariably
spring from them whenever they are performed. , It must be dis
tinctly understood that we do not claim perfection for our mor?l
code ; but we do believe that it is the best known at the present
time, and that it is free from many of the objectionable features,
which belong to those theories which we, as Secularists, cannot ac
cept. It may be urged, as an objection to the external test of the
result of action, that it tends to make morality shifting and depen
dent verymuch upon the circumstances existing at the time. This
is doubtless true ; but it is of no value as an argument against the
doctrine of utility. For is not all that we have to do with subject
to the same law of variation? Fashions change, customs alter,
and even religions become considerably modified by external cir
cumstances. The following stanza in Lord Byron’s “ ^hilde Har
old ” portrays a great truth :—
. 1
“ Son of the morning, rise, approach you here ;
Come, but molest not yon defenceless urn.
Look on this spot, a nation’s sepulchre :
Abode of gods, whose shrines no longer burn.
Even gods must yield, religions take their turn ;
’Twas Jove’s, ’tis Mahomet’s ; and other creeds
Will rise with other years, till man shall learn
Vainly his incense soars, his victim bleeds ;
Poor child of doubt and death, whose hope is built on reeds 1”
�*8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
V.—ETHICS AND RELIGION.
Throughout the history of mankind morality and religion have
been two potent factors in influencing the formation of human
character. By the term morality is understood the principle which
rules and regulates the customs and habits of society; and the
word religion is employed to represent Theistic beliefs or aspira
tions which are said to be possessed by a majority of the human
race. In connection with these two factors the arts of sacerdotal
ism and priestcraft have associated the error that religion and
morality are really identical; that the two are mutually interde- *
pendent, and to sever them would be absolutely fatal to both.
The fact is that morality was distinct from religion in its origin,
and the two have, in many important instances, remained so up to
the present in their development. The origin of the first forms of
religion of which we have any record was fear and the prostration
of reason; while that of morality was the outcome of intellectual
culture and thoughtful experience. This fact has been clearly
shown in a very able work entitled “ The Morals of Evolution,” by
Minot J. Savage. On page thirty-one he observes : Religion
and morality were totally distinct in their origin. At first they had
nothing to do with each other. Religion was simply an arrange
ment between man and his gods, by which he was to gain their
favour or ward off their wrath. Morality, on the other hand, is a
matter of behaviour between man and man.” On pages twentyfour and twenty-five Mr. Savage says : “ Go far enough back into
antiquity to come to the time when large numbers of men were
fetish worshippers; when the object of their adoration, their
reverence, or fear, is a stick, or a stone, or a reptile. Of course,
you will understand in a moment that the worship of an object like
this cannot be associated in the mind of a worshipper with any
necessity for telling the truth, with any necessity for being pure,
with any necessity for being charitable and kind towards his fel
lows.” The same principle is enforced in the case of the Indian
devotee, who fasts and torments himself, not that he may benefit
mankind morally by his sufferings, but solely in order that he may
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
2g
acquire favour and power with the gods Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva. Such a man is very religious, but he is not necessarily a
mbral man, for, if his fellow men were to emulate his example, the
human race would be enervated, if not become extinct.
A similar proof as to the ancient differentiation between religion
and morality can be found in the Old Mexican religion, and also in
the Old Testament record of the dealings of Jehovah with the
Hebrew people. Jacob was religious, but certainly not very re
markable for morality; as indeed were Samson, David, Jephthah,
and other characters in the Hebrew records. It was not morality
which induced Joshua to command the unmerciful slaughter of
the Canaanitish men, women and children. It was not morality
which led Samuel, God’s high-priest, to murder Agag, whom even
Saul would have spared ; nor that prompted David to kill the
Philistines, while he himself was the honoured recipient of Philis
tine hospitality. Such actions cannot be defended morally ; but
religiously they can ; and they have been vindicated and excused
by Christian teachers and preachers.
Not only have religion and morality been dissociated in the past,
but we know that they have been kept far from each other in the
immediate present. Need reference be made to those most iniquit
ous, immoral wars, not many years since, in Zululand and Afghan
istan ? Did not Christian bishops from their seats in the English
Parliament openly express their approval of the cold-blooded and
sanguinary policy which brought down upon the nation the
opprobrium due to the cowardly and uncalled-for assailer and
despoiler of the weak, the unprotected, and the semi-savage; a
policy which directly led to national suffering, national poverty,'
national degradation and humiliation, and which caused the blush
of shame to mantle the cheek of every true-hearted Englishmanpossessed of a virtuous zeal for the reputation of his native land ?
Mr. Gladstone publicly declared his sorrow at finding so many of
his co-religionists going woefully, fatally wrong in matters of
national morality. His words were : “ To my great pain and dis
appointment, I have found during the last three years that thou
sands of Churchmen supplied the great mass of those who have
gone lamentably wrong upon questions involving deeply the in
terests of truth, justice and humanity. I should hear with much
comfort any satisfactory explanation of this very painful circum-
�30
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
stance.” It is not here contended that morality is never associated
with religion, but rather that the two are not necessarily allied,
and that there is no lack of instances where the one is to be found
professed and acted upon without the other.
The highest forms of religion to-day bear upon them the impress
•of that morality which has gradually grown with our growth and
strengthened with our strength ; it is morality that has modified
religion, not religion that has modified morality. This will explain
in some measure why it is that men to-day are not worshippers of
fetiches ; that they have not deities of the wood, the mountain, and
the cave; that the Christianity of to-day is more humane than it
was in the time of the Inquisition ; that it now reprobates offences
which but four centuries ago it was wont to excuse and condone.
The morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their kindly
charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—all these spring
directly from their long-acquired and developed experience.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives no assistanceTrom orthodox Christianity, based as it is upon what is re
garded as a divine revelation from God to man. Such a system is
incapable of promoting the moral development of humanity. This
can only be effectually done by the action of those social, political,
and intellectual forces to which we a¥e indebted, as it were, for the
building up of man from the very first institution of society. These
have been, are, and ever must be, the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is by
them that we are what we are. It is (i) the social activities that
have led to the formation, maintenance, and improvement of human
society; (2) the political activities that have led to the formation,
maintenance, and improvement of the general government, to the ’
establishment of States or nations, and to the recognition of the
mutual rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
activities that have led to the interchange of human thoughts, to
the formation of literature, to the pursuits of science and art, to
the banishment of ignorance and the decay of superstition ; to the
diffusion of knowledge, and, finally, to all that mental progress
which so widely removes the ci.vilized man from the savage.
The manner in which society has been built up has been clearly
shown by Mr. Spencer in his “ Data of Ethics ; ” but we need no
learned disquisition or treatise to convince us of what is a self-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
31
evident fact. By experience we learn all things ; as the homely
proverb has it, “ the burnt child dreads the fire.” So, in the early
ages of society, men had to learn from experience what was good
and what was bad for society. In the early stages of national
governments nations had to discover what was conducive to the
welfare, and what detrimental to the well-being, of a State. The
exercise of man’s intellectual activities has also been purely empiri
cal, or experimental. In literature, science, and art, the records of
the past ages have been records of continually growing experiences.
We are wiser to-day than our fathers were, because we possess all
their experiences plus our own. Upon the same principle, subse
quent generations will be superior to us, inasmuch as they will
have additional experience to guide them to what we possess. Our
morality is the resultant, the outcome of experiences, and wise
action based thereon. Intelligent men no longer slay hundreds of
thousands of sheep and oxen in sacrifice ; desolate other regions •
massacre myriads of their fellow men ; burn heretics at the stake ;
or condemn a race to perdition because of their unbelief. Society
would no longer tolerate the infliction of the tortures of the Inqui
sition, or the intolerant decrees of the Star Chamber ; and
why ? simply because our social, political, and intellectual experi
ences have shown us how utterly absurd, cruel, and ridiculous all
those past follies have been. What has altered all this ? It can
not be said that Christianity, the Bible, and the Church have pro
duced the change. All these orthodox agencies existed amid the
human weaknesses and wrongs referred to ; but the present im
proved moral sense did not then obtain, hence the immoral acts.
This, then, constitutes the practical ethics of time—namely, our
social, political, and intellectual status, and we are proportionately
more moral in the present era as we are socially, politically, and
intellectually superior to what our forefathers were. The orthodox
revelation has really had nothing whatever to do with this improve
ment, because revelation from a God to man cannot logically
change or modify itself; it must be, like the laws of the Medes
and Persians, wholly unalterable, “ the same yesterday, to-day^
and forever.” This, indeed, is what orthodox religionists claim for
what they call their morality—that it never changes. But such a
contention is fatal to their claim to possess a truly humanitarian
system of morality. The very essence of such a system is its
�32 '
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
adaptability to the ever-varying necessities and circumstances of
mankind. It is not here contended that prudence, honesty, benevo
lence, must ever change their inherent nature. On the contrary,,
they will ever be binding upon man ; but for what reason ? Merely
because he cannot exist justly and happily without them. He must
be prudent or he loses his all, and thus becomes a burden on
others ; he must be honest, or he will be a criminal to society, and
will not be able to have any guarantee for his own rights and for
the safety of his own possessions ; he must be benevolent, or else
he will neglect his duty to others, and the old age of iron will return,
with its law of might making right, and the despotic rule of the
strong over the weak.
This is what is meant when we affirm that we can have no fixed
rule of morality. It is said, however, that without such a fixed
rule for conduct, all guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not
so ; Secularism recognizes a safe and never-erring basis for moral
action, which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman,
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad general
maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the supreme law.”
This may be taken as a fundamental principle for all time and all
nations. The kind of action which will produce such well-being
depends, of course, upon individual and national circumstances,
varied in their character and diversified in their influence. Rulesof life, “ revealed ” eighteen hundred years ago, do not meet the
requirement and satisfy the genius of to-day. This progressive
morality is the principle of the Utilitarian ethics which now govern
the civilized world. It is not merely the individual, but society at
large, that is considered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual bee
labours only for individual necessities. No ; but that all is sub
ordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the drones increase,
they are expelled or restricted, and well would it be for our human
society if all drones who resisted improvement were banished from
among us. In the moral world, as in religious societies, there are
too many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the good
conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing to contribute
to the store of the ethical hive.
It has been intimated that a higher and still further improved
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
33
condition of society is before us. The true ethical standard of the
future will doubtless be based upon the recognition of the primal
truth that it must always be right to act for the welfare of society.
One consequence of this will be that it will be our duty to promote
our individual interests. No man can do this without indirectly
benefiting his neighbour, so that from the increased good of the one
springs the increased good of the many.
The welfare of humanity does not necessarily depend upon the (
belief in a Deity or a future state. “ The proper study of mankind
is man.” The wisest of the Romans, the great statesman and phil
osopher, Cicero, taught his son that man’s morality was the neces
sary result of reasoning built upon human necessities. Robert
Owen gave practical meaning and force to this teaching, by incul
cating principles the adoption of which would assuredly end in the
establishment of a new moral world. Such a world, we believe,
lies before us—a world wherein every human character shall be
formed upon principles based upon right-knowing and right-doing,
upon the enforced expulsion of ignorance and the removal of the
causes of evil. If religion is to be retained in the future, the only
religion which will be worthy of the name as a binding system will
'be one in which the good of all faiths shall be retained, and from
which their errors shall be eliminated ; a religion based, not upon
supernatural figments and allegories, but upon the eternal laws of
nature and the laws of that great kingdom of human nature whose
only monarch and subject is man. He it is who must be regarded
as the foremost actor in the great drama of life. Down through the
ages we trace his footsteps, from the time when he appears totter,
ing as the infant, to the present age wherein he is learning to stand
erect. How gradual, indeed, has his progress been, with what
slow and faltering steps has he gone on from generation to genera
tion, from century to century. Truly, it has been a long and a toil- <
some journey that he has trodden ; a journey over rough rocks,
through brambles, briers, and thickets of ignorance; but, happily,
the race has contrived always to keep the true light somewhere be
fore it, although many a false light has been held up to mislead it»
“ Through the shadow of the globe we sweep into the perfect day.1
�34
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
VI. SECULARISM AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
It is very desirable that the teaching of Secularism in reference to
the supernatural should be clearly understood. What does this
term really mean ? Etymologically it signifies, super (“ above ”) and
natura (“ nature ”)—that is, something above, greater than, or dis
tinctly higher than, nature, or things natural, as these phrases are
ordinarily, employed. This word nature mankind has used in a
duplicate manner. Thus we talk of nature when we refer to what
philosophers term the cosmos, or the whole of the things percep
tible to the senses, from the rose and its delicate fragrance to the
planets, comets, suns, stars, and their motions. The other appli
cation of this term is to the constitution, mental and physical, of
man regarded as a living animal and as a rational being. When
used in the latter sense, the word is generally conjoined to another,
thus making the compound, “ human nature.”
The word superhuman would probably be more appropriate than
supernatural. Still, if the latter phrase is intended only to con
vey the idea of something beyond general human experience, then
it is not difficult to understand the meaning of its use. For ex
ample, take the old illustration ; we can readily imagine a creature
formed like the idol Dagon, of the Philistines, which was repre
sented as being half fish, half woman. We can also create other
mental visions which would, in their extreme grotesqueness, put to
shame the ogres and chimeras of romance, but these would be
supernatural in the above signification of the word, inasmuch as
their archetypes were never known to man in any stage of his pro
gress through the ages. Hence it may be possible to conceive
a thing supernatural so far as human nature is concerned; but
.how, it may be asked, are we to determine with respect to the
cosmos, to that universal nature of which the human nature forms,
after all, but a part ?
This question goes to the very root of the matter, and much
more, both in philosophy, science, and religion, depends upon our
answer than might, at first sight, be supposed. “ How are we to
determine as to what is supernatural with regard to the universe ?”
Man is, it will be urged, confessedly a finite being. His faculties
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
35
•of perception, his powers of seeing, hearing, etc., are limited. How,
then, it may be asked, is it possible for man to determine what
realities may exist either “ in the earth beneath” or in the heavens
above ? The reply to this is, that human nature is the key of uni
versal nature ; that the non-apparent is to man the non-existent;
and that those things must be considered by man as things above
nature of which no perception or demonstration can be possible.
If by the term supernatural is meant a personal being above and
apart from nature, then Secularism says: Such a problem it leaves
for each mind to decide, if it can, for itself. Being unable to in' form, the Secularist should refuse to dogmatize upon a subject
upon which he can impart no information. In the opinion of the
present writer Secularism has no necessary connection with any
form of Theism. If it be asked whether or not a Theist can be
a Secularist, the answer is, It depends upon the nature of his
Theism. A consistent believer in the Bible God cannot be a
genuine Secularist. On the other hand, if a Theist believes that
he can best serve and love and honour his God by serving, loving,
and honouring his fellow-men, and by making the most of this
life, then he may be an admirable Secularist.
The lesson of history is that the mystic and dogmatic teachings
in reference to the existence of a Supernatural Being have ever
been fraught with wrong to man. The records of the past are
ample proof of this. Whether it be Pagans with their deities,
Jews with their Jehovah, or Christians with their Trinity, all such
theologisms have brought forth cruelty, oppression, and intolerance.
Truth, virtue and love are the three elements which should go to
wards the foundation of human conduct. They formed its basis
in the case of Buddhism, in the humanitarianism of Auguste
Comte, and in the great science of man’s true education and en
lightened benevolence, as promulgated by that great philanthropist
and philosopher, Robert Owen.
From the historical development of the churches’ idea of the
Supernatural it will be seen that it has never been a necessary
factor in human elevation. We should, therefore, apart from all
such vague speculation, learn how to perform aright the duties and
requirements of life. The true way to effect this is to work for the
improvement of Humanity, and this can be done by the forma
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
�36
r
r
It
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
correct conduct, which enriches it, and by securing the triumph of
the better part of our natures, which dignifies it.
Ethical unity is the proper basis of true benevolence. This
great human instinct is not dependent upon any form of Super
naturalism for its manifestation ; its activity is evoked by a
desire to alleviate the sufferings of the afflicted, and to enhance
the happiness of the unfortunate. To aid in securing a fair oppor
tunity for the exercise of this benevolence prompts Secularists to
aim at correcting every cherished error by the substitution of a true
knowledge of the natural for the old doubtful speculations as to the
alleged Supernatural.
The Church proclaims that love to God is the basis of religion ;
Secularism, on the other hand, teaches that the principle that
fosters the development of virtue, happiness and nobility of char
acter is service to man. This is practical morality, and experience
demonstrates that it is superior as a reforming agency to Super
natural beliefs. For eighteen hundred years the Supernatural
notion has been incorporated into the Church. “ To it has been,
given all power. Its hand has wielded every sword. Every
cannon has stood ready charged to second its command. Every
crown has received its blessing; every standing army its prayers
and the training of its priests. But what has it done to establish
justice and truth in the earth ? Let the dungeons of the Inqui
sition make answer. Let the gibbets, whose chains hang heavily
freighted with skeletons, rattle in your ear. Ask the millions of
ragged, starving paupers, covered with filth and vermin, on their
knees to the few who are covered with diamonds and royal in
signia, to sing its triumphs. Alas, poor wretches ! blinded by
ignorance, they do; but their song breathes no hope for this
world. Let the millions, upon whom it rivets its fetters of slavery,
tell how it brought them glad tidings. Let the prisons, glutted
with men and women, their hearts filled with savage hate produced
by the cruelty and vengeance of our criminal laws, illustrate its
beauty. Let the thousands of brothers, sustained by the degrada
tion and ignorance it has cursed the bodies of men and women
with, in order to save their souls, establish its power to cleanse the
world with blood. Let the millions who, after toiling ten hours a
day, cannot satisfy the bare necessities of life, the thousands of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
37
■white-faced and sad-hearted children toiling’ in the factories, wit
ness to its power to make men just and kind. In the name of rea
son and humanity, is this morality ? Are these things right ? Is
this the ought-to-be, to which all must yield in the spirit of faith ?
Must we continue to say that man is born to misery, as the sparks
Uy upward, and that all this is but just punishment for our sins ?
Are we always to have the poor with us, because even the revised ,
New Testament says so ? Are the powers that be ordained of
•God ? Is there in reality a Devil, an almost infinite fiend, who is
permitted to go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may
devour ?”
These are the errors and delusions and impotent views taught by
believers in the Supernatural, and is it not time that such evils and
weaknesses were removed, and a course of action adopted to avoid
their repetition ? To perform this task effectually, we must incul
cate the truth that right and wrong have their foundation in the
mind of man, and not in Supernatural ideas. A cultivated reason
and a well-trained judgment are the surest guarantees for noble
actions and benevolent and just consideration for others. This
may not be religion, but it is the teaching of Secularism ; and in
proportion as it is adopted by mankind, so shall we advance to the
physical, moral and intellectual regeneration of our race.
VII. SECULARISM AT THE HOUR OF DEATH.
It is ,a favourite, and, as they seem to think, an effec
tive argument of the Christians, that, although Secularism
may do very well in healthy life, it fails in sickness
and at the -hour of death.
Were this supposition true, it
would be but a poor compliment to Christianity. If its chief
use is for the sick or dying, it is a mere drug or anodyne, things
which are abominable to the strong and healthy, instead of being
wholesome food and drink. A dose of opium would be just as
good. The only religion or philosophy which should command our
allegiance is one that supplies a sound rule of life, a principle by'
which we may live well, not by which we may die easily. Very
few instances of Christian resignation equal the calmness and
indifference with which any ordinary Eastern submits to death
when death can no longer be avoided. The stories still current
�38
„
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
among the more ignorant of orthodox Christians of the terrible. death of eminent Freethinkers have again and again proved to be
but pious frauds. Even were they true, they are counterbalanced
by the accounts given themselves of the deaths of very religious
persons, haunted and agitated almost to their last moments by
dreadful fears of perdition. But, in fact, as those who have had a.
large death-bed experience, can testify, nearly all men die serenely,,
without reference to their faith or want of faith. Fallen into,
extreme weakness, they cannot feel strongly on any subject; the
past, the present, and the future are but as dim dreams, in which
their languor takes but the faintest interest; life slips very
easily from the relaxed grasp; exhausted with the long struggle,,
they are not only willing, but rather anxious to sleep.
But, apart from these considerations, let us take the case of a
consistent Secularist lying for weeks upon a sick-bed, regarding
with lucid mind the certain approach of death. What has he tofear ? If he has been faithful to his convictions, acting up con
sistently to the light which his intellectual industry has acquired,,
why should the honest Secularist have any dread as to any here
after? His life has been glad and he has made the most of it; he
has drained the cup of its wine to the lees, and can retire satisfied
to slumber after the banquet. Or his life has been stern, and still
he has made the most of it; he has fought its battle to the bitter
end; and wounded, worn out, and broken down, must rejoice when
he can sink to rest. There surely should be no forebodings in the
forethought that the sleep maybe eternal. As John Stuart Mill
finely says in concluding his posthumous Essay on the “ Utility of
Religion,” which, unlike the following Essay on Theism,was writtenbefore his mind was shaken by the loss of his idolized wife : “I
cannot but think that as the condition of mankind becomes im
proved, as they grow happier in their lives, and more capable of
deriving happiness from unselfish sources, they will care less and
less for this flattering expectation (of a future life). It is not,,
naturally or generally, the happy who are the most anxious either
. for a prolongation of the present life, or for a life hereafter; it
is those who never have been happy. They who have had their
happiness can bear to part with existence ; but it is hard to die
without ever having lived. When mankind cease to need a
future existence as a consolation for the sufferings of the present,,
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
39
it will have lost its chief value to them, for themselves. I am now
speaking of the unselfish. Those who are so wrapped up in self,
that they are unable to identify their feelings with anything which
will survive them, or to feel their life prolonged in their younger
contemporaries, and all who help to carry on the progressive move
ment of human affairs, require the notion of another selfish life
beyond the grave, to ■ enable them to keep up any interest in exist
ence..............But if the Religion of Humanity were as sedulously
cultivated as the supernatural religions are (and there is no difficulty
in conceiving that it might be much more so), all who had received
the customary amount of moral cultivation would up to the
hour of death live ideally in the life of those who are to follow
them; and though, doubtless, they would often willingly survive as
individuals for a much longer period than the present duration of
life, it appears to me probable that after a length of time, different
in different persons, they would have had enough of existence, and
would gladly lie down and take their eternal rest.........................The
mere cessation of existence is no evil to any one ; the idea is only
formidable through the illusion of imagination which makes one
conceive oneself as if one were alive and feeling oneself dead.
What is odious in death is not death itself, but the act of
dying and its lugubrious accompaniments, all of which
must be equally undergone by the believer in immortality.”
And in the final sentence: “It seems to me not only pos
sible but probable, that in a higher, and, above all, a
happier condition of human life, not annihilation but immor
tality, may be the burdensome idea ; and that human nature,
though pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to
quit it, would find comfort and not sadness in the thought that
it is not chained through eternity to a conscious existence, which
it cannot be assured it will always wish to preserve.” In this
thought Mr. Mill was anticipated by Lord Bacon in his fine frag
ment on Death : “I have often thought upon death, and I find it
the least of all evils. All that which is past is a dream ; and he
that hopes or depends upon time coming, dreams waking.........
Physicians in the name of death include all sorrow, anguish,
disease, calamity, or whatsoever can fall in the life of man, grievous
or unwelcomebut these things are familiar unto us, and we suffer
them every hour, therefore we die daily. I know many wise men
�40
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who tear to die ; for the change is bitter, and flesh would refuse to
prove it; besides, the expectation brings terror, and that exceeds
the evil. But I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but
only the stroke of death.” If there be an eternal sleep, it promises
the positive gain of release from all suffering and sorrow, while the
seeming loss of pleasure is cancelled by unconsciousness. If we
are not to see our loved ones more we shall have no wish to see
them, and soon also they will have no wish to see us. And so with
every other apparent privation. The dreamless slumberer desires
nothing, regrets nothing. “ There the wicked cease from troubling;
and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together ;
they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great
are there ; and the servant is free from his master.”
The orthodox believers assure us that Christianity is necessary
to enable a person to die happily. Is not this the height of folly,
and a reflection upon the alleged goodness of God ? Are all the
other religions in the world impotent in this particular ? If, as I
have shown in my pamphlet, “ Secularism, Destructive and Con
structive,” we estimate the various religions of the world which
conflict with each other, more or less, at one hundred-a very
moderate calculation—there can only be one that is true, so that
the Christian has only one chance out of a hundred, while there
are ninety-nine chances against him. What, then, is the difference
between the Christian and the Secularist ? The one rejects ninetynine, and the other goes “ one better ” and rejects the whole hun
dred. But the Secular position does not rest even upon this. If
God be just, he can never punish a man for not believing that
which his reason and judgment tell him is wrong. If we have to
appear before a heavenly tribunal, is it to be supposed that such
questions will be asked as, “ To what church did you belong ?
What creed or dogma did you accept ? ” Is it not more rational to
believe that if any inquiries are made they will be, “ Were you true
to yourselves and just to others ? ” “ Did you strive to make the
best of existence in doing all the good you could ? ” “ Were you
true, morally and intellectually ? ” If the answers are given
honestly in the affirmative, then no one need fear the result. It is
degrading to the character of any God even to think that he would
punish one to whom, on earth, he did not think fit to vouchsafe the
faculty of discerning his existence, for honestly avowing that he
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
41
■did not discern it, for not professing to see clearly when the eyes
he thought fit to give saw nothing. Would he not be apt, if at all,
to punish those (and they are very numerous) who, not seeing,
confidently assert distinct vision ? If we act honestly and man
fully according to the best light we can obtain ; if we love our
fellow-men whom we know, and try to be just in all our dealings,
surely we are making the best preparation for any future life ; the
best preparation for the higher knowledge, the clearer vision, the
heavenly beatitudes. Though we are execrated and condemned
by the tender mercies of human bigots, we may, if we have lived
as true Secularists, commit ourselves without dread to an infinitely
good and wise God, if he is the loving father of all his children.
We can die without fear, as we have lived without hypocrisy.
“ What if there be a God above,
A God of truth, of light and love;
Will he condemn us ? It was he
Who gave the light that failed to see.
If he be just who reigns on high,
Why should the Secularist fear to die?**
VIII, SECULARISM IN THEORY.
The theory of Secularism is simply that this life and this world
in which we live demand and will reward our utmost cultivation;
that the instruments of this cultivation are reason and social effort;
that the harvest to be reaped from it is happiness, general and
individual.
Looking at the world/we are convinced by what human reason
has already discovered in it, and by the experience which has veri
fied the discoveries, that it is perfect order, in the sense that its
operations follow unvarying laws, that the like antecedents have
always the like consequents. This immutable constancy of what
are termed the Laws of Nature, gives us a stable foundation on
which to build up physical science and all the arts which are the
applications of such science. The laws we know we cannot change;
but the more we learn of them the better we can adapt ourselves
�42
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
and the conditions of our life to them, the better we can avoid such
of their workings as would be otherwise harmful to us, the better
we can avail ourselves of all in their workings which is profitable
to us. Thus Secularism regards science as the true Providence;
and affirms that by persistent careful study of Nature, and per
sistent application of the results of that study, this Providence
can be made to yield ever richer and richer benefits to our race.
Looking at mankind, we are convinced in the same manner, that
human nature, no less than nature in general, is the subject of
unvarying laws, that in it also the like antecedents have always
the like consequents; and the stability of law in this domain gives
us firm ground on which to build up physiological, psychological,
and sociological science, and the political and social constitutionswhich are the applications of such science. These laws also we
know we cannot change; but in their case also the more we learn
of them the better we can adapt ourselves and the conditions of
our life to them, the better we can avoid their injurious and avail
ourselves of their beneficial workings. So that here also Secular
ism regards science as the true Providence ; and affirms that by
the study of Man, and the application of the results of that study,
this Providence can be wrought to confer ever richer and richer
boons on our race.
As for the controversy between virtue and happiness, which is in
a great measure a mere contest as to words, we know how the
great name of Epicurus was almost from the first degraded by his
opponents into a great synonym for the pursuit of coarse sensuous
pleasure, in the term Epicureanism. But why should this happi
ness, which Utilitarianism teaches us to seek in common, be spoken
of as something mean ? The great object of Christian life is to gain
eternal happiness in heaven, and we do not find that such happi
ness is supposed to be concerned only with sensual joys; on the
contrary, it is assumed to involve all the most sacred emotions and
aspirations, to include all the beatitudes. It is such happiness, in
so far as it shall prove to be attainable, that Secularism seeks to
realise, not in heaven but on earth, not in eternity but in time>
not for elect individuals here and there, but for all mankind. This
happiness implies, firstly, material well-being, sufficiency of food,,
clothing and houseroom, with good air, good water, and good
sanitary conditions : for these things are necessary to bodily health’
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
43
and this is essential to the health of the mind, and only in health
is real happiness possible. Again, it implies mental well-being,
sufficiency of instruction and education for every one, so that his
intellect may be nourished and developed to the full extent of its
capabilities. Given the sound mind in the sound body, it further
implies free exercise of these, absolutely free in every respect so
long as it does not trench on the equal rights of others, or impede
the common good. In this full development of mind as well as
body, it need scarcely be said that true happiness brings into its
service all the noblest and most beautiful arts of life. Some per
sons seem to fancy that Secularists have nothing to do with music,
painting, sculpture, care nothing for the glories and grandeurs of
the world, have no part in the treasures of the imagination ; as if
there were no utility in any of these. But we recognize in them
the very high utility of touching to rapture some of the finest
chords in our nature ; we know and feel just as well as others, and
perhaps better than most, since we give ourselves more to the scien
tific study of man, that there are different kinds and degrees of
enjoyment, and that some kinds are far superior to others, and we
know how to value the superior as compared with the inferior.
But yet more, this social happiness implies all the great virtues
in those who can attain and keep it. Wisdom, for without this,
transitory and selfish pleasures will be continually mistaken for
happiness; and even with a desire for the common good, this good
will be misconceived, and the wrong means taken to secure it.
Fortitude, to bear when necessary, and the necessity in the present
state of the world is as frequent as it is stern, deprivation of per
sonal comfort rather than stifle our aspirations and relax our efforts
for the general interest. Temperance, for with excess no per
manent happiness is possible. Magnanimity, for only by aid of
this virtue can we keep steadily in view, as the sole aim of all our
striving, the sole aim worthy of true men and women, the greatest
good of the greatest number ; all littlemindedness ever turns to
selfishness. Truth, for without it the stability of society could not
be maintained. Justice, and above all else Justice, for it is the
profound and unchangeable conviction of the equal rights of all
which alone can inspire and impel us to seek the freedom and
happiness of all, oppressions since the world began having been
based on injustice, the oppressors exaggerating their own rights at
�44
SECULAR teachings
the expense of those of the oppressed. And to these great virtues
of the mind, we must add, as essential to this true happiness, what
are commonly called the virtues of the heart, the fervour of Zeal
or Enthusiasm, and the finer fervour of Benevolence, Sympathy,
or, to use the best name, Love. For if Wisdom gives the requisite
light, Love alone can give the requisite vital heat; Wisdom climb
ing the arduous mountain solitudes, must often let the lamp slip
from her benumbed fingers, must often be near perishing in fatal
lethargy amidst ice and snow-drifts, if love be not there to cheer
and revive her with the glow and the flames of the heart’s quench
less fires.
Seeing thus what qualities and energies are required in those
who would win this happiness for themselves and their fellows, or
would even advance but a little the great day of its advent, we
are surely entitled to ask, What virtue can be more noble than
this ? What more lofty and unselfish object can be proposed for
human effort than this of destroying ignorance, oppression, and
suffering, of instituting enlightenment, freedom and • happiness ?
We believe that the final test of any so-called virtue, as of any
action, is the question, Does it tend to the common good ? If it
does, we hold it in esteem, and in some cases in reverence; if it
does not, however fine the name it bears, we look upon it as an
error, and in some cases as a vice or crime.
IX. SECULARISM IN PRACTICE.
Secularism is clearly a theory of action, to be realized in conduct;
not a theory of speculation, which may be held without influencing
our every-day life. The theory of Secularism is a theoryof War
against theological pretensions; and the warfare to which it applies
is continual, without intermission of treaty or truce, for every brave
and loyal man, being warfare against all that is noxious and may
be vincible, in nature and human nature. So that if any one makes
profession of Secular principles, without putting them or striving
to put them into practice, we must declare that he is really not a
Secularist; just as we should declare him no soldier who should
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
45
pore over military books, and dream about strategy and tactics,
without ever taking part with head or hand in the fight to which
his duty called him. With head or hand, because it is clear that the solitary thinker, carrying on his profound investigations into
the elements and processes and evolution of the world, or into the
subtle nature and obscure history of man, and communicating the
results of these for the enlightenment and advantage of his fellows,
is not less but rather more essentially active on our side in the
battle of life, than he who is called the man of action himself; just
as the statesman who prepares for the war, the administrator who
organizes the army, and the general who plans and directs the
campaign, have far more to do with the result—though they strike
no blow and fire no shot—than any of the banded subordinates who
use sabre, lance, or rifle.
We are in constant struggle with Nature,—to make its barren
regions fertile, its unhealthy regions wholesome; to soften its
rigours, and guard against its perils; to breach its barriers, and
bridge its abysses, between nation and nation; to bend its powers
to our service, and fashion its productions to our commodity; to
trace out its hidden treasures, and penetrate its secrets, availing
ourselves to the utmost of every discovery. Wherefore the Secu
larist, to the full extent of his faculties and opportunities, assists, .
encourages, and welcomes each advance in any of the sciences or
useful arts. Nothing which gives or promises new knowledge of
nature can be indifferent to him, however remote it may seem from
the concerns of ordinary life ; for in wrestling for such knowledge
the intellect is braced, and in conquering it is expanded ; while it
is always possible, and has frequently been the case, that the
most abtruse researches have led to priceless, practical benefits.
We are also in constant struggle with Human Nature, as hitherto
developed in ourselves and others, and with the political and social
institutions which have sprung from it; to cure its manifold dis
eases of body and mind, amend its manifold defects, establish it in
vigorous health to diminish, and, if possible, destroy, its abound'ng gross ignorance, want, oppression, bigotry, disunion, hatred,
envy, selfishness ; to increase, and, if possible, make universal, the
contraries of all these. And with regard to the question of possi
bility, as we who look forward with hope and trust to vast and
indefinite improvements in the state of mankind, are often mocked
as impracticable dreamers, there is one word to say: Until all
�46
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who love their fellows and regard posterity, find themselves, having
done their utmost, without spark of hope or sinew of strength for
further effort, until our whole race crouches in impotence and
despair, no one can say, Here is the extreme boundary of improve
ment ; and until such boundary is reached, indefinite advance is
possible. For this is a contest in which hope itself is puissant
toward victory, and in very truth a sure pledge of victory; for hope
means endeavour, and endeavour precludes defeat; seeing that our
object is to vanquish Nature, not by resisting her laws, but by
taking advantage of them, and that we are ever living successful
lives, and fighting a winning battle, while we can endeavour with
hope.
Therefore, the true Secularist is, and always will be, in the van
of all efforts to improve the condition of the great bulk of the
people, physically, mentally, morally, socially, politically. As he
regards all men as really his brothers (not his “ dear brethren,” as
clergymen say on Sunday from the secure height of their pulpits,
to poor creatures whom they consider mere serfs, hewers of wood,
and drawers of water, on week days) and believes that all have
equal rights to full development and free exercise of their faculties,
his politics will naturally be of a most liberal tendency; he will
constantly work towards the government of the people by the
people, towards making the Executive the servant and not the
Master of the nation. It does not follow that in all cases he'will
desire the immediate establishment of a Republic ; he may be con
vinced that the mass of his countrymen are not yet fit for such a
form of government. But if so, he will not be content that they
should remain thus unfit; he will do his best and urge all whom
he can influence to do their best likewise, to decrease and ulti
mately to destroy this unfitness ; preparing the way for a govern
ment based upon the will of the nation. To this end he will do
all in his power to diffuse Secular instruction, particularly among
those of the rising generation, whose minds are fresh and eager for
new knowledge, whose characters are plastic to training, who are
not yet hide-bound in prejudice and hardened by old habits. Feel
ing himself essentially a “rational social animal,” he will endeavour
always to act in company with as many of his fellows as possible,
and will frankly support co-operation in every department of
activity. Thus for the political education of the people, both in
Xheory and practice, nothing can be more valuable than well organ-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
47
ized Clubs and Societies. Lectures, debates, and readings inform
and brighten the intelligence; the various functions of the
members, and the mutual forbearance requisite to amicable work
ing, furnish excellent civic training; and the “ rational social”
being thus provided for, there, is every opportunity to cultivate the
“social’ in its most familiar sense by amusements in common;
for the reflection of joy from one to another, where many friends
are gathered, indefinitely multiplies the enjoyment of each.
The Secularist cannot but strive for the abolition of all privi
leges of Class or Sect in the body politic; while he will seek to
make all change with as little violence as possible and with as
much consideration for those who must be dispossessed of what
■does not belong to them, as they themselves and the circum
stances would allow. For doubtless all the reforms demanded by
our principles can be brought about by legal means ; by patient,
orderly, persistent, and combined constitutional efforts on the part
of the people. We do not wish to stir up Class or Sectarian
animosities, though we are continually accused of doing so we
are well aware that the privileged persons have become what they
are by long habit and training, or, generally speaking, by the force
-of circumstances ; and that we ourselves, if brought up in the same
conditions, would probably cling as stubbornly as they do to these
inequitable distinctions ; but we cannot cease or remit our endea
vours to redress wrongs or cancel injustice, in the interest of the
whole nation, out of tenderness for certain misguided and selfish
sections.
In our relation with other countries, the ruling desire of the
Secularist, who regards not only his own people but all mankind
as brothers, will necessarily be for peace and amity, for mutual
profiting instead of mutual destroying. There have been, and
probably will be often again until nations in general have grown
much better and wiser than they are, wars certainly justifiable,
because necessary, on the one part. But no reader of history can
fail to see that the majority of wars have been justifiable neither
■on the one part nor on the other; that they have been brought
about by the pride, greed, passion and folly of rulers, and the
imbecile ignorance of subjects, who allowed themselves to be first
inflamed, then impoverished and slaughtered, for objects in which
they had no real interest, which indeed very often were such that
their real interests were far better served by defeat than by victory.
�4^
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
Secularism in practice does not seek to destroy any one truth
that is associated with Christianity. Its practical force is employed
in building up Secular principles, and in combatting orthodox doc
trines and actions which are so many obstacles to the development
of positive Secular principles. For though the influence of ortho
doxy is much less than it used to be, both in depth and expanse,
and is decreasing year by year, it still floods wide tracts, making
barren fens and swamps of what should be, and will be, when it is
drained off, among our most fruitful fields. If it has now little of
whatever power for good it once had over the thoughts and actions
of men, it has still much power for evil. If it no longer makes
saints and martyrs, it makes serfs and bigots. We want real
Secular education for all our children, such as shall endow them
with some useful knowledge and the instruments for acquiring
much more, such as shall, prepare them for their work in the world,
and make them intelligent citizens; and -we cannot get this because
of sectarian squabbles, because of the arrogant greed of the Church.
Primer, copy-book, and arithmetic shall be withheld, unless the
Bible may be everywhere thrust in amongst them; the Bible, with
its beautiful stories of Noah, Lot, Dinah, Tamar, and the rest, to
inform the intellect and purify the heart of the young; the Bible,
with its lucid dogmas, as to which all the sects are at loggerheads
among themselves. Hard at work all the week, we want to enjoy
ourselves on Sunday; but orthodoxy, so far as it can, shuts us out
from all means of rational amusement; closing museums and art
galleries, stopping innocent entertainments, leaving the general
masses of the people no alternative but the stupefying influence of
most stupefying sermons. Politically, again, the mass of the
Church has been for long generations, and is henceforth pretty
sure to be always obstructive to every movement for the benefit of
the mass of the people.
Orthodox Christianity is opposed to civic freedom, free thought,
free speech, free action ; it is opposed to Science, at the heels of
whose noblest philosophers its curs are always yelping now they
dare not bite; it is opposed to Utilitarianism, withdrawing fine
intellects from useful studies into barren controversieSj and gener.
ous hearts from social labours into cloistered asceticism. There
fore, Secularism in practice must be at war with it continually,
until its cathedrals, churches, and chapels are ennobled into
Schools of Science, Museums of Arts and Secular Halls.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
4?’
X. SECULARISM MORE REASONABLE THAN CHRISz_
TIANITY.
Orthodox Christianity being, by its own avowal, built upon faith.,
which is the abnegation of reason, while Secularism is built upon
reason and experience, it may be thought superfluous to enter upon
an argument to prove that the latter is more reasonable than the
former. But Christians in general, although in the interest of their
mysteries they vilify reason, are very glad to avail themselves ofwhatever help, or apparent help, they can derive from it.
This is especially true of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism,more consistent and thorough, gallantly offering to us in itself the
reductlo ad absurdum of faith trampling reason underfoot. Protes
tantism is an illogical compromise between reason and faith, expe
diency and religion, common sense and uncommon nonsense. It
upholds the right of private judgment, and condemns all who
exercise this right beyond its own strait limits. It appeals to
reason against the absolute claims of Rome, and to faith against
the unanswerable arguments of science. [It worships an alleged
infallible book, and rejects an infallible interpreter of the book. It
tries to buttress its sinking and sloping walls with laborious “ evi
dences,” and brands the inspection which shows that these arehollow and unsound as heterodox Rationalism. It has no firrm
ground to stand upon ; nor can there be any between the orthodox
faith without reason of the Ultramontane and the reason without
the orthodox faith of the Secularist.
Christianity boasts an infallible book, and no two of its manifold,
sects can agree in its interpretation. Ah, they reply, in a momen
tary truce with each other, that all their arms may be turned against
the unbeliever, our differences are on points not essential, in essen
tials we all agree.. But if the differences are of such small moment.,why dispute so desperately about them i' Why fine, imprison,
banish, torture, and put to death, because of them ? Why organize
wholesale massacres, and engage in bloody wars, whose records
are atrociously cruel even for the annals of ,warfare, on account of
these insignificant, differences ? Lollards and Puritans, Waldenses,
Albigenses, and Huguenots, Guelphs and Ghibellines, Lutherans
and Roman Catholics, none of these were Atheists or Sceptics,
they were all alike ardent Christians, and their murderers were.
�5°
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ardent Christians too. But such things can be no more ! Probably
not, but no thanks to orthodoxy; they have receded before the
growing spirit of Secularism. The spirit of the sects is just as
loving as of old ; but we, whom they slander, have bound them
over to keep the peace ; they dare not smite, they can only rail at
each other. Romanism cries : “ Let everyman who trusts in his
reason be accursed,” while Protestants exclaim : “ The Romish
Church is the masterpiece of Sataji.” Christianity professes to
have an infallible book, which it worships. Yet all Christians
•competent to judge admit that there are doubtful and interpolated
passages in the original, and many errors in the translation. Hence
■a. body of learned but fallible divines have been engaged in revising
■our version, so as to settle its infallibility. All intelligent Christians,
also, while affirming that it is the very Word of God, adding to or
taking from which is to be followed by certain penalties, under
stand it in various senses : some parts in the literal, some as alle
gorical, some as poetical, some as spiritual. But what right have
they to do so ? Where can such a process end ? Who has the
■infallible authority to draw the lines, saying, This you shall inter
pret thus, that you shall interpret otherwise, and so on ? An infal
lible book must be taken as a whole, if taken at all, though reason
be entirely ignored in the taking; you are not at liberty to say, I
will accept this bit, I will reject that; who are you to set up for a
judge, citing the very Word of the living God before your tribunal,
making it justify and explain itself, ruling this verse to be admis
sible and that not, deciding that God said just what he meant in
■one place, but did not in another ? The first exercise of private x
judgment, in explaining or explaining away the meaning of any
.single verse, leads logically and inevitably to the criticism of the
whole Bible as if it were any other book ; tamper with a word, and
you lose the infallibility ; the Bible is handed over by faith to reason,
that merciless inquisitor for inspired writings.
This infallible book includes a story of the Creation of the World,
-of a universal Deluge, of the confusion of tongues ; long historical
narratives; positive statements affecting chronology, astronomy,
.and other sciences; all of them demonstrably wrong in certain
particulars, many of them self-contradictory. It is not necessary
here to go into details on these matters, for they have been abund
antly analyzed and tiye assertions proved in books which Christians
have tried in vain to refute ; nay, in many instances, the wiser or
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
'
-
51
lowing his example ; they tell us his precepts are divine, and utterly
ignore them in daily‘life.
more astute Christians, after defending to the utmost their unten
able positions, have evacuated them altogether, with the consolatory
remark that they were really worth nothing, that the Bible teaches
moral and spiritual and theological truths, not history and science.
Thus no one of any intelligence, however orthodox, would, I sup
pose, venture now in England to assert that the sun and the moon
stood still at the command of Joshua, or that the sun went back
ten degrees as a sign to Hezekiah that his life should be prolonged.
It is urged, however, that the infallible book is only infallible in
its moral, spiritual, and theological teachings ; and, of course, in
its narratives of the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascensiom
of the Divine Man, Christ Jesus. But the narratives differ so
among themselves that no amount of ingenious sophistry, and
assuredly abundance of this has been brought to bear, can reconcile
them. No one has hitherto, even proved it probable that they were
written by the men whose names they bear, or within a century
and a half of the time to which they refer ; no one has given valid
reason why they should be preferred to a multitude of similar con
temporary narratives which the Christians call Apocryphal. No
Christian can give a reason for accepting the miracles recorded in
the Gospels, which would not, were he consistent, make him accept the miracles recorded of Brahma, Buddha, Mohammed, and
the innumerable miracles of the Romish hagiology, stretching with
out interruption from the Acts of the Apostles to the acts of our
Lady of Lourdes, from the wounds of the risen Christ to the stig
mata of Louise Latour. No Christian can prove that all the prin
cipal, superhuman features in the career of his Christ were not
copied from the much older myths of the Hindoo Chrishna, these
themselves pointing to physical myths far more ancient.
And then, supposing the Gospels authentic as to the moral teach
ings of this God-man, and as to the life he led upon earth. Are
not many of his precepts injurious, many quite impracticable ? and
all affected by the illusion possessing him that the end of the world
was at hand ? Was not his mode of life such that if any one in
this un Christian Christendom of the nineteenth century dared to
imitate it, he would be certainly imprisoned as a vagabond, pro
bably confined as an incurable lunatic. The Christians hold him
.(Christ) up as the Great Exemplar, and carefully refrain from fol-
, '
�52
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
As to the theological teachings of this infallible Book. It has
been super-abundantly demonstrated in Freethought literature,
that its cardinal doctrines, the Triune God, the Creation, the Origin
of Sin, Fall of Man, Original Sin, Incarnation, Atonement, Resur
rection, Ascension, eternal Heaven and Hell, are absurd and self
contradictory ; that they make the Dejty at once a remorseless and
unjust tyrant, and a vacillating ruler. No Christian really believes
them, for no Christian, nor any other man, can understand them ;
and we cannot believe propositions of which we cannot catch the
meaning, which cannot be put into plain words without manifest,
self-contradiction. The Christian can only suppress his intellect
with regard to them ; resolutely shut his eyes and mutter, I believe
that anything may be there for aught I can see to the contrary; he
can only act with reference to these astounding mysteries, as he
knows it would be ruinous to act in any other business of life.
So much for the reasonableness of Christianity. Over against,
this inextricable entanglement of reason and faith, freedom and
servility, candour and sophistry, these absurd and degrading im
possibilities, self-contradictions, self-stultifications, Secularism
offers the plain, straight, spacious pathway of reason and experi
ence. It has no science, no history, no books, no persons, that it
wants to hide or shield from free human criticism. It has no
theories which it is not ready and eager to abandon, directly facts,
shall have declared against them ; no rule of conduct which it will
not at once modify if change seems necessary in the interest of the.
general happiness. Mysteries it acknowledges, and confesses that
they are truly mysterious, without proceeding to exhibit them in.
dogmas as if it had turned them inside out. It is not weighted
with the impossible tasks of reconciling the existence of evil with
that of an Omnipotent and All-good Creator ; and of proving and
worshipping the Infallibility of a book crowded with evident errors.
It does not threaten the vast majority with never-ending torments,,
and promise an elect few never-ending bliss, both alike preposter
ously disproportioned to any possible merits or demerits of human
life ; it simply seeks by the best approved means to make this life
as happy as possible for all, assured that if there be another it
could not be better prepared for than thus.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
XI.
53
SECULARISM MORE NOBLE THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
Not only are the cardinal doctrines of Christianity intellectually ab
surd and self-contradictory, but many of them are ajso morally degrad
ing. Not only do they soften and confuse the brain which tries to
believe them ; they also harden and pervert the heart which tries
-to justify them. Thus in the endeavour to reconcile the sub
sistence of an All-good, All-wise, All-powerful God, Infinite and
Eternal, Creator of all things and beings, with the existence of
Evil and the Devii; with the dogmas of the Fall, the Atonement,
•and the everlasting Hell for unbelievers; a man’s conscience must
be sophisticated as injuriously as his reason. They are as revolt
ing to the healthy moral sense as to the healthy common sense.
They could only have arisen among a barbarous people, who
looked upon God as an irresponsible tyrant, like the human tyrants
they were accustomed to crouch under abjectly, but fiercer and
more powerful, able to extend his vengeance over all regions and
prolong it through all times ; they only survive now among persons
who are otherwise comparatively free and intelligent, by the force
of early training and habit, by the influence of venerable associ
ations, which benumb the moral sense, emasculate the reason,
and baffle honest inquiry with their prodigious prestige. If a
thousand average children were brought up without hearing of
Christianity, subject simply to the Secular education and moral
discipline now generally recognized in England and on the Ameri
can continent, as needful to prepare them for the ordinary work of
the world and make them good citizens (and assuredly this is no
high standard of instruction and training); and if, as they
approached manhood and womanhood, the Bible were placed in
their hands, and its leading doctrines calmly explained to them, as
held by the leading Christian Churches, it may be safe to assert
that every one of these youths and maidens would reject large
portions of the Book, not merely with contempt, but with abhor
rence, and reject the. whole of the doctrines, not merely as
irrational, but as immoral, essentially wicked and vile. 'And
surely the priests are one with us in this forecast; else why do
they so desperately insist on thrusting their Bible into our public
�54
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
schools, even though they have ample opportunities for instilling:
its teachings into the young in private, in the family, m the church ?'
The more nakedly and coldly one states the chief doctrines of
this Bible, and the chief acts it records of its Deity, the more false
^.nd ignominious do they show themselves. The perfect God
makes a perfect man, having previously made a wicked Tempter;,
and the perfect man succumbs to the very first temptation. For
this lapse the Merciful God curses, not only him, but likewise all
his posterity, and the very earth on which they live.
In the
course of time this Immutable God repents him of having made
man, and destroys with a flood, not only all mankind, but all living
things, save the few of each in the Ark. The destruction works
no good, for men are as wicked after the deluge as before. This God,
who is no respector of persons, has his chosen people, whom he leads
into a promised land, ordering them to murder ruthlessly all its
inhabitants,but not finding power in his Omnipotence to enable them
to do so. This is the only thing in which the chosen people heartily’
try to fulfil his commandments ; in all else they are constantly re
belling against him and falling away from his worship, despite the
countless miracles it is said he works amongst them. This good
God rends the kingdom from Saul for not utterly destroying the
Amalekites, as divinely ordered, “ man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This loving God slays
seventy thousand of his chosen people because David, at God’s
instigation, has caused a census to be taken. Having left all man
kind, except the Jews, in the perdition of idolatry for about two
thousand years ; having also destroyed or dispersed ten-twelfths of
the chosen people, so that no sure trace of them is left, and re
duced those remaining to servitude, soon to be followed by disper
sion ; this tender God resolves to redeem the world, that as in
Adam all died, so in Christ may all be made alive. This
one God has by this time .become three Gods, while ever
remaining one, having begotten on himself a Son, and from
the Father and Son a Holy Ghost having proceeded, the
three co-eternal, co-equal, and each almighty. Nothing less
than the sacrifice of a God can atone for the sins of men;
so.God the Holy Ghost begets God the Son from a human
virgin, who remains a virgin after conception and child-bearing,
though she purifies her untainted self Bom the maternal taint, in.
accordance with the low notions of her people ; and God the Son,
�“•TV-4'
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
55’
who is innocent, must suffer death to appease the wrath of himself
and the other two persons of the sole God against man. God the
Son is crucified, and dies and descends into Hell, and rises from
the dead and ascends into Heaven ; yet as God he could not dier
as God he was and is everywhere ; and if only his manhood died,
there was no divine, no sufficient atonement. The scheme of hissacrifice involved inexpiable and unpardonable guilt in his betrayer
and murderers ; God could only assure the atonement by securing;
the necessary crime in men who are in his hands as clay in the
hands of the potter. All who believe in this God-man shall be
saved, all who disbelieve shall be damned or “ condemned ” ; and.
as the vast majority who have since lived never heard of him, and
a continually-increasing minority of those who hear of him can’t
believe in him, while the bulk of those who profess to do so
don’t keep his commandments, this Gospel of Salvation,
is in truth a Gospel of Damnation; as he said himself, “ Many
are called, but few are chosen.” The chosen people, of whom
he, was one on the mother’s side, among whom he lived, and who
had the opportunity of knowing and judging him, rejected him, and
their descendants reject him still. Jesus, good as a man, is de
cidedly objectionable as a God ; for in this character he could have
revealed himself indisputably and immediately, to the redemption
of all.
Orthodox Christianity is ignoble in that it makes our salvation
depend upon blind faith instead of upon reason and love and good
works. It is ignoble in that its votaries must more and more so
phisticate the moral sense in seeking—and seeking how vainly !—
to reconcile ever-growing natural truths with stark old super
stitions. It is ignoble in that, by demanding absolute faith
from men who mzist doubt and disbelieve much of its teach
ings, it manufactures dissemblers and hypocrites. It is in
tensely ignoble in its “sublimated selfishness” of making the
chief end of life the salvation of one’s ' own precious soul.
It is horribly ignoble in making the eternal bliss of the few
elect, compatible with the- eternal torment of the majority pre
destined to damnation : a man must be fiendishly callous and sel
fish who can rejoice in looking forward to such a Heaven counter
poised by such a Hell. It is ignoble in what it deems its noblest
emotions, its love and reverence and adoration of the Deity, its
ecstacies of Divine influx and communion. For these emotions
�56
SECULAR TEACHINGS
are irrational, the object of the love is a dream and a delusion, the
-God revered and worshipped is pourtrayed in its own Bible as
•capricious, unjust, vindictive, merciless ; and these orgies of reli
gious excitement, which overstrain, rend, and often ruin the moral
.fibre, are as harmful as any other drunken revels.
Secularism, on the other hand, is quite free from all these moral
•degradations which are of the essence of orthodoxy. Secularism
is not called upon to reconcile irreconcilable antinomies; has no
meed to palter with the standard of right and wrong, truth and
falsehood; does not ask for pretence of belief where there is no as
surance ; does not fetter the reason and mutilate the conscience.
It recognises abundant evil and misery in the world, and endea
vours by hard work to decrease and as far as possible destroy
them; it recognises much good .and happiness, and endeavours by
wise work to increase and extend them ; untrammelled in either
case by obsolete myths or incredible dogmas. The true Secularist
loves and reveres his fellow men whom he knows, not the Bible
God of whom he does not know. Upright, as an honest man who
respects himself and his fellows, he dees not abase himself, and
•crouch down crying that he is a miserable sinner, because he has
read in an old story-book that the first woman and man ate an
.apple countless millenniums, as science has taught him, after the
human race came into existence. He seeks happiness, not selfishly,
but unselfishly, not for one, but for all; the Heaven on earth
towards which he strives would be no Heaven to him if counter
balanced by a Hell.
XII. SECULARISM MORE BENEFICIAL THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
It has been already shown in previous articles that Secularism is
more beneficial than Christianity in two most important respects,
namely, its freedom from intellectual absurdities and from moral
sophistication. But generally, and avowedly, Christianity is not
beneficial for this life and this world. The teachings and actions
of its author were based upon the fixed delusion that the end of
the world was at hand. Thus he says : “ For the Son of Man
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
57
shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he
shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say
unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of
death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Again, having foretold wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes,
false Christs, and false prophets showing great signs and wonders,
he adds: “ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall
the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and
the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,
and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with
power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from
the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” And he
■concludes : “ Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass
till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24 : 5-34 ; compare Luke
-21 : 25-32, and 1 Thess. 4: 14-17.) These are among the most
■explicit prophecies in the Bible, and the most exact as to date of
the events foretold. Yet it would be difficult to find them quoted
by any Christian advocate in the very astonishing collections of
“Prophecies fulfilled” with which we are abundantly favoured.
This omission may be due to the facts that, although the period for
their fulfilment is long overdue, although all standing there have
tasted of death, and all that generation have passed away nearly
eighteen centuries since; although frequent alarms have been
given, and a bright look-out has been everywhere kept; the Son
of Man has not been seen coming in the glory of his Father with
his angels.
Consider the effects of this delusion upon Christ’s teachings.
Why care for this world, whose destruction was imminent ? Why
trouble about this life, so soon to be swallowed up in the life
•eternal ? This life and this world were naturally contemptible to
him ; their enjoyments and treasures were baits and snares of the
Devil. Therefore we read in the Gospel called of St. John (which
Luther tells us “is the true and pure Gospel, the chief of the
Gospels, inasmuch as it contains the greatest portion of our
Saviour’s sayings ”), “ He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal ”
(John 12 : 25) ; and again, “ I pray not for the world ; but for
�58
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
them which thou hast given me ; for they are mine. . . . 'Theyare not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17 :
9, 16). Therefore he said : “ Take no thought for your life, what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what
ye shall put on. . . . Take therefore no thought for the mor
row; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself”
(Matt. 6: 25, 34). Therefore he contemned all natural affections
(Matt. 10: 37; 12: 46-50; 19: 29). Therefore he taught, Resist
not evil (Matt. 5 : 39) ; and his great apostle taught abject sub
mission to tyranny, “the right divine of kings to govern‘wrong ”
(Rom. 13: 1, 2). Therefore he enjoined poverty and asceticism
(Matt. 19 : 21, 23, 24); not the regulation, but the destruction, of
our natural instincts, the continence of self-mutilation and castra
tion (Matt. 5 : 29, 30 ; 18 : 8, 9 ; 19 : 12). As every student of the
New Testament is aware, it would be easy to multiply texts from
the Gospels and Epistles, all in a similar strain, and all spoken or
written under the influence of the fanatical delusion that the de
struction of this world and the advent of the kingdom of Heaven
were imminent. It is clear from these maxims and precepts that
all the improvements, social and political, scientific and artistic,
commercial and mechanical, wh’ch have been made in the world
since the birth of Christianity, have been made in spite of it, not
because of it; have been wrought by the spirit of Secularism ever
struggling, and in recent centuries with ever-growing success,
against the spirit of dogmatic religion.
But Christianity puts in a predominant claim to beneficence, in
that it secures to its believers everlasting bliss after death, or, at
the worst, blesses their lives here with the hope and expectation
thereof, even should the expectation not be realised. In the first
place, we answer that it likewise assures, not only to all dis
believers, but to nearly all if not quite all professing believers,
everlasting torture after death ; or, at the best, curses their lives
here with the dread and expectation thereof, even should the ex
pectation not be realized. For Jesus said, “ Why call ye me Lord,
Lord, and keep not my commandments ?” and again, “ By their
fruits ye shall know them ;” and the truth is there is no man or
woman living in Christendom who does keep his commandments,
and scarcely any who seriously and thoroughly tries. Who takes
no thought for the morrow ? Who resists not evil? Who, being
smitten on the one cheek, turns the other also ? Who, being asked
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
59'.
for his cloak, gives also his coat ? Who sells all that he has and
gives it to the poor ? So-called Christians would have been
extinct in the first century after the crucifixion of their Jesus had
they not copiously adulterated their other-worldliness with thisworldliness, their uncommon nonsense with common-sense ; and
the result is that we can’t find a genuine Christian among the
hundreds of millions of Christendom, unless it be here and there a
fanatical monk pr hysterical nun.
As to the hope of Heaven, which the Christians claim as a bless
ing in this life, it is over-balanced by the curse of the fear of Hell.
But in truth, though the hope and the fear seem effective to some
minds as arguments in a debate, they are seldom effectual in rea^
life. A good many Christians in rare moments, a very few zealotsmore commonly, may be exalted by the foretaste of Heaven or
tormented by the foretaste of Hell. When wrought to intensity
fear certainly does more harm than the hope can do good; there
are but too many instances of persons thus terrified into incurable
lunacy, into the very worst species of. delirium tremens known.
But, as a rule, every honest and intelligent man must.be aware
that the fear of Hell in itself has scarcely any influence in keeping
Christians from what they think sin, and the hope of Heaven
scarcely any influence in attracting them to what they think holi
ness. No stronger proof of the weakness and unreality of the
general faith in Heaven could be adduced, than the fact that good
“ Christians” cling to this life as hard and as long as they can ;
that when they are sick they pray for recovery—from what ? from
the danger of going straight to eternal beatitude ; that they will
physic and doctor themselves desperately, preferring a miserable
death-in-life here to perfect life in the kingdom of glory ; that they
never resign themselves to the Saviour’s bosom until they can no
longer keep out of it. If this point had really the important bear
ing on the case that some weak-minded and low-thoughted persons
seem to fancy it has, one could further answer that Christianity, in
this respect, simply stands on a level with all other revealed re
ligions, since each of these promises future felicity to its own
faithful and threatens future punishment to unbelievers. Why, then,
should hope of Heaven’ allure us, or fear of Hell frighten us, into
Christianity rather than into Mohammedanism, Brahminism, or
Buddhism ? If intelligent belief were subject to the will, and not
the offspring of independent reason, probably most men would
«
�6o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
prefer the Heaven of Mohammed, and most men and women the
Nirvana of Buddha to that everlasting psalm singing in long white
nightgowns, amidst the howling of “ all the menagerie of the Apo
calypse,” which constitutes the Heaven of Christ.
Secularism is more beneficial than Christianity, inasmuch as it
teaches no figment of the “ end of the world,” of the existence of
a personal Devil; no submission to despots; no anxiety whether
we shall “ be with the damned cast out or numbered with the
blest.” The world is our home, and Secularism teaches us a
paramount duty to make the best of it by striving to increase its
usefulness, its purity, and its ethical greatness.
XIII.
SECULARISM PROGRESSIVE; CHRISTIANITY
STAGNANT.
Christianity, as taught in our churches, is chained fast and
riveted with iron to the immutable dogmas of an immutable God;
round its neck hangs the millstone of an infallible book, which it
worships in abject stupor as a Fetish; the multiplex windowless
walls of its dungeon are adamantine Traditions and Creeds, Articles
and Catechisms, Decrees of Councils, and Decrees of Popes. It is
thus essentially stagnant and inert; it does comparatively but
little useful work in the world; it is perishing of atrophy, brain
and heart and limbs irretrievably wasting away. In this life it has
no future; its future is in the life to come (or not to come!); its
ideal is in the past, to which its vacant eyes are ever reverted in
the dense gloom of its prison-cell. Its perfection was in the Primi
tive Apostolic Church, the Church of the immediate disciples of
its Lord and Saviour; the Lord who has almost practically ceased
to reign, the Saviour who has almost ceased to save. His example
and teachings were regarded as being perfect; those who lived
with him were thought to be blessed with these in unstinted abund
ance, in untainted purity. Flowing through the long centuries
since, the slender rill has grown a mighty river,’ pouring itself
through many branches into the sea; but how the purity of the
fountain has been adulterated in its course !—it has been impreg
nated with the most various soils, mingled with affluents from
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
61
diverse regions, polluted with all the abominations of the cities
that have arisen on its banks, and the ships that have sailed upon
its waters. Such now is the Church of many churches ; but the
genuine Christianity thereof is limited to that thin thread of “ the
pure water of life which has trickled down from the divine source,
Jesus. It is, therefore, a fallacy to speak of the development of
Christianity; if it were born full-grown and perfect, how could it
admit of development ? The great churches have swelled from it,
but how ? By unlimited dilution and adulteration. They have
taken to themselves the things of this world, which are alien from
true Christianity; they have allied themselves with the powers of
this world, which are hostile to true Christianity ; they have mixed
reason with faith, science with Providence, time with eternity,
earth with Heaven, wealth with poverty, comfort with asceticism,
self-indulgence with self-renunciation; and this unclean.composite
slush is the Holy water of Ecclesiasticism, but assuredly it is not
the “living water ” of Christ. As well talk of developing a bottle
of good wine into a barrel, by flooding it with gallons of ink, milk,
gin, beer, and blood.
And this fallacy of the development of Christianity suggests
another not less gross : the fallacy that former Freethinkers have
been refuted, because modern Freethinkers as a rule take other
grounds for attack. The shifting is always due, not to the repulse
of the assailants, but to the retreat of the assailed. Speaking
broadly, no Freethought assault on the entrenchments of Chris
tianity has ever been baffled. But as the Christian champions
were driven out of one line they withdrew to another ; and the
Freethinkers in following up their success of course had to abandon
their old parallels. Sap and mine had done their work effectually
there, and must be advanced against the next inner line. Driven
' out of this in turn, the Christians fell back on another, to be there
duly beleagured by the ever-advancing Secularists. Let us
honestly confess that the Christians have shown immense ingenuity
and industry in planning and throwing up entrenchment within
entrenchment. Let us honestly admit that they have made a most
stubborn defence, having such mighty power and enormous wealth
to fight for. But the leaguer cannot last for ever. Storming one
after another, steadily and irresistibly, these concentric lines, we
must at length girdle and constrain the inmost citadel with a ring
of fire and iron, not to be broken by sallies from within, not to be
�62
SECULAR TEACHINGS
broken by assaults from without, which, indeed, are not to be
feared, since all the open country is friendly. Then the last hold
of the Christian Church will have its choice of surrender or starva
tion ; with' the chance of some stray bombshell exploding her
magazine, blowing casemates and garrison to the—fourth person
in the Christian Godhead. If she has then any sense left, she will
abdicate the usurped powers she has abused, disgorge the vast
treasures she has stolen and obtained • under false pretences, and
come down to live human life with human kind, happier and better
than she ever has been as Priestess of Delusions and Empress of
Slaves.
The Primitive Church was the realized ideal of genuine Chris
tianity, In so far as any of the modern Churches deviate from
this archetype they are degenerate and corrupt, void of the essen
tial spirit of Christianity. The first Christians, we are told, were
filled with the Holy Ghost, had the gift of tongues, worked miracles,
were delivered by angels, had all things in common, suffered all
things for Christ’s sake, believed that the end of the world was at
hand as Jesus had assured them, cared nothing for patriotism or
political freedom, had absolute faith, were opposed to the wise and
prudent, but at one with babes, preferred celibacy to marriage; we.
are even told, though it seems incredible to our modern experi
ence, that they continued together in one accord and loved each
other. In so far as our modern professors resemble these, they are
real Christians: in so far as they differ from these, not Christians
at all. Thus the Pope and the Ultramontanes are consistent
Christians in denouncing Rationalism, Liberalism, Science; in
encouraging celibacy ; in valiantly continuing to cultivate miracles,
scornful of a sceptical world ; and the Pope is signally consistent
in enduring persecution and the horrible imprisonment of the
Vatican, for the sake of the Church, and in the unlimited dust he
shakes off his feet against those who refuse to receive him. The
Catholic Apostolic Church of Edward Irving is consistently
Christian in claiming and exercising the primitive endowments,
such as the power to work miracles and edification by unknown
tongues. The Shakers are consistent Christians in having all
things in common; and the Peculiar People in depending upon
Prayer and Providence instead of worldly Science for the cure o I
disease. On the contrary, all the Churches and Sects are incon
sistent and un-Christian in so far as they add to or take from the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
b3
revealed Word of God, in so far as they compromise with the
world and common-sense, in so far as they care for the mortal body
and neglect the immortal soul, in so far as they depend upon work
and science instead of prayer and providence, in so far as they are
concerned with this life instead of the life to come.
Christianity is essentially inert, stagnant, with its ideal perfec
tion in the past, Secularism is essentially active, progressive, with
its ideal of a loftier and nobler mundane existence in the future.
It is chained and riveted to no stark dogmas, it has no infallible
Book like a millstone round its neck, it is imprisoned in no admantine creeds and formulas. It has no decrees of Popes nor authority
of Thirty-nine Articles to retard its intellectual advancement. It
refuses to regulate its modern life by the dictums of by-gone days.
Its rftendacity is not fixed to the “ rock” of the first century. On
the contrary, Secularism is constantly growing in thought with the
constant growth of Science, it is always open to the corrections of
Experienee, it holds no theories so tenaciously that it is not ready
to fling them away directly facts contradict them. As time rolls
. on and the treasures of the universe are revealed by the activity of
the human mind, Secular philosophy is ever ready to avail itself of
this natural revelation. It assimilates gladly all it can find of good
and true in the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, as in Homer, Dante,
and Shakespeare, without burdening itself with what it deems bad
or false. It is ever increasing in action with the ever-increasing
inter-communication between the various countries of the world,
and the ever-increasing common interests of their inhabitants. Its
life of life is unintermitted activity and progress.
XIV. SECULARISM: ITS STRUGGLES IN THE PAST.
Although the name Secularism is comparatively new, the prin
ciples it embodies were recognized and influential long before the
birth of Christianity. The old classical religions were in a large
measure Secularistic, notwithstanding their myths, which, indeed,
were more fanciful than gloomily superstitious; they deified the
powers of nature, the great inventors and improvers of the useful
and beautiful arts, and the heroes who compelled into orderly
�64
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
peace the disorders of the world. They did not starve and degrade
this life in subservience to a dubious hereafter. And the old.
classical sages, who dissolved the grossness of the myths into sym
bols and allegories of natural and moral philosophy, had carried
far the cultivation of reason and science, before the blight of
Christianity fell upon them, and kept them barren for more than a
thousand years. In Alexandria, the great capital in which the
intellect and culture of the East met and commingled with those
of the West, there was immense literary and scientific activitylong before and long after the Christian era. Libraries of hun
dreds of thousands of volumes were collected in the Museum and
the Serapion ; there were zoological and botanical gardens ; experi
ments were vigorously carried on. The Alexandrians knew that
the earth is a globe; they had correct ideas of the poles, the axis,,
the equator, the arctic and antarctic circles, distribution of climafbs,
&c. They had invented a fire engine and a steam engine. The
geometry of Euclid comes from them ; the genius and achieve
ments of Archimedes in pure and applied mathematics h^ve pro
bably never been surpassed ; Ptolemy’s “ Treatise on the Mathe
matical Construction of the Heavens ” remained unequalled and
uncontroverted until the time of Copernicus. Christianity, with
its contempt for this world, and the science of this world, with its
fanatical visions of a new Jerusalem, coming in the clouds, swelled
to a delug< and overwhelmed the fruitful fields of philosophy with
ignorance and delusion. Constantine adopted it as a powerful
engine of statecraft, and it was adapted to the popular gross
Paganism in order to render it agreeable to the masses. No
historical facts can be more certainly proved than that the greater
part of the rites and symbols of Christianity came from the Pagan
idolatry, and most of the subtleties of its theology from Pagan
metaphysics. On the ground that all truth was contained in the
infallible Word of God, the early fathers and their successors for
centuries firmly held (and woe to him who overtly disagreed with
them !) that the earth was a plane, with the sky for dome, and the
sun, moon, and stars for lamps; with Heaven above the sky, and
Hell beneath the earth. Their chronology and geology, in so far
as they could be said to have any, were equally absurd, being
based on the Book of Genesis. St. Augustine got Pelagius con
demned, and the great truth established that there was no death
in the world before the Fall of Adam and Eve ! In Alexandria
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
65
itself Christianity celebrated its triumph over human reason by
destroying the Serapion and scattering its incomparable library,
and by.murdering Hypatia. The sweet Saint Cyril, who instigated
a Christian mob to this foul and brutal murder, was the same re
presentative of piety who triumphed over the Nestorians, and
foisted the worship of the Virgin into the Church ; Mary and her
son being but a Christian revival of the old Egyptian Isis and
Horus. Faith being supreme, science lay in a long catalepsy.
For fifteen hundred years Christendom did not produce a single
astronomer. Even the pure mathematics, which needed no experi
ment or apparatus, were utterly neglected ; the monks and hermits
believing that they had better things to think of! The learned
(by comparison) were, chiefly occupied with miraculous legends,
commentaries ingeniously obscuring the obscurities of the Bible,
disputes about mysteries and dogmas of which none really knew
or could know anything. The knights and nobles were always
fighting among themselves, or plundering traders and artisans.
The Church, as it grew more powerful, grew more worldly and
corrupt; Popes bribed and intrigued for election ; two, and even
three, at one time fought and cursed each other; bishops and
abbots were great luxurious lords ; monasteries and nunneries,
which at first were the dungeons of starved and mutilated
lives, grew proverbial for all voluptuousness ; Rome was the com
mon sink for the worst vices of all Europe. The peasantry and
labourers were mere serfs, crushed in hopeless misery beneath
feudal exactions and despotism. Their food was the food of hogs,,
their cabins were sties. As no laws of nature were acknowledged,,
no sanitary measures were thought of, though from the general
filth and want dreadful plagues and famines were frequent; the
Church got a rich revenue from shrine-cures, and relic-cures, and
miraculous cures of all sorts, which were so beneficial to the peo
ple that it has been reckoned that in England, to take one example,
the population scarcely doubled during the five hundred years
succeeding the Norman Conquest. As for superstition, it was
omnipotent; the air was supposed to swarm with devils and
angels ; witchcraft was thpught to be so common that “ witches”
and “ wizards ” were always being put to death ; relics commanded
a fetish worship as degraded as exists among the lowest tribes of
Africa.
Such was the beatific civilization established by Christianity (of
�66
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
whose civilizing influences we hear so much) after a thousand
years ! Whence came the re-awaking of the spirit of Secularism,
which has already brought us to a condition that, with, all its
drawbacks, is perfection itself compared with that of the holy
Middle Ages, so dear to the sentimental faithful ? Was it aroused
by some growth of Christianity within, or was it stirred from with
out ? It was stirred from without, for Christianity had no life in
itself for the development. Mohammedanism, with all its faults
and errors, kept itself pure from the base idolatry almost universal
in Christendom, and fostered to a certain extent literature, science,
and all the useful arts. Scholars tell us that the great Persian
poets rank with the greatest poets of all time. The noble works of
the Greek philosophers were translated into Arabic ; hence the
revival of learning and science in the West. The Moors in Spain
were centuries ahead of the rest of Europe in every department of
civilization. The Jews, whose treatment by Christians in the
Middle Ages was simply fiendish, were well treated by the Moslems,
tolerant of everything but image-worship, and developed trade,
and were skilful physicians. We know too well how both the
Moors and Jews of Spain were dealt with when the Christians had
re-conquered that country. The Crusaders, who went out in half
millions about twice a century, to recover the Holy Land from the
accursed Paynims, were hordes of barbarians, strong only in brute
strength and steel armour, compared with the liberal and culti
vated Saracens. When Godfrey took Jerusalem in 1099, he and
his chiefs wrote to the Pope that they had enjoyed a week’s
massacre of the Infidels, till “ our people had the blood of the
Saracens up to the knees of their horses.” From this commerce
between East and West came the revival of science, learning, and
art in Europe, which made the introduction of the basis of Secular
philosophy possible. The Greek and Latin classics were studied,
and as learning spread beyond the monkish cells heresies sprang
up, heresies which were the first faint germinations of Freethought
amidst the mental slavery of the Church, which fiercely resisted
,^-ygry step of progress—physical, moral, and intellectual. The
•only good things the Church seemed to foster were the fine arts ;
and these were really fostered, not by its Christianity, but by its
Paganism. For the Popes and Dignitaries of the Renaissance
were mere pagans, and its lovely Madonnas and babes are but
Venuses and Cupids with halos. As Mr. Ruskin candidly testifies
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
67
in the second volume of his “Stones of Venice”: “ I never met
with a Christian whose heart was thoroughly set upon the world
to come, and so far as human judgment could pronounce, perfect
and right before God, who cared about art at all.”
It is but fair to admit that the sceptical elements associated
with the Reformation of the sixteenth century ‘played an impor
tant part in preparing the way for the consolidation of Secular
principles. Doubtless the religious reformers, in fighting for free
dom, gave an impetus to Freethought. But, unfortunately, daunt
less as they were, they lacked consistency. Having reached the
pinnacle of freedom, they forgot the rugged path up which they
had climbed. Having overcome the tyranny of their oppressors,
they themselves persecuted those who desired to travel further on
the road of progress. Hence, liberty was deprived of much of
its valuable service through the influence of theology on the minds
of men who commenced fighting the battle of freedom, but who
had to yield to the dictates of a limited and exclusive faith. The
Freethought of to-day has been stimulated by men who cared little
or nothing for popular religion at a time when orthodoxy was at
its lowest ebb. The last century, the years from 1700 to 1800, was
the least religious, the least Christian century of the Christian era.
It was the era of philosophy, of science and of Freethought ; of
Voltaire, of Rousseau and of Hume; of Black, with his discovery
of the true principles of heat; of Dalton, with his discoveries in
chemistry; of Watt, with his improvement of the steam-engine;
of Hume, with his demonstrations of the absurdity of religion;
and of Thomas Paine, with his clear exposition of the great fun
damental principles of government. These are the men who have
really assisted in the progress of the world. Their principles have
sown the seeds of modern progress. To their efforts we are in
debted for much of the prosperity of the nineteenth century. As
Theodore Parker once said, the progressive philosophers of
Christendom to-day are not Christians. The leaders of science
and philanthropy in modern times are men who have the love o
•truth and the love of justice, who possess large and benevolent
hearts, but who have no practical faith in Christianity.
How the Church encouraged Freethought in the past may be
read in the lives of heretics and the histories of heresies : Abelard,
Arnold of Brescia, Bruno, Vanini, Dolet, Berquin, Huss, Servetus,
..Latimer, Ridley; the Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollards, Coven-
�*
68
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
anters. How she encouraged science may be seen in her condem
nations of the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo. First sheresisted printing, then tried to control it with her Index Expurgatoiius, her list of books forbidden to be read, being, in fact, a list
of books best worth reading. She opposed insurance, inoculation,
and vaccination ; she condemned the use of anaesthetics in ob
stetrics as impiously tending to remove from women the curse
imposed by God as recorded in Genesis. Geology, of course, she
has resisted with all the little might left her, for its immense cycles
of life make unutterably absurd her Biblical chronology of six
thousand years. She has steadfastly done her best and worst to
keep us back, and she has always been beaten in the long run ; she
could imprison, banish, and murder isolated men and women, and
even multitudes of men and women; but she could not for ever
imprison the human mind, or banish free thought, or murder our
aspirations toward liberty and light. Yet, in justice to her, to prove
how consistently and persistently she has struggled against pro
gress, two instances may be cited. It has been reckoned that be
tween 1481 and 1808 the Holy Inquisition punished 340,000 persons,
of whom nearly 32,000 were “ punished as gently as possible, and
without effusion of blood,” or, in common English, were burnt
alive; and Buckle refers to a list of 60,000 Dissenters, mentioned
by Jeremy White,, who in the 17th century were persecuted by the
Church of England, of whom no less than 5,000 died in prison.
XV.
SECULARISM : ITS DEFINITE SERVICE TO
MANKIND.
It is urged by orthodox believers, as an objection to Secularism,,
that its principles have not accomplished the same amount of good
for society that Christianity has. This comparison, however, is as
unjust as the conclusion drawn therefrom is fallacious. In order
that opposing principles shall produce equally beneficial results, it
is necessary that both shall have the same opportunities and facili
ties for manifesting their respective worth. This has not been thecase with the two systems under consideration; for while Christianity
has had nearly eighteen hundred years to exhibit its value, the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
69
public recognition of Secularism is but of comparatively recent
■date. Besides,Christianity has commanded all the advantages which
wealth, influence, and patronage could bestow, while Secularism
has had to struggle in the cold shade of opposition, against theo
logical prejudices and religious persecutions. And history and
experience testify to the fact that systems which appeal to the
fears, the weaknesses, and the credulity of a people, have a better
chance of temporary success, than those principles whose claims
are submitted to the judgment of mankind. Hence; Secularists
are less emotional, as a rule, in their advocacy than orthodox
Christians are. Secularists seek to win with the aid of argument,
not with the use of threats. They, believing in works of utility,
pursue an even course of conduct, disregarding alike the perplex
ities of a mystic faith, and the allurements of the orthodox fancied
life beyond the grave.
The question is, has Secularism achieved more useful results
during its brief existence as an organized force than Christianity
accomplished in a relative time of its primitive days ? Unques
tionably we answer in the affirmative. It is a favourite boast of
■orthodox exponents that Secularists have built no hospitals,
erected no orphan asylums, and established no homes for the poor.
It is true that in their distinctive organization Secularists have not
had an opportunity to .do this, but in their individual capacity they
have always rendered valuable support to these useful agencies,
and for hundreds of years Christians did no more. It is the height
of folly to suppose that we are indebted to the Christian faith for
the benevolence of the worid. Professor Max Muller has shown
that philanthropy and charity existed in abundance long before
Christianity dawned upon the world, that the chief characteristic
of Buddhist morality was chanty, and that Buddha himself pro
claimed, the brotherhood of man and exhorted the rich to perform
their duty by giving to the poor. That eminent and impartial
author, R. Bosworth Smith, M. A., of Trinity College, Oxford,
furnishes some valuable facts upon this subject in his work
on Mohammedanism. “ No Christian,” says he, “ need be sorry
to learn, or be backward to acknowledge, that, contrary to what is
usually supposed, two of these noble institutions [hospitals and
lunatic asylums] which flourish now most in Christian countries
. . . . owe their origin and their early spread, not to his own
religion, but to' the great heart of humanity, which beats in two
�7o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
other of the grandest religions of the world ” (“ Mohammed and
Mohammedanism,” p. 253). The writer then goes on to demon
strate that “ hospitals are the direct outcome of Buddhism,” and
that lunatic asylums are the result of “ Mohammedan influence.’
Lecky also observes that “ no lunatic asylum existed in Christian
Europe till the fifteenth century. The Mohammedans, in this form
of charity, preceded the Christians ” (“ History of European
Morals,” vol 2, p. 94).
Thus it will be seen that these institutions are not fruit from the
Christian tree. Such monuments of charity are supported by
benevolence, which is a human instinct belonging exclusively to no
one nation and to no one people. It is to be found wherever human
nature exists. It obtained long before Christianity was heard of,,
and it will doubtless continue to benefit mankind when the Chris
tian faith has shared the fate of other imperfect systems. If
benevolence is a Christian instinct only, how is it that we find it so
largely displayed by those who have no faith in Christianity ? Vol
taire was no Christian, yet his benevolent acts won words of praise
from Lord Brougham. Robert Owen, who had no sympathies
with the religions of the world, spent a life and fortune in doing
good to his fellow-creatures. During the distress in 1806, caused
by the embargo placed on the ports of America, this Freethought
philanthropist paid ^70,000 for wages while his mills were stopped,,
rather than the families of his work-people should suffer through
the lack of employment. Surely, this was disinterested benevo
lence. The history of Stephen Girard, the Philadelphia merchant,
indicates how “ infidelity” and philanthropy may be allied. Girard
was a “ total disbeliever in the Christian religion.” Notwith
standing this, during his life he gave the following proofs of his
generous nature:—“He subscribed $110,000 for purposes of
navigation, $10,000 towards the erection of a public exchange, and
$200,000 for railway enterprises. At his death he bequeathed
$30,000 to the Pennsylvania Hospital, $20,000 t® the deaf and
dumb institution, $10,000 to the public schools of Philadelphia,
and the same amount to the orphan asylum. In addition to these
bequests, Girard left large sums of money to the general poor,
and for sanitary and social improvements.”
James Lick
gave more than $1,000,000 for scientific and benevolent
purposes; James Smithson, an unbeliever, left half-a-million
to found the Smithsonian Institute at Washington; Peter
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
7r
Brigham gave $3,000,000 for the purpose of establishing
hospitals for the sick-poor of Boston ; John Redmon gave $400,000 '
to support free beds in the hospitals at Boston ; William McClure
gave half-a-million to aid the workingmen of Indiana. In Glas
gow, Scotland, the Mitchell Library, with its bequest of £70,000,
is the legacy of a Socialist and a Freethinker. Mr. George Baillie,
of the same city, left over £18,000 to establish unsectarian schools,
reading rooms, etc.; and the Haldan bequest, of Glasgow, and
the Glen Institution were gifts of those who had no faith in the
religion of the Churches. The fact is, benevolence is a human
instinct born of human sympathy and stimulated by utility, which
is pre-eminently a Secular principle.
It is alleged that the service of Secularism to the world has been
impaired in consequence of its being partly negative in its advocacy.
But its positive teachings should not be overlooked. Moreover,
if negation be an error, Christianity is certainly not free from it,
inasmuch as it negates all systems but its own, and even to that it
is not consistently positive. But why this professed alarm at
negative advocacy ? Is negation to error a crime ? Is the
destruction of wrong useless to society ? Is it no service to man
kind, while shams are regarded as realities and falsehoods wor
shipped as truth, to pursue a negative course of action ? Should
we be wise in being positive to foolish conjectures about another
world and injurious conduct in this ? £)n the contrary, it is necessary,
to prepare public opinion for the reception of advanced views by
clearing the human mind of the weeds of error, that we may have
some hope of successfully planting the flowers of truth. Instead,
therefore, of believing indiscriminately in ancient creeds, the Secular
advocate deems it wise to examine all faiths presented to him, and to
seek to destroy what is contained therein that is inimical to modern
improvement. The province of Secularism is not only to enunciate
positive principles, but also to break up old systems which have lost
their vitality, and to refute theologies which have hitherto usurped
judgment and reason. Secularism relies on no dogmas, and pays
no heed to religious theories about saving faith. It professes to
know nothing about worlds beyond the tomb, and asserts, should
there be any, their duties do not commence here. It declines
to be dictated to by any priests, or to listen to the ridiculous stories
about alleged sacred books. It recognizes no church but that of
humanity, and knows no code of morals but that which is based
�72
SECULAR TEACHINGS
upon the happiness of man. Whatever interferes with general
usefulness, Secularism regards as dangerous to the commonwealth.
Hence the Secularist opposes orthodox Christianity, because
he considers it antagonistic to the principles of utility. Secularism,
however, is not limited to “ cold negation.” While as Secularists
we are negative to the follies of theology, we are positive to the
wisdom of humanity ; while many of us reject what is said to per
tain to the supernatural, we readily accept that which belongs to
the natural, and deem it right to conform as far as possible to
nature’s laws. Experience proves that such obedience is the best
guarantee against the many “ ills that flesh is heir to.” Thus
Secularism inculcates the most positive duties of life, such as the
study of physiology, by which man can learn to know himself; a
knowledge of the chemistry of food, water, and air, whereby he may
be able to maintain a healthy organization ; an acquaintance with
the mental nature of man, which will enable us to know how cir
cumstances impel us in a certain direction, producing vice here,
virtue there, morality at one time, and immorality at another; a
consciousness of domestic obligations which will prompt men to
provide by their own industry for those dependent upon them, and
to seek to make provision by care and prudence for the evening of
life.
Secular workers have found it necessary to till and prepare the
soil of the human mind for the reception of the seed of truth
which has slowly but surely developed into flowers of mental
liberty.
True liberty is not the offshoot of a day, but
rather the growth of years. “ Our Elliots, our Hampdens, and our
Cromwells, a couple of centuries ago, hewed with their broad-swords
a rough pathway for the people. But it was reserved for the present
century to complete the triumph which the Commonwealth began.’’
And this is just the century in which Secularism has manifested
its activity. The battle of the freedom of the press and liberty of
speech has been nobly fought, and practically won, but the victory
cost Paine, Hone, Wright, Carlile, Williams, Hetherington, Wat
son, and many others their liberty, and imposed upon them priva
tions which were keen to endure. For selling the Poor Man's
Guardian only, upwards of 500 persons were thrown into prison.'
For publishing the “ Age of Reason” in 1797, Williams suffered
twelvemonths’ imprisonment in Coldbath prison. In 1812, Daniel
Isaac Eaton was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
73
the pillory, for the same grave offence ; and the following year, Mr.
Houston was sentenced to be imprisoned for two years in Newgate,
and fined /200, for publishing his book called “ Ecce Homo.” In
October, 1819, Carlile was tried for publishing Paine’s Theological
Works, and Palmer’s “ Principles of Nature,” and condemned for
the first to Dorchester Gaol, and a fine of ^1,000; and for the
second to one year’s imprisonment, and a fine of ^500, and had to
find security for good behaviour for himself in ^"i,ooo, and two
securities in ^100 each. His wife and sister were afterwards con
victed of similar acts, and suffered heavy sentences. Upwards of
thirty other persons, many of them journeymen of Mr. Carlile,
and the rest small booksellers, were also subjected to fine and
imprisonment in various degrees of severity. After this, Charles
Southwell was imprisoned and fined ^100, for publishing an article
in the Oracle of Reason.
The Christian Church has ever persecuted those who differed
from its teachings. This desire to promote free enquiry in its
early history was exemplified in the memorable proclamation of
the Christian Emperor Theodosius, in which he declared that
the whole of the writings of Porphyry, and all others who had
written against the Christian religion, should be committed
to the fire.
The writings of Celsus met with an equally
warm reception, and for a proof that the same desire has existed in
modern times, it is necessary not only to read the history of those
Freethought pioneers of the last and early part of the present cen
tury, but also to remember that now, whenever Christians have
the power, they close the halls against us, in order that we may
not have the opportunity to promulgate the . material for free in
quiry.
Thus it will be seen that Secularism in the past has of necessity
been principally destructive, having had to fight for its right of
existence; till this was won it had no opportunity of exemplifying
its constructive powers. It was reserved for a more recent date to
formulate its principles into order and practical working. This is
the pleasing task in which the Secular party is now engaged ; and
that is a work which we hope and believe will make Secularism an
important factor in the training and elevation of the present
generation.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
Z4
XVI.
SECULARISM : ITS PRESENT TRIUMPHS.
What benefits have accrued to us from the victories of our fore
fathers in the long and desperate conflict between Science and’
Religion ? The Copernican system, perfected mathematically by
Newton, in the words of Leibnitz, “ robbed the Deity of some of
his best attributes, and sapped the foundation of natural religion.’r
For people who. believed that the earth was the centre and chief of
the universe, the sun and moon and stars being merely little lamps
moving around it, and the sky a canopy above it, it was not ridi
culous to conceive that beyond the sky there was a Heaven, be
neath the flat earth a Hell; and that God was supremely interested!
in mundane affairs, and especially in the destiny of man, the
noblest creature of this royal earth. But such conceptions are
worse than ridiculous, they are idiotic, when we know that our
globe is a speck so minute in the Immensity of Space, that “ a full
stop in this print, as seen by the naked eye at a distance of twofeet, is several hundred times larger than the earth as seen from
the sun; ” while from the nearest of the fixed stars it would bequite indistinguishable with telescopes much’ more powerful than
we possess. If God gave his Only Son for us animalcules on this
microscopic spherule, what could he do for the Illimitable Uni
verse ? It is now seen that there is no above and no beneath; no
place for Heaven or Hell. And we are not less insignificant in the
boundlessness of Time than of Space. It is true that our race was
in existence myriads of years before the date of birth entered in the
family Bible, but other animals and the earth itself were in ex
istence myriads of years before us ; and as the condition of the earth
is ever changing, all probabilities point to the prospect of the earth
itself and other creatures being in existence myriads of ages after
we are extinct. A hopeful look-out tor our immortal souls!
While astronomy and geology have thus dethroned the earth
and man, dissolved Heaven and Hell, and reduced the Book of
Genesis to a jejune fable, the progress of all the sciences has im
pressed upon us the universality and immutability of law, the
invariable sequences of events, thus slaying miracle, despatching
Special Providence, and rendering prayer for celestial help a child
ish folly. Most of us look to medicin'e and sanitary measures for
health, not to supplication and shrined relics. And in most of us
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
75
are included our so-called Christians, for, in spite of their dogmas,
the greater part of their lives are conducted on the principles of
Secularism, though generally it is a Secularism deprived of many
of its better qualities. They shut down their brains on Sundays
in church, but keep them open with their shops all the week.
They are now willing to avail themselves of all the benefits of
science, but beg us not to shock their bashfulness by exposing its
principles and deductions in all their naughty nakedness.
If the question is asked, Is the present age practically Christian
or Secular ? to whom or to what shall we appeal for an answer ?
Shall we go to the Church of Rome? No; for its spirit is con
fessedly that of the past ages. Times change, governments alter,,
nations rise, civilizations come and go, but Catholicism remains
the same. Its philosophy is still that of Thomas Aquinas; its
creeds are still damnatory upon all who cannot accept them in
every jot or tittle. Shall we appeal to the Anglican Church ? No ;
for that Church refuses liberty of thought and speech to even her
own children, as when she visited with excommunication, obloquy
and reproach the endeavours of Bishop Colenso to throw the light
of reason upon the hitherto dark cells wherein the Pentateuch was
enshrouded from public inquiry. Not to either of these must we
make application,- but rather to the science, literature, philosophy
and politics of this nineteenth century of the Christian era.
First, then, let us appeal to science. “ Is the Bible scientifically
true ? ” To the geologist we say, “ Ought we to accept unques
tioningly the Bible account of the Creation ? ” The answer is dis
tinctly, “ No ! ” To the anthropologist we say, “ Is it true that all
mankind have proceeded directly from one man and one woman ? ”
The answer is distinctly, “ No!” To the astronomer we say, “ Is it
likely that sun, moon, planets and stars were made in order to
give light to the earth ? ” The answer is a decided “ No ! ” “ Is
it,” we ask, “ true that the sun and moon stood still at the com
mand of Joshua ? ” The astronomer says : “ No ; such a thing
would,in the nature of things,have wrecked and destroyed the solar
system.” To the critical scholar, the man whose life has been de
voted to the study of the age and the authenticity of the, different
portions of the Bible, we next apply to know whether these por
tions of the book were written by the men whose names they bear,
and in the age wherein their alleged occurrences transpired. He,
too, says: “ No ; these books are wholly human in their origin ;
•
�76
SECULAR TEACHINGS
they have been antedated, interpolated, added to and taken from j
you must not accept them as being the very word of the very God.”
So much for the characteristic of the age as represented by
science. If we turn to literature, what does that tell us ? That it
is wholly emancipated from the trammels of theology, that the
priest and the Index Expurgatorius no longer control it. There
was a time when the literature of Europe was confined to works
of theology and devotion. The first book, we believe, printed by
Caxton was a Bible, then a Missal, and so on. Lives of the saints
were abundant, telling of martyrs who, like St. Denis, walked
about with their heads in their hands after they had been decapi
tated, of ten thousand virgins murdered at once, and other fictions
even more incredible. All this, however, has been changed ; our
literature now pays little or no heed to theology. True it is that
Bibles are multiplied by the million ; that goody-goody tracts and
pious story-books are circulated in all directions ; but these do not
form the literature of the age. No ; that is the production of the
leading spirits of the time—of its doctors, its political writers, its
scientists, its lawyers, and its philosophers. Monthly, weekly—
aye, and even daily, the Press teems with productions many of
which are utterly at variance with the theological dogmas of the
past,
It is admitted even by eminent divines that the phase of unbelief
known as Agnosticism is a prominent characteristic of the age.
Agnosticism declares that we have no knowledge of God ; that we
cannot pretend to say that such a Supreme Intelligence exists ;
and that we are absolutely precluded from affirming that the uni
verse is really destitute of such a central Nous, or Highest Intelli
gence: “ Canst thou,” asked the writer of the grand old Semitic
drama—“ Canst thou by searching find out God ? ” This inter
rogation the honest Agnostic has put to himself, and after long and
earnest exercitation of mind, after the intensest study of the world
external and of the inner consciousness, he arrives at the conclu■ sion that the question cannot be satisfactorily answered, either
affirmatively or negatively.
The Philosophy of the age is far different to what it was when
men made their ignorance the standard of belief. There was a
time when even leeks, onions, and salt were worshipped as emblems
of power and of the preserving influence. We have outgrown such
idle Fetichism, and we believe that priestcraft has in the past
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
77
imposed these and all other theologies upon the world. It is not true
that there is something in the heart of man which beats responsive
to the figments of theologians. Fancy yourselves in a desolate "
island left to shift for yourselves from childhood, without either
priests or Bibles, or any means of becoming acquainted with the
thoughts and imaginings of other men in other regions. In such a
situation is it to be supposed that people’s hearts would prompt to
the education of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the necessity of
baptism, of regeneration, of the Apostle’s Creed, or the ThirtyNine Articles ? Where would be natural religion in such a case ?
The probability is that, except people were strong-minded, if they
were barbaric and ignorant, they would do as their distant pre
decessors in human history did—that is, fall down before and wor
ship the thunder, the tornado, the sun, or the starry host. Each
of these phenomena, then, would be endowed with a latent spirit,
and, in process of time, have added to them one supreme Unknown
Being, for whom would be invented a designation equivalent to
our word God.
Orthodox Christians misrepresent the philosophy of the age,
because they have been trained from infancy to attribute all things
whatever to a being external to themselves. But the present age
is more practical than any other by which it has been preceded : its
energies are directed towards its own improvement.
c
The political world is conducted on Secular principles ; scientific
research is unfettered by theology, and is, therefore, Secular ; and
the practical ethics of modern society are utilitarian, and are,
therefore, Secular. Happy, indeed, is it for the world that its
politics are now finally severed from religion. The stronghold of
the successful statesman to-day is the standard of utility. In his
reasoning, his whole argument is made to rest upon this, the
foundation of permanent progress. The career of Mr. Cobden in
England, and Mr. Lincoln in America, were illustrations of the
secularization of our modern public life.” They reveal to us the
path by which those must tread, whose ambition it is to benefit
their age. Had they lived a few hundred years ago, they might
have built churches, or founded monasteries,' or endowed colleges,
—been the Wyckhams or St. Bernards of their time. Their lot
was rather to legislate and agitate—to give food to the hungry,
to undo heavy burdens, and to set the oppres sed free ; to remove
impediments from the path of national progress, that human de-
�78
SECULAR TEACHINGS
velopment might be left to its own laws, to seek its welfare in its
own way. Life thus became to them mundane, secular, rational,
non-theological, spent amid the hard practical conflicts of politics,
and aiming at nothing higher than the advancement of justice,
righteousness, and liberty in the world.”
Indeed, this ignoring Christian principles as a guide is not con
fined to public men. Christians themselves have long since ceased
to be influenced in their every-day actions by the teachings of
their Master. In his work upon “ Liberty,” John Stuart Mill says,
that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individ
ual conduct by reference to those (New Testament) laws.” The
reason why those laws cannot be obeyed in the nineteenth century
is given in the words of Mill, that “ the morality of Christ is in
many important points incomplete and onesided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings not sanctioned by it, had contributed to the
formation of European life and character, human affairs would
have been in a worse condition than they now are.” The same
writer tells us that, “ other ethics than any which can
be evolved from exclusively Christian sources, must exist
side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral
regeneration of mankind.” Buckle also in his “ History of
Civilization,” after showing that until doubt began, civilization
was impossible, and that the religious tolerance we now have has
been forced from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that
the act of doubting is the originator, or at all events, the necessary
antecedent of all progress. Here we have that scepticism, the
very name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it
disturbs their lazy and complacent minds ; because it troubles
their cherished superstitions ; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry ;' and because it rouses even sluggish under
standings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed, and
if all is really true which they from their childhood have been
taught to believe. The more we examine this great principle of
scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense part it
has played in the progress of European civilization. To state in
general terms what in this introduction will be fully proved, it may
be said, that to scepticism we owe that spirit of inquiry which,
during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on every
possible subject; has reformed every department of practical and
speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority of the privi-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
t
79
leged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer foundation ; has
chastised the despotism of princes ; has restrained the arrogance
of the nobles, and has even diminished the prejudices of the clergy.
In a word, it is this which has remedied the three fundamental
errors of the olden time : errors which made the people, in politics
too confiding; in science too credulous ; in religion too intolerant.”
Thus, as the result of persistent Secular advocacy, we can con
gratulate ourselves upon having achieved many important
triumphs. We have a freedom of speech unknown in Christian
times. The press is more liberal than it ever was. Education is
becoming more secular every year, and orthodox persecution dare
not manifest itself as it di$l in the past. Hell is shut up, and the
•devil is practically dead, while the churches have left their old
moorings and are seeking to adapt their teachings to the Secular
requirements of the age.
We are told that the ethics of Jesus Christ are contained in the
four Gospels, and to the four Gospels they have ever been confined. Like
the old-fashioned silk dress of the old-fashioned cottager, they have
always been kept locked up, as being excellent to look at but too
fine for daily use. No man has ever succeeded, despite his protes
tations, in loving his enemy as himself; no man has ever turned the
second cheek to the ready blow of the smiter ; no man has syste
matically neglected himself out of a regard for the prosperity of his
•enemies. Indeed, the very heroes of the Bible never did this.
David cursed his persecutors ; the Apostles called down vengeance
from heaven upon Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon Magus; Paul
delivered over one of his enemies to Satan, “ that he might learn
not to blaspheme ; ” and generally throughout Christian history we
look in vain for the charity which beareth and endureth all things,
In our own age the real test of goodness of conduct is its useful
ness to the world. Though we do not make loud pretensions of
loving those who hate us, the whole gist and scope, of our morality
is directed towards promoting the welfare- of society by means
which will also secure the welfare of its component elements. This
is utilitarianism, not theology ; it is the recognition of the fact that
the thing called Duty is a something between man and man, not
man and God. In our mutual relationship we find the natural en
couragement and motive-power for the display of every virtue.
The theory of immortality has nothing whatever to do with our
prudence, our courage, our honesty, or our purity of character.
�So
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
The stringent, adamantine necessities of our existence imperatively
require the exercise of these virtues. Would we live secure from
peril of death by starvation, of penury the most abject, we must
prudently provide against the danger. Would we preserve our
national independence and individual freedom, we must be pre
pared to defend these against every adversary. Would we wish
to be ensured against false dealing and breach of faith, we must
ourselves deal honestly with all men. Would we keep a “ sound
mind in a sound body,” would we preserve our wives and daughters
from insult, we must keep our passions under restraint, and show
by our own example the wisdom of so living. Upon prudence
truth, courage, honesty, and. temperance is based the whole
edifice of modern civilization. Without them we could not exist
except as barbarians; they must always be the very corner-stones
of societarian morality.
XVII. SECULARISM IN THE FUTURE.
If ever since the Renaissance Science, Art and Freethought have •
steadily advanced in spite of all opposition, and the power of the
Church has steadily decreased ; if Naturalism, in the weak infancy
of its birth, has not only defeated all the attempts of Supernatural
ism to crush it, but has wrested more and more its rightful domains
from the usurper ; we cannot doubt the issue of the conflict be
tween Secularism and its foes now that the former is grown to
vigorous youth and the latter are falling into senile and anile de
crepitude. If Hercules even in his cradle could strangle venomous
serpents, he would have small fear of the brood when he was in
his prime, and they were fangless with age. With the impetus of
our long advance, with the growing momentum of our enlarging
mass and accelerating speed, our progress as Secularists in the
future, so far as human foresight can extend, must be yet more
rapid and irresistible. We have plenty of work before us, and
work abounding with difficulties ; but if the past is the prophet of
the to-come, we have every encouragement and augury of success
in undertaking it. If we and our immediate successors do not
signally triumph, it will be through our lack of courage, or energy,
or wisdom, or of all three ; for the triumph of our principles is sureas soon as they are worthily championed.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
81-
In the first place, we must continue our effort to educate the’
masses of the people, kept ignorant all these centuries back by the:
mental tyranny of Ecclesiasticism. The education on which we
should insist must be free, compulsory, universal, and Secular.
Those who want their children taught some religion can arrange
for this at home, or elsewhere, out of school hours ; the teaching
for which the nation provides must be of subjects which all the
nation recognizes as useful, and these subjects are strictly secular..
We have to remove all legal and other disabilities founded on sex.. *
Although the Christians are fond of boasting that their religion ha&
elevated woman, we know that the New Testament, as well as the
Old, distinctly proclaims her inferiority and subservience to man.
With our belief that all human beings have an equal right to the
full development and the free exercise of their faculties, we are
bound to open to women as to men all spheres of activity. Women,
will succeed in those for which they are fit, they will fail in thosefor which they are not fit; it is waste of time to discuss before
hand their fitness or unfitness for this or that; it is absurd as it is
unjust to hinder them from trying at what they will.
We have to promote sanitation in every direction, the provision
of pure air, pure water, pure food, sufficient house-room for even
the poorest classes. We have to do our utmost to extend and im
prove the cultivation of Science in general, and all the useful arts
which are nurtured by Science; and especially we have to further
both in theory and practice, the doctrines of Sociology, in order
that the just relations of man to man and society may be deter
mined and established in fact, and the present anarchy and hosti
lity between the classes of the privileged and unprivileged may be'
destroyed, and merged into a free and fraternal harmony. We'
have to endeavour to convince our fellow creatures that the real object of existence should be to learn how to live well; and that-’
this can only be accomplished by developing our physical organiza
tion, cultivating our moral sense, and training our intellectual
faculties. We have to enforce the truth that all the real wants of
human nature are comprised under the heads of the physical,
moral, intellectual, social, political, domestic, and emotional re
quirements of mankind ; and that all these requisites are supplied
by Secularism without the aid of any theology.
A few special words may be addressed to our own party, to thosewho are consciously and avowedly Secularists, and profess them-
�82
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
selves anxious to extend the principles and practice of Secularism.
We are stronger than we ever were, not only in ourselves, and in
the comparative freedom with which we can advocate our doc
trines, but also in the increased and ever-increasing amount of
powerful and intelligent opinion in favour of our leading principles,
though not yet consciously or avowedly Secularistic, and in the
diminished and ever-diminishing power of the Supernaturalism
and despotism to which we are opposed. It rests with ourselves
to make the most of our advantages. In the first place, we must
combine more generally, organize more thoroughly, work together
more cordially, than we have ever yet done. We cannot exercise
our due influence, we cannot as we ought hearten ourselves and
dishearten our adversaries without union and co-operation. The
very essence of practical Secularism is social, not isolated, effort;
as our end is freedom, education, health, and happiness in com
mon, we must strive in common for this end. In many towns
there are scattered Secularists who do little or nothing for the
cause, while, if they formed societies, they could do much. Of
course it is not required that any man should surrender or sup
press his convictions on essential points for the sake of conformity
with his brethren. But all genuine Secularists have so much that
is essential in common, that they can honestly act together, and so
multiply their strength, both for attack or resistance. Our devotion
to mental, moral, social, and political freedom should surely enable
us to live together in a brotherhood and sisterhood more cordial
and intimate than can be dreamed of by those whose main object
is selfish prosperity in this life, or selfish beatitude in a life to come,
or the dual selfishness of the one and the other.
Again, even where we have Societies, they are usually much too
restricted in their scope. Lectures, discussions, and reading are
very valuable, and indeed necessary, but it should ever be remem
bered that if a man simply hears Freethought lectures, or reads
.Freethought books himself, leaving his family to gratify their
social instincts in ordinary society, his children will probably grow
up saturated with the prejudices and superstitions from which he
has been freed. We want the wives, children, and other relatives
of our members to be interested and delighted in our work. To
.this end our Societies must be not only schools of instruction, but
also resorts for innocent recreation. We need tender hearts no
less than hard heads, and must cultivate warm feeling as well as
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
83
-cool reasoning. Secularism is little or nothing worth unless it be
-carried out in practice, unless it pervade the whole private and
public life of those who profess it. There are men—we all know
such—who, because they have been delivered from the fetters of
Supernaturalism ; because they have been enabled to learn that
the Bible is, like any other book of ancient times, a mixture of
truth and error, of good and bad; because they see clearly the
injustice of certain laws which bear heavily on themselves; flatter
themselves that they are very wise and distinguished men, far
superior to the vulgar folk about them, that they are shining para
gons of Secularism; while remaining as selfish and immoral as
before they were thus partially enlightened. Such men are not
Secularists at all, they are the opprobrium of Secularism. The
genuine Secularist, ever working toward the greatest good of
. the greatest number, in the light of the clearest wisdom he can
acquire, must be a brave, kindly, sincere and just man. His
Secularism will be felt as a radiating blessing, first and most
warmly and brightly in his own home, and farther off, in propor
tion to their distance, by all his neighbours. If a man neglects and
ill-treats his wife and children, if he is idle and intemperate, if he
cheats in trade or scamps his work, if he is tyrannical to those
beneath him and obsequious to those above him, if he is jealous
and envious, given to slander and falsehood, if he seeks only or
mainly self-gratification, whether of appetite or vanity or pride, we
must distinctly disavow him as a Secularist, however cleverly he
may write, however fluently he may speak, against the doctrines
adverse to our own. Secularism must no longer be charged, with
out protest, with the vices and lack of self-respect of persons v;ho
are really Nothingarians—men who are sceptical to the tenets of
-Christianity, but who never essay to regulate their every-day con
duct in accordance with the moral teachings of practical Secular
ism. We can only achieve a real and enduring triumph, and can
•only deserve to achieve it, by approving ourselves not simply more
intelligent, but also more virtuous, than our opponents, mote
courageous, honest, humane, zealous, and loving.
There is a large class of passive as distinguished from active
Secularists ; persons so circumstanced that they dare not, or think
they dare not, avow themselves publicly, fearing to wound and
estrange friends, or bring injury upon themselves. The cases of
such persons vary so extremely and indefinitely that no peremptory
�84
SECULAR TEACHINGS
counsel can be given applicable to the majority, or even to a large
number, save such as would be founded on the lofty but impracti
cable supposition, that all men ajike must be and can be heroes,,
and, if the occasion calls, martyrs. One consideration, however, can/
safely be urged upon all such persons. They are much more num
erous than they themselves suppose ; so numerous that, if they all
took courage to declare their principles, they would find them
selves far too powerful to suffer from the social obloquy and os
tracism from which they shrink severally in their isolation. EverySecularist is certainly required to show more vigour and couragethan the vulgar bondsmen of creeds and conventionalities. Weare already reaping rich harvests from the fields sown in the tears
and blood of the heroes and martyrs who went before ; it surely
behoves us, to whom by their efforts the task has been rendered somuch easier and less dangerous, to plant and sow more abundantly,
for the reaping and gathering of those who shall come after. Thisis our just debt to our ancestry, which can only be paid to our
posterity. If our forefathers dared undaunted the prison and the
scaffold and the stake, when the ultimate triumph of the Good Old<
Cause was so remote and dubious, we must be degenerate indeed
if we cannot dare some annoyance of ignorant contumely, some
injury to our business or social prospects, when its final victory is,
so much nearer and so assured.
XVIII. SECULARISM: SUMMING UP.
In concluding an exposition of the teachings of Secularism, it may
be of service to the reader to briefly summarize the leading featuresof Secular philosophy. Unfortunately it is too evident that through
out society there exist exceedingly imperfect ideas regarding man,,
his duties and requirements. The search for truth and the acquire
ment of a practical acquaintance with the obligations of life are
too frequently confined to the few, while the many neglect to real
ize the real advantages of existence. Why is this ? What hasproduced such misconception of the object of human effort ? The/
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
85
cause perhaps is not difficult to discover. It is apparent in’the
radical evil underlying the whole of the theological creeds of
Christendom—namely, a lack of the desire to concentrate atten
tion on the present. The term “ present ” is here used as having
reference to the life we now experience, entirely apart from con
siderations of any existence “ hereafter.” Accepted in this Secular
sense, it is of course a duty to take thought for the morrow. Such
a prospective aspiration is demanded by prudence, and justified
by experience. But the mistake of the theological world is that
ns members regulate their conduct and control their actions
almost exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology,' and
their modes of thought, are too much a reflex of an imperfect an
tiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient inspiration from this
source, fly into the fancied boundaries of another world—a future
which is enveloped in obscurity, and upon which experience can
throw no light. History has been subverted by this theological
error from its proper purpose. Instead of being the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations; instead of being a
guide of the future, it is really the master of the present. The
proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard of appeal
in this ; the wisdom of the first century is regarded as the infal
lible rule of the nineteenth. The watchword of the Church is “as
you were,” rather than “ as you are.” Christian theology hesi
tates to recognize active progressive principles, but holds that faith
was stereotyped eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subse
quent actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Observing
this defect, Secularism asserts that immediate positive work is
more valuable than either retrospective or prospective faith. And
rather than worship mysteries, and venerate the unknown, a
Secularist strives to avail himself of the utility and value of the
realities which lie around hiip.
Secularism is a term selected to represent principles having
reference to the existence and necessities of mankind on earth,
neither affirming nor denying an existence “ beyond the grave.”
Secularists recognize this life as an indubitable fact; should
there be another awaiting mankind in the future, all notions of
such a state must, we think, be mere conjectures. Therefore,
we deem it more useful to concentrate our efforts upon the
known life—that which really is—seeking to realize its value,
�86
SECULAR TEACHINGS
physically, morally, and intellectually, as fully as possible,,
thereby making the best of existence, and also preparing for
the highest enjoyment of any supposed life hereafter, if future ex
perience should demonstrate its reality. In reference to certain
theological views professed by the Christian world, the statement
of the “ Founder of Secularism” is here appropriate. “ Many of
us,” he observes, “ are not able to believe in the existence of a
Supreme Being, distinct from nature ; but we do not exact from
members of Secular Societies an agreement in opinion on thistheological question. We associate for practical purposes on the
wide field of Secularism, outside the abstract question of the ex
istence of Deity. Many of us do not hold the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul; but neither do we exact agreement on
this point, from our friends. We seek the co-operation of all who
can agree to promote present human improvement by present
human means. The existence of God, the future condition of
man, are questions which five thousand years of controversy
have not settled ; we, therefore, leave them open to the solution,
of intelligence and time ; they shall not be with us barriers which
shall divide us from our brethren ; we will not embarrass human
affairs with them. Morality, that system of human duties com
mencing from man, we will keep distinct from religion, that system
of human duties assumed to commence from God ” (Mr. Holyoake’s debate with Rev. B. Grant in 1853, page 7).
The teachings of Secularism are :—(1) That, as this life is the
only one of which we have any knowledge, we should seek to pro
mote, by material means alone, the physical, moral, and intellectual
condition of society. By material means we understand that which
is calculable in its operations, being the very antithesis of what is
called spiritual agencies. This, of course, includes the proper use
of every intellectual faculty. (2) That personal excellence and
general usefulness in human affairs ought to be regarded as being
of greater importance than the consideration of theological specu
lations and the adherence to alleged supernatural teachings, and.
should be the chief objects of human solicitude and labour. (3) That
the basis of all conduct is the temporal well-being of the people, and.
the object of all action is the acquirement and practice of wisdom,
truth, temperance, fortitude, and justice. (4) That reliance upon thediscoveries of science, and sharing in the benefits arising from rheir
application to the needs of mankind, are preferable to reposing trust
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
.
,
>
87
in theological faiths and the teachings of the Bible. (5) That the
motive prompting to action should be the attainment of the highest
possible individual and general happiness on earth, not the desire
for personal enjoyment in the alleged heaven of Christianity.
(6) That, if a just God exist, and if a judgment day ever arrives,
honest inquiry,earnest conviction, integrity of character, and fidelity
to principle should secure as warm an approval and as good a re
ward for the Secularist who rejects the faith of Christendom as
could be obtained by the Christian who is able to believe in the
teachings of the New Testament. (7) That to select the good and
reject the bad in any or all religions is a right that any and every
person should be allowed honestly and conscientiously to exercise,
without incurring any disadvantages here, or any punishment in any
possible hereafter.
As to the “theory of the universe,” Secularism allows its ad
herents to form what opinion upon this matter the individual deems
in harmony with the evidence before him or her. Experience proves
that uniformity of opinions upon speculative topics cannot obtain.
All persons are left, therefore, to decide for themselves according
to the “light before them.” We impose no ancient conclusion as
the limit and boundary upon modern thought. If men and women
will work, irrespective of theological dogmas, for the good of society
in this life, they are practical Secularists. Secularism is not neces
sarily Atheism or Theism ; its principles are broad enough to admit
either Theists, Atheists, or Pantheists within its ranks.
The Secular code of morals is based upon the principle of utility;
it enjoins self-discipline, the love of truth, fidelity to conviction, ac
quirement and application of knowledge, fortitude in good conduct,
temperance, magnanimity, justice, and considerateness for the
rights, comfort, and welfare of others.
It is-frequently asked : From a Secular standpoint, (a) What is
the source of moral obligation ? (b) What is the nature of a moral
action ? (c) What are the sanctions of morality ? (d) What are
the incentives to moral conduct ? The answer is clear and decisive ;Human nature is the source of m<*ral obligation. The
more that nature is improved by experience and cultivation the
better and stronger will be the moral source, (ft) Those actions
only are moral which are beneficial to mankind, and which add to
the welfare of society, both individually and collectively, (c) The
sanctions of morality are the protection of the individual and the
�88
SitCULAR TEACHINGS
debt he owes to the community for its protective service, (d) The
incentives to moral conduct are personal excellence and the general
haippiness and well-being of the community.
Secularists are often invited to indicate what Secularism has to
-offer to mankind for their good that Christianity cannot consis
tently proffer ? To which we reply : (i) The right to reject, with
out peril or condemnation, whatever appears to us to be erroneous
in any or all of the religions of the world. Secularism defends this
right; Christianity condemns it. “ He that believeth and is
baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”
(Mark 16: 16.) (2) The full liberty to regard Christianity as
being merely the outgrowth of the human mind. Secularism
grants this. The Church denies it in contending that Christianity is
2. Divine system, and that its founder was a part of the Godhead.
To those who do not obey Christ’s Gospel he will come “ in flam
ing fire, taking vengeance on them” (2 Thess. 1:8). (3) The ad-^
vantage of .believing the Bible to be of human origin in estimating
its contents by its intrinsic value and not by its supposed “ Divine’’
authority. Orthodox Christianity does not concede this. If it
did, its “ court of appeal ” would be at once gone as an infallible
“ authority.” (4) The absence of any fear of being punished
et hereafter ” for the legitimate exercise of reason in its true sphere
of Secular Freethought. Christianity does not permit this, inas
much as it enforces uniformity of belief, demanding all mankind
.to accept Christ as their Saviour. In the case of rejecting this
demand, Christianity says : “For whosoever will deny me before
men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven”
(Matt. 10: 33). (5) The acting upon the opinion that the princi
pal attention of man should be given to “time,” and not to
“ eternity.” The world practically acts upon this principle. If
this is denied let it be shown (a) that national progress is the
result of aught else but the devotion of man’s principal attention
to the things of “ timeand (6) that such attention renders a
person less fit for any possible “ eternity.” (6) That science is of
more value to man than faith in the alleged supernatural. This is
the very opposite to the following New Testament teachings :—
“ Take no thought for your life
“ Labour not for the meat
which perisheth
“ For what is a man profited if he shall gain the
whole world and lose his own soul ?” “Man is saved by faith with
out works
“ Set your affections on things above, not on things
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
89
on the earth;” “For the wisdom of the world is foolishness with
God;” “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of
/the Church.......... and the prayer of faith shall save the sick;’
“ Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplica
tion let your requests be made known unto God;” “But seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these
things [material wants of man] shall be added unto you.”
It is necessary to correct the erroneous orthodox allegation that
the positive teachings of Secularism have been purloined from
Christianity. We claim that the present life is the only one of
which we have any knowledge ; that well-being in this world is
our highest duty; that the only means we can rely upon to secure
this object are knowledge, wise action, and experience ; that con
duct should be judged by its issues on earth, and that science is
of more practical value than belief in any supernatural being
Surely these teachings are positive enough; but where are they to
be found in the New Testament ? Again, the Secular motive for
good conduct is the happiness of the individual and the welfare of
the human race in this life, while the motive power of Chris
tianity is supposed to pertain to some future life. Moreover,
Secularism teaches positively that no apprehension should be en
tertained of punishment after death for disbelief during life.
Christianity alleges the very opposite of this in its threatenings of
eternal punishment in hell. For New Testament proof of this
the reader is referred to Matthew 13 : 42 ; 25 : 30 and 46 ; Mark
9: 44; Revelation 14: 10, 11; 21: 8. The orthodox believer
replies to this by saying, “You can reject any truth without suffer
ing the consequences of such rejection.” Just so; but mark the
difference in the two cases. If you reject a Secular truth, the con
sequences are confined to this life, and they follow in time to make
reformation possible. Not so with Christianity; in it there are
not mere consequences, but punishment, to be inflicted for “ ever
and ever,” when all opportunity for improvement has passed.
Equally desirable is it to correct the fallacy of our opponents in
reference to Secular responsibility, and what they term the “ free
dom of the will.” Secularism does recognize man’s responsibility,
but by that term it means that we should deem it our duty to con
sider the effect of our conduct upon society, and that it is incumbent
. upon us to act with a view of promoting, not to injure, the welfare
of society. Such responsibility, however, is confined to this life.
�9°
SECULAR TEACHINGS
and its extent depends upon the conditions and position of theindividual, and his relation to the general community. Of course,
where there is no power to choose, there can be no responsibility.
Hence we fail to harmonize the doctrine of predestination and
those passages in the New Testament which speak of the “ elect,”
and that man of himself can do no good thing, with the theological
notion of responsibility.
Secularism does not accept the “ free-will ” doctrine as taught
by the churches. The “ will ” is, like all things else, an effect as
well as a cause. It certainly counts for something, indeed for
much, in human actions ; but then it has itself sprung from, and.
is conditioned by, organization, environment, and other causes
which it is powerless to control. Man’s motives do not arise from
his volition ; on the contrary, they govern the will. Man is free,,
of course, in a sense—that is, he is free to act in accordance with
his desires ; but these desires act independently of volition. And
this is all the freedom that is possible, and it is all that any rational
person should demand. No man wants freedom to do that which
he has no inclination to do, or to act contrary to his desires. His.
freedom lies in his capacity to obey his impulses; but these im
pulses the will has no power to create. The will is not an
originating cause, but itself an effect, the result of a complication
of circumstances, such as external surroundings, the condition of
the brain, temperament, age, sex, and 'heredity. To say that the
will is free in the sense that Arminians hold it to be, is to state
that which is paradoxical. For, if a person has the power to call
up a desire by the will, it is certain that some prior desire induced
him to do so. What, therefore, caused that desire ? Suppose one
individual says he wills to do a thing, and he does it: he must
have had an inclination, or he would not have thus willed and
acted. Some inclination must, therefore, precede the will, and,
clearly, the will cannot be the cause of that which precedes itself
in point of time, and to which, in fact, it owes its existence.
In our Secular advocacy we are being constantly met with the
statement that there is a “ religious instinct in human nature,” and
we are asked, How does Secularism propose to satisfy this ? Simply,
by allowing every individual to worship according to his or her
own desire, providing their action does not interfere with the rights
of others. Religion, in its truest sense, is not the monopoly of the
orthodox party. The Christian churches have robbed religion of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
91
its legitimate etymological meaning and invested it with ecclesias
tical creeds and dogmas, thus limiting its proper signification and
also depriving it of its best and loftiest influence. With the
thoughtless masses religion is accepted as the teacher of fear, de
pendence and blind faith, instead of being regarded as the inspirer
of love, self-reliance and active service. The cross of Calvary is
erected as an emblem of redemption, making its devotees blind to
the lesson of history and experience, that the only redeemer of man
kind is man. Accepting religion apart altogether from theological
associations, it is quite possible to harmonize it with Secularism.
Of course, Secularism is thoroughly antagonistic to orthodox
Christianity; but, then, there are ample means, separate altogether
from this faith, of satisfying every instinct of human nature. Pro
bably, if this alleged “religious instinct” were thoroughly ex
amined, it would be found to consist principally of veneration,
fear, wonder, hope, and gratitude. These, however, are purely
natural faculties, and the mode of their manifestation depends
upon birth, education and locality. What would satisfy a Turk’s
“ religious instinct ” would not suit a devotee of the Greek Church,
and there is a marked difference between the religious gratification
of a Hindoo and that of a European. The Catholic would regard
the Quaker’s religious satisfaction as very inadequate, while the
Primitive Methodist would view that of the Unitarian with equal
disfavour. It is the misapplication of these human faculties,
through ignorance of natural laws and the power of the priesthood
that has perverted them from their legitimate functions. Secular
ists do not aim to destroy any human instinct; they wish rather
that it should be properly understood, and that in its development
it should be directed by wisdom and controlled by reason and
science.
»
It is frequently charged against Secularism that it destroys the
principle of the brotherhood of man. Such, however, is not the
case. The foundation of the brotherhood of man, from a Secular
point, is the recognition and application of the just principle that
individuals should not work merely for their own good, but also for
the well-being of general society, and that all mankind should have
an opportunity of sharing in whatever conduces to their highest
welfare. We do not accept the term “ brotherhood of man ” 'in its
societarian application, in the sense that all mankind came from
one parent, but rather as manifesting, in a general manner, that
�•92
SECULAR TEACHINGS
feeling of love that exists in the domestic circle, and which is, or
should be, mutual between brothers. If we adopt the theological
application, what can be said of the conduct of an assumed Father
of all, who could purposely arrange one race to be superior to and
above all others on the face of the earth ? who could decree that
some of his children should be born and kept as slaves to others of
his children ? of a Father who could love one child and hate
another before either of them was born ? of one who gave to mil
lions of his children such organizations that up to the present
moment they have been wholly unable to understand and to
appreciate the advantages enjoyed by a favoured few ? and, finally,
of a Father who should so order his family arrangements that the
vast majority of his children should be lost forever ?
“ Secularism,” as Mr. George Jacob Holyoake has said in his
admirable work, “ The Trial of Theism,” “ is a recognition of
causation in nature, in science, in mind, morals, and manners. In
electing its own sphere, however, it will combat without contemn
ing others. It may also omitmuch that it respects, as well as that
which it rejects—but to omit is not to ignore. The solution of the
problem of union can only be effected by narrowing the ground of
profession, and widening that of action—it requires to collect
sympathies without dictating modes of manifestation.
“ Secularism teaches the good of this Life to be a rightful object
of primary pursuit, inculcates the practical sufficiency of Natural
Morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or the Bible, and selects as
its method of procedure the promotion of human improvement by
material means.
“ Secularism holds that the Protestant right of private judgment
includes the moral innocency of that judgment, whethei’ for or
against received opinion ; provided il be conscientiously arrived
at—that the honest conclusion is without guilt—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.
“ With respect to the service of humanity, deliverance from
sorrow or injustice is before consolation—doing well is higher than
meaning well—work is worship to those who accept Theism, and
duty to those who do not.
“As security that the principles of Nature and the habit of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
93
Reason may prevail, Secularism uses itself and maintains for
others these rights of reason. The Free Search for Truth, with
out which it is impossible. The Free Utterance of the result,.""
without which the increase of Truth is limited. The Free Criti
cism of alleged Truth, without which conscience will be impotent
on practice.
“ 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 feaching of the Bible appears to
conflict with it.
“ All pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in
the best sense in which this term appears to be used, The dis
tinctive peculiarity of the Secularist is, that he seeks that good
which is dictated by Nature, which is attainable by material
means, and which is of immediate service to humanity, a religious
ness to which the idea of God is not essential, nor the denial of the
idea necessary.
“ Going to a distant town to mitigate some calamity there will
illustrate the principle of action prescribed by Secularism. One
man will goon this errand from pure sympathy with the unfortu
nate ; 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 perceives 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 with a view 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, that Materialism is
help.
“ Speaking mainly on the part of Secularists, it is sufficient to
observe—Man does not live by egotisms, hopes, and comforts—
but rather by self-renunciation, by service and endurance. It is
asked, will Secularism” meet all the wants of human nature ? To
this we reply, every system meets the wants of those who believe
�94
SECULAR TEACHINGS
it, else it would never exist. We desire to know and not to hope.
We have no wants, and wish to have none, which truth will not
satisfy. We would realize this life—we would also deserve an
other—but without the selfishness which craves it—or the pre
sumption which expects it—or the discontent which demands it.”
(pp. 222-3-4.)
In this age of hollow pretensions and lack of mental honesty,
Secularism has a great work to perform in the inculcation of sin
cerity and fidelity to profession. With the old faiths, which to a
large extent it ignores, it should leave behind the old customs,
many of which are not simply absurd, but positively injurious. In
striking out a new path in the field of thought, it should open up
new principles in the domain of action. If our conduct be no bet
ter than that of our fellow-men who have not the advantages of
our light, nor the aid of our principles, it is a poor recommenda
tion of our system to mankind in general. Fidelity to principle,
or to that which takes the place of principle, and for the time acts
as its substitute, is necessary in -all conditions in life, and under
all circumstances. Not only is truthfulness essential to the well
being of society, but it really forms the basis of morality. Ear
nestness is greater than genius, and more powerful than any
amount of ambition, while sincerity is the test of true heroism.
The great men of the past, who have influenced the destinies of
the world, may be judged by this standard. We cannot help ad
miring the sincere man, even when he is in error; true fidelity to
principles is sometimes most difficult. Heavy penalties have
frequently to be paid for the practice of integrity. Still they must
be paid, and in all ages they are paid by the few, which few are
indeed the salt of the earth. Winged falsehoods, foul persecutions,
vile slanders, may attack them, but they remain firm in the con
sciousness of having done their duty, and in the end their character
is vindicated by the power of fidelity.
Fidelity to principle necessarily involves the making our opin
ions known to those with whom we come into contact. That
which a man holds to be true it is his duty to teach, at proper
times and under proper circumstances. The right to think in
cludes the right to speak. No man is infallible; therefore, honest,
conscientious conviction is deserving of the highest respect. Tol
eration is a very objectionable term, because it professes to grant
as a privilege that which should be claimed as a right. My opinions
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
95
upon theological questions are as valuable to me as are those of
■other men to them. And, if I believe that society would be made
better by accepting my speculative views, I ask no man’s permis
sion to be allowed to publish them. I may have to brave scorn
and calumny, perhaps persecution, but my right remains, and my
duty is clear. He who tolerates me arrogates to himself, or to his
opinions, a superiority which he does not possess, and which I do
not recognize. Great advance has been made in this respect dur
ing the last half century. But there is still much obloquy to be
endured by those who hold unpopular views. Bigotry is a char
acteristic of humanity which all the religions in the world have
failed to eradicate. A Secularist should not only avoid bigotry
himself, but should also point out its error at every favourable
opportunity.
The mode of advocacy adopted is also of very great importance.
While we claim for ourselves the right to think and speak freely,
we must concede the same ungrudgingly to others. We may deem
their views erroneous, but we should never forget that they prob
ably look upon ours in the same light. Injudicious advocacy has
often done more harm to a good cause than open antagonism.
Gentleness is one of the greatest of virtues, and to advocate our
views in what is conventionally, but very appropriately, termed a
gentlemanly manner is to give them the stamp of amiability. Rash
and reckless speaking is a most objectionable feature in the pro
mulgation of principles. To make extreme statements and wild
assertions is to play into an opponent’s hands. It avails nothing
to say that our antagonists do the same. Doubtless they do; and
it injures their cause as the same conduct on our part would injure
ours. Destructive work must, of course, be done; but a man need
not put himself into a passion to do it, and, especially, he should not
do it in that wild manner which, whilst being deficient of method
and tact, strikes at random, and wastes his forces. We want to
make Secularism a great power, and this is only to be done by
placing our views in an attractive light, and showing ourselves
superior to our opponents, by avoiding the errors into which they
have fallen.
[The End]
���Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union.
A Journal of Liberal Thought.
Published Weekly.
CHARLES WATTS, Editor.
. SECULAR THOUGHT does not assail the Truth found in any religion •
it aims only at destroying the influence of errors born of priestcraft, dogmatism
and perpetuated prejudice.
Terms—$2 per year. Single copies 5 cts, Office 31 Adelaide St. East, Toronto
I am greatly pleased with Secular Thought-—with its form, arrangement
and contents-above all, with its spirit. It is splendid. I don’t see how it
could be better. I read it with the greatest of pleasure.”—Robt. G. Ingersoll.
I heartily congratulate our Canadian friends upon the fact that they are
represented by Secular Thought, a paper of which they can be justly proud,
and which they need never hesitate to hand to their most delicate-minded
friends, however religious they maybe.”—Helen H. Gardener.
“ Mr. Watts publishes a solid paper ; it is the best liberal paper that now
comes to me,”—JB. F. Underwood.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifijiiifiiinii
Pamphlets by Charles Watts, 24 pages in Cover. Price
Ten Cents each.
That judicial oaths should
Secularism; Destructive and affirmation established in be abolished, and
their stead. All
Constructive. 22 pages in cover.
Contents—What i s Secularism ? Biblical
Idolatry—The Secularist’s Bible. Natural
Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The
alleged Fall of Man and his supposed re
demption through Christ. Beason and ex
perience the true guide in human ac ions.
Why supreme attention should be given to
the duties of this life. Science more trust
worthy than reliance upon any suppose 1
supernatural power. Morality is of natural
growth, having no necessary connection with
theology. The consistent carrying out of
Secular teaching in every-day life the best
preparation for any future existence.
The American Secular Union;
its Necessity, and the Justice of its Nine
Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover.
Contents.—The necessity of the Union.
The twofold nature of its advocacy. The
Catholicity of its Nine Demands. An expo
sition and defencs of thope Dem inds. The
inj nstice of Churches, etc., being exempt from
taxation. Why chaplains in Congress, in the
navy and militia and in prisonsand asylums
should not be supported by puolic money.
That the Bible should not be used in public
schools. That the official appoin+ment of
religious festivals and fasts should cease.
laws enforcing the observance of Sunday and
the Sabbath should be repealed; reasons
given why this should be done. A plea for
mental liberty; and the necessity of Secular
organization demonstrated.
“ The Glory of Unbelief.”
Contents —Wherein does the Glory of Un
beliefconsist? Unbelief wide-spread amongst
all classes. What is uDbelief ? Its true na
ture defined. Can it be dispensed with ? The
Advantages of Unbelief. What it has done
for the World.
Saints and Sinners—Which ?
Contents.—The orthodox division of man
kind into only two classes an error. Who are
the Saints ? Catholic and Protestant Saints.
Pre-ordained and Free-will Saints. The
Melancholy and Zealous Saints. The Oily
and Half-and-Half Saints. Who are the Sin
ners, and What is Sin ? The relative value
of the service rendered to the world by Saints
and Sinners.
Bible Morality: its Teachings
shown to be contradictory and defective
as an Ethical Guide.
Contents—Bible Morality. Bible Teachmgs. The Christian’s Theory of the Bible
The Bible as a Guide.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The teachings of secularism compared with orthodox Christianity
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 95 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The teachings of secularism compared with orthodox Christianity), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA825
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a1725f9e4fd74e0d241b794dd91cb9cc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gpgMTW095v6jTQuG71Oiwb9P6E%7EuapRBenu8QnHNJJks6T2KVzndnJyEZIomLkoubeNrJu-FmpP2DRxHXTymJ7V0W95HrgONr6%7EkfPwBJsqEu%7EFEIYunpWF5wzwXhpv0%7EgBhFLZ0aBQ-r0AC77qp6MydvyVHKe749cluE2%7EyG4BCKqejhmXG4gZbpk7LpjXvIopU4cJehK4WuzflG-TxCbpPd3cNEzZZSOaPWcMiN4NopJcP64g36mQsE-YR1AHRdF8V0-IALmh9pB3xL4wIjWYg9A%7Ed7ZYd5%7E7SMwLSTaVxCY4KWNbOwRsgOaxMkkn4ZgmmUE5TmxZBEpi0WuZoLA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
071ae630a3e83935ad0fcbe07d3dce5a
PDF Text
Text
WHY DO RIGHT?
A SECULARIST’S ANSWER.
BY
CHARLES WATTS
( Vice- President of the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence.
��WHY DO RIGHT?
A
SECULARIST ’S
ANSWER.
Most persons can distinguish between right and wrong;
but it is not so easy to decide why certain actions are right,
and others the very reverse. According to orthodox
Christianity, the sanction for right-doing is a conviction
that our actions should accord with God’s will, and that we
should abstain from the performance of wrong acts through
fear of punishment in some future existence. These are
not the Secular reasons for doing the right thing or
avoiding the wrong. Apart from the difficulty of ascer
taining what the will of God is (for it is nowhere definitely
stated), the value of that will would consist in its nature.
We should ask, Is it just or reasonable to think that
obedience to that will would secure the happiness of the
community ? Is it not a fact that all that can be known of
the supposed will of the Christian God is to be learnt from
the Bible ? But then it should be remembered that the
many representations given of the Divine will in that book
are not only contradictory, but they would, if acted upon,
prove most dangerous to the well-being of society. For
instance, it is there stated that it is God’s will that we
should take no thought for our lives (Matt. vi. 25); that
we should not lay up for ourselves treasures on earth
(Matt. vi. 19); that we should resist not evil (Matt. v. 39);
that we should set our affections on things above, not on
things on the earth (Col. iii. 2); that we should love not
the world (1 John ii. 15); that if we offend in one point of
the law, we are guilty of all (James ii. 10); that we are to
obey not only good, but bad, masters (1 Peter ii. 18); and
that it is good morality to say, “ What, therefore, God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder ” (Matt. xix. 6);
that we should swear not at all (Matt. v. 34); that we
cannot go to Christ except the Father draw us (John vi. 44);
�4
WHY DO RIGHT ?
that we are to labor not for the meat which perisheth
(John vi. 27); that we are to hate our own flesh and blood
(Luke xiv. 26); that those who leave their families for the
“ Gospel’s sake ” shall be rewarded here and hereafter
(Mark x. 29, 30); that men should believe a lie, that they
all might be damned (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12); that the world
cannot be saved by any name except that of Christ
(Acts iv. 12); that salvation should be obtained through
faith, and not of works (Ephes, ii. 8, 9); that the sick are to
rely upon the “ prayer of faith ” to save them (James v. 15);
that if any two Christians agree upon something, and send
a supplication to heaven for that something, it shall be
granted them (Matt, xviii. 19). Now, according to general
experience, if we complied with the will of God, as here
stated, society would not pronounce our actions as right,
but they would be condemned as being hurtful to the
commonwealth.
Secularism is opposed to the orthodox idea that we
should do right through fear of hell. This is the lowest
and most selfish reason for doing good that can be
given. According to the Secular idea, the desire to
do right should not be prompted by merely personal
considerations, but with the object of enhancing the
best interests of others, as well as our own. Besides,
the fear of hell has proved inoperative, either as an
incentive to right action, or as a deterrent to wrong
doing. Even those who profess to be influenced by this
motive have a greater dread of a policeman than of a devil,
and a more vivid conception of a jail than of a hell.
Penalties remote from life do not, by any means, exercise
the same powerful influence upon human conduct as do those
of the present time. The Secular idea of right and wrong
is, that neither is the mere accident of the time, and that
these terms do not represent a condition which is the
result of “ chance
on the contrary, they denote actions
which are the outcome of a law based upon the fitness of
things. The primary truths in morals are as axiomatic as
those in mathematics. Moreover, there is, in the mind of
every properly constituted person, an appreciation of right
and a detestation of wrong. We urge that vice should
be shunned because it is wrong to individuals, and also to
society, to indulge in it; and that virtue should be practised
�a secularist’s answer.
5
because it is the duty of all to assist, both by precept and
example, to elevate the human family. A writer in the
London Echo of August 22 last answers the question why
we should do good apart from theological considerations
in the following pertinent language: Because “certain
actions are followed by more happiness to the actor
than other actions, and because those actions which give
him the most happiness are such as are helpful to
others.
The most highly-developed men have dis
covered this to be true, and the ‘ average ’ man will
ultimately discover it and act on it. Just in proportion as
we become helpful to others we find our own happiness
increasing. And as all our actions inevitably spring from
the desire of our own happiness, it follows that we must go
on becoming more helpful to each other as we develop.
Even those foolish persons who now injure others know
this to a certain extent. Ask a burglar which gives him the
more happiness, to steal or to spend the money he steals
with the woman he lives with ? He will tell you that his
highest happiness is in giving pleasure to his Kate. Ask
Andrew Carnegie which gives him the more pleasure, to cut
his workmen’s wages down or to spend the money in
building a public library ? He will tell you he finds more
pleasure in spending the money for others than in wrench
ing it from his workmen.”
The word “right’’originally meant straightened; hence
the common saying, “putting things to rights,” is understood
as being equivalent to putting them straight or in order.
A writ of right is a legal method of recovering land that
has been wrongfully withheld from its owner, and to right
a ship is to restore it to an upright position. A man
whose acts are deemed good and useful is described as
being “upright ” and “straightforward.” The notion that
legal enactments determine what is morally right and
wrong is as fallacious as the idea that the Bible decides
the question. Many of the laws of our country are based
upon principles the very opposite of what we regard as
morality; while the conflicting teachings of the Bible
disqualify it from being a correct guide in ethical conduct.
It appears to us that, if there are no other standards of right
and wrong but those of the Bible and the law of the land,
then such standards by themselves must be arbitrary,
�WHY DO RIGHT ?
having no universal application to mankind. Possibly some
legal and scriptural commands may be right, but when
they are so it is not because they have the sanction of
Parliament or the Bible, but in consequence of their being
in harmony with the taste and requirements of the public.
That many of the decrees and teachings emanating from
these two sources have been considered wrong is evident
from the fact that men have persistently refused to obey the
one or to accept the other. Take the case of those Free
thinkers, philosophers, and scientists who have so often been
at variance with the Church, and who have refused to obey
certain laws of their country which they deemed wrong.
These men have not only been censured, but sometimes
they have been punished as wrong-doers; and yet,
ultimately, it was proved that they were in the right, and
that the Church and the law were in the wrong. The
standard of the Church and of the law was tradition, custom,
or common belief; the standard of those who were censured
was knowledge. As this knowledge increased the number
of offenders against the stereotyped forms of law, both
human and divine, increased also, until the old foundations
had to yield in favor of those more in harmony with free
dom and justice, and more in accordance with the intellect
of the nation.
By the Secular idea of right we mean that conduct which
is beneficial both to the individual and to the community—
conduct that is in agreement with an enlightened conception
of human duty. It may be admitted that the usefulness of
an act is not always present in the mind of the actor, but it
seems to us impossible to estimate the value of an action
the purpose or result of which is not useful. The real
worth of all actions depends upon the manner in which
they affect our judgment, our feelings, and our general well
being. When we assert that the sense of right-doing exists
in nature, it must not be supposed that we mean it can be
found in a mountain or in the sea; but our meaning is that
it is in that part of nature called human. It is this belief
in the natural basis of right-doing that inspires us with the
endeavor to improve that nature which is the source of all
that is noble. The Secular notion of right and wrong is
based upon reason and experience, which are the surest
guides known to man.
�a secularist’s answer.
7
In considering the question of right and wrong we ought
not to ignore any facts, however unpleasant they may be to
some of us. Human nature has its dark as well as its
bright side. There are men so constituted and so
surrounded by depraved conditions that, from their
actions, one would suppose they prefer doing wrong rather
than right. In many instances men are ferocious, cruel,
and brutal. They practise lying and deception, and injure
and destroy their fellow creatures. Such persons are too
often born in moral corruption and trained in the lowest
form of criminality; they grow up destitute of any selfrespect, and without any sense of right action. People of
this class are the unfortunate victims of a bad environment,
which has contaminated their natures both before and
after birth. If these “ heirs of unrighteousness ” were
spoken to as to the duty they owe to themselves and
to society, probably the replies would be: “As life and
society were thrust upon me, why should I respect either ?
Why should I prefer the straight to the crooked path—the
beautiful in nature to the repulsive ? What advantage is
truth to me when I profit by lying ? Why may I not
repudiate the tyranny involved in the injunction that I
ought to be virtuous ? If I am happy in following my
present course, why should I bother about the effects of my
conduct upon society ?” It will be readily seen that the
man who raises the foregoing questions has no conception of
moral duties and the influence of right action. Moreover,
it is well known that vicious and immoral men are the first
to object to the same kind of conduct which they practise
being directed against themselves. A man may delight in
lying, but no liar likes to be deceived, and no brute in
human form desires to be injured himself. Those who
inflict pain upon others are the first to shudder at the lash
being applied to themselves.
Society itself, notwithstanding the boasted influence of
the Bible and the loud professions of Christianity, has
peculiar ideas of right and wrong. It condemns the killing
of one man as a criminal act; but he who kills thousands is
made a hero. In the one case detestation is evoked, while
in the other honors are bestowed. Hence, the only sense
to which the soldier is amenable is that of duty, not of
right. The public regard his acts as being performed for a
�8
WHY DO RIGHT
1
good purpose—namely, that of destroying those who are
looked upon as enemies. Our forefathers, we are told,
made this island inhabitable by destroying the wild beasts
that once infested it; but it appears to us that a greater
work than that remains to be done, which is to subdue the
wild passions of man. Christianity has failed to accom
plish this desirable result. As the London daily Times
sometime since remarked : “We still seem, after hard upon
nineteen centuries of Christian influence and experience, to
be looking out upon a world in which the ideal of
Christianity, which we all profess to reverence, is wor
shipped only with the lips. . . . Throughout Europe we
find nations armed to the teeth, devoting their main
energies to the perfection of their fighting material and the
victualling of their fighting men, and the keenest of their
intellectual forces to the problem of scientific destruction.
Beneath the surface of society, wherever the pressure
becomes so great as to open an occasional rift, we catch
ominous glimpses of toiling and groaning thousands,
seething in sullen discontent, and yearning after a new
heaven and a new earth, to be realised in a wild frenzy of
anarchy by the overthrow of all existing institutions, and
the letting loose of the fiercest passions of the human
animal.”
Alas! it is too true that the world, for the most part,
has hitherto worshipped force. Poets, from Homer down
wards, have thrilled thousands with graphic descriptions of
scenes of splendor and of glory. Military renown has been
regarded with greater interest than have the triumphs of
ethical culture. Such men as Alexander the Great and
Napoleon have been exalted to the highest pinnacle of
fame, and their deeds have been extolled as if these men
had been the real saviors of the people. This is a mistaken
adulation and an undue exaltation, which is opposed to the
Secular idea of right. What can be more wicked than
devastating and depopulating countries in order that one
warrior may rival another in what is called military glory.
As John Bright said at Birmingham in 1858 : “ I do not
care for military greatness or military renown. I care for
the condition of the people among whom I live. . . .
Crowns, coronets, mitres, military display, the pomp of war,
wide colonies, and a huge empire are, in my view, all trifles,
�A secularist’s answer.
9
light as air, and not worth considering, unless with them
you can have a fair share of comfort, contentment, and
happiness among the great body of the people. Palaces,
baronial castles, great halls, stately mansions, do not make
a nation. The nation in every country dwells in the
cottage.” Right cannot advance if brutal force remains in
the front.
It may be urged that, if our estimate of men in modern
“ Christian England ” be correct, there is but little chance
of establishing any system of right. Happily, although
what we have written is unquestionably true in some cases,
it is not true of all men. There are other members of the
human family who possess dispositions which enable them
to act rightly, so that the world will be the better for the
part they have played in the great drama of life. These
workers for the public good are influenced by higher laws
than Bibles or Parliaments can command or enforce.
According to the Secular view of right, all persons should
be instructed in the duties of citizenship; they should
be impressed with the necessity of taking an active interest
in all things that pertain to the welfare of life, and to
consider political and social rights as well as those that
refer merely to ordinary every-day conduct. Of course, as
civilised beings, we require some centre of appeal, some
test by which we can determine what is right and what is
wrong. However defective our standard may be con
sidered, and however varied the results of an appeal
thereto may prove, we know of no higher authority to do
right than because it accords with the general good of
society. We regard it as utterly futile to go back to
Bible times, when theology was supreme, to find a test by
which modern conduct shall be regulated. Doing right in
those times meant obeying the will of the despot, and com
plying with the wish of the priest. At that period right
had no relation to the requirements and independence of
the individual. In the evolution of human life the chief
business of men is to translate might into righthand to
substitute mental freedom for intellectual subjection.
Under the influence of the Secular idea of right, it will be
found easier to speak the truth than to endeavor to deceive.
Candid and fair dealing will be looked upon as the sovereign
good of human nature; and the acquirement of, and
�10
WHY DO RIGHT ?
adherence to, this commendable habit will be found less
difficult than mastering the technicalities of law, the
reasonings of metaphysicians, or the verbose quibbles of
theologians.
The Secular method of establishing a true conception of
right is to continually augment our experiences with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. Although instances
may be quoted of greater fidelity being found in some of the
lower animals than is perceptible in many men, the power
of foreseeing events in the case of the most intelligent of
“ the brute creation ” is not very strongly marked. The
Secular idea of right is that the best judgment possible
should be exercised upon all occasions for the purpose of
discovering what is most calculated to promote individual
and general happiness. Moralists dilate upon the varying
rules of conduct that obtain in different nations and under
different governments. Now, while it is quite true that
various conflicting ideas of right and wrong exist in
different countries, that fact does not exempt people from
performing the duty of considering, in every case, what is
the right course to adopt to secure the welfare of the
nation in which they live. The principle of improvement
applies to all conditions and to all races of men. Take the
important feature of family life : on this point opinions are
entertained of the most opposite character. In one country
men believe in one god and in having many wives, while
in another country men believe in three gods and having
only one wife. And yet both beliefs are deemed right.
The Secular idea is that we should study what is right for
us to do under the conditions in which we live. In this
country there is no doubt that the development of the
affections, and of a due regard to the rights and enjoyment
of others, points to the conclusion that the union of one
man with one woman is the best solution of the marriage
problem. True, the Bible sanctions polygamy, but with
that we are not now concerned ; monogamy is accepted as
the best matrimonial arrangement for us under present
conditions.
It is supposed by some persons that it is too late to
discover anything new in morality. This, however, is a
mistake, because the acquirements of modern life impose
upon us duties that were unknown to the ancients, and
�A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
11
which require, upon our part, an intelligent apprehension
to enable us to perform them with credit to ourselves and
for the benefit of others. Science and learning are valuable
in proportion as they tend to make better men and
women, and inspire within them a desire to promote
general happiness. The endeavor to advance human
felicity is the best evidence of the existence of a living,
active morality, and of a proper sense of right. Let us,
then,
Rest not ! life is passing by,
Do and dare before you die.
Something mighty and sublime
Leave behind to conquer time.
Glorious ’tis to live for aye
When these forms have passed away.
Why should we be good ? Theologians would have us
believe that the only satisfactory reply to such a query
must come from Christianity. But, as we have already
shown, the Christian’s reasons for being good are both
selfish and ineffectual. We hope to show that there
are better reasons for goodness than the desire to
please God and to secure everlasting happiness in “ realms
beyond.” The theological delusion, that religion alone
supplies the motive for personal excellence, has arisen
through people entertaining the erroneous idea that
natural means are impotent to cure the evils that dominate
society. It has, however, been discovered that vice must
be dealt with like all else that is human. A supernatural
remedy for moral disease appears to the student of nature
no more reasonable than a supernatural cure for any of
the physical diseases which “flesh is heir to.” When a
man feels the pangs of some physical malady, he knows
that there is some derangement in the organ in which it
occurs ; in addition to applying a remedy, if he be wise, he
will endeavor to discover the cause, so as to avoid the
malady in future. Now, Secularists consider that the
same course should be taken with moral diseases, which
often arise from a morbid condition of the brain, produced
sometimes by the bad arrangements of society, or through
not acting up to the proper duties of life. Virtue and vice
are not mere accidents of the time, but are as much the con
sequence of the operation of natural laws as the falling of
�12
WHY DO RIGHT ?
a stone or the growth of a flower. The causes of crime
should be investigated as carefully as the causes of cholera
and other epidemics have been. The physical and the
moral are more closely connected than is generally sup
posed, and the influence of the one upon the other is
beyond all doubt very great. Man’s mental and moral
natures both depend upon material organs, and are there
fore influenced by physical forces; and it is not unusual for
the same causes that generate disease to produce crime.
So little, however, do people study the relation of mind to
brain that vice prevails where, with a little judicious
thought and action, virtue might be found. The Secularist
acknowledges these important facts, and, expecting no
supernatural help, he goes earnestly to work himself.
Holding that whatever happens occurs in accordance with
some law, he deems it his business to endeavor to ascertain
what that law is, that he may turn it to some practical
account.
We think that with the extensive knowledge which now
exists, allied with intellectual culture, it is not difficult to
demonstrate that man ought to do his duty for reasons
which belong alone to this life. By the word “duty” we
here mean an obligation to perform actions that have a
tendency to promote the personal and general welfare of
the community. This obligation is imposed upon us by
the requirements of society. For instance, the Secular
obligation to speak the truth is obtained from experience,
which teaches that lying and deceit tend to destroy that
confidence between man and man which has been found to
be necessary to maintain the stability of mutual societarian
intercourse.
Again, our obligation to live good lives is derived from
the fact that, as we are here and are recipients of certain
advantages from society, we therefore deem it a duty to
repay, by life service, the benefits thus received. To avoid
this obligation, either by self-destruction or by any other
means, except we are driven to such a course by what
have been termed “irresistible forces,’’would be, in our
opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable. As to the word
“ought,” the only explanation orthodox Christianity gives
to this term is a thoroughly selfish one. It says you
“ ought ” to do so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through
�A
secularist’s answer.
13
him you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand,
Secularism finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very
nature of things, as involving duty, and implying that
something is due to others. As the Rev. Minot J. Savage,
in his Morals of Evolution, aptly puts it: “ Man ought—
what ?—ought to fulfil the highest possibility of his being;
ought to be a man; ought to be all and the highest that
being a man implies. Why ? That is his nature. He
ought to fulfil the highest possibilities of his being; ought
not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because there is
something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he
ought to be that. Why ? Because that does not exhaust
the possibilities of his nature : he is capable of being some
thing more, something higher than a brain. We say he
ought to be a moral being. Why ? Because it is living
out his nature to be a moral being. He ought to live as
high, grand, and complete a life as it is possible for him to
live, and he ought to stand in such relation to his fellow
men that he shall aid them in doing the same. Why ?
Just the same as in all these other cases : because this, and
this only, is developing the full and complete stature of a
man, and he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest
sense of the word until he is that and does that; he is
only a fragment of a man so long as he is less and lower.”
The careful and impartial student of nature will discover
that therein continuous law is to be found, but no accidents
or contingencies. And what we call the moral state is one
wherein man is enabled to recognise the wisdom of com
pliance with this law. It is quite true that men may refuse
to obey the moral law, but, if they do, they must suffer in
consequence. This is one reason why men should be good,
inasmuch as the fact of being so brings its own reward. It
not only secures immunity from suffering, and adds to the
health fulness of society, but it exalts those who obey the
moral law in the estimation of the real noblemen of nature.
A man of honor—one whose word is his bond, who practises
virtue in his daily life—wins the respect and confidence of
all who know him, and he thereby sets an example that will
be useful to emulate; and he at the same time acquires for
himself a tranquility of mind known only to the consistent
devotee of human goodness. What is called Christian
�14
WHY DO RIGHT ?
morality has no sanction in merely natural sentiments and
associations. Nobility of action is supposed by orthodox
believers to be the result of a “ fire kindled in the soul by
the Holy Ghost.” St. Paul is reported to have entertained
the grovelling notion that, if this life is “ the be-all and
end-all,” then “we are of all men the most miserable”;
“ therefore,” says he, “ let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die.” Here the problematical happiness in a problematical
future is put forth as a higher incentive to goodness than
the wish to so regulate our conduct that it will produce
certain beneficial results in our present existence. Persons
who share the views of St. Paul, as set forth in 1 Cor. xv.,
will derive but little pleasure from the virtue of this world.
The satisfaction which should be felt in benefiting mankind
independently of theology falls unheeded on orthodox
believers. They fail to experience happiness simply by the
performance of good works. Virtue, to them, has no charms
if not prompted by the “ love of God.” Nobility, heroism
generosity, devotion, are all ignored unless stimulated by
the hope of future bliss. Christians deny the possibility of
virtue receiving its full reward on earth. If they think
their faith will conduct them safely to the “ next world,”
they appear to have no trouble about its effects in this. A
man who is good only because he is commanded to be so, or
through fear of punishment after death, is not in touch with
the philosophy of modern ethics. The true moral person
is one who does his duty, regardless of personal reward or
punishment in any other world. The Secular motive for
being good is that this world shall be the better for the
lives we have led, and for the deeds we have performed.
Regard for the moral law is not based upon a nega
tion, neither is it a mere question of expediency, but
rather a positive acting principle, working for practical
goodness. A really moral man is one who is interested in
the well-being of others—one who has discovered that he
belongs to the family of men, the social advancement of
which is dependent, more or less, upon each other. Unsocial
beings are those who care for nobody but themselves, and
whose sense of right-doing consists in studying their own
interests without concerning themselves about the welfare
of others. Emerson said : “ I once knew a philosopher of
this kidney. His theory was, ‘ Mankind is a damned rascal.
�a secularist’s answer.
15
All the world lives by humbug; so will I.’ ” Fortunately,
individuals of this type are becoming fewer and fewer, and
are being replaced by men and women in whom are to be
found aspirations for the true, the useful, and the elevating
functions of life. To such members of the human family
as these it can be made evident that truth and honor are
essential to their well-being, and that doing good is an
absolute necessity to the formation and the perpetuation of
a society based on confidence and trust. The virtue of
veracity is the foundation of the true social fabric. Law,
commerce, friendship, and all the embellishments of life rest
upon the great principle of veracity. It is this which gives
the surest stability to all moral obligation. While being
faithful to ourselves, we should never fail to manifest fidelity
in our associations with all members of the community.
Our aim ought always to be to so serve others that we may
help ourselves, and to so serve ourselves as to be helpful to
others. As Pope puts it :•—“ Self-love and social is the same.”
Emerson has said : “The mind of this age has fallen away
from theology to morals. I conceive it to be an advance.”
Undoubtedly this is true, for the intellect of the age is
more than ever finding its justification for being good in
the results of action, rather than in the commands of
creeds and dogmas. The inspiration to goodness is now
recognised as coming from earth, not heaven; from man,
not God. As a recent writer well puts the fact: “ It is
not a belief in an arbitrary personal God which ennobles a
life. Most of the burglars and murderers, most of the
unjust monopolists and cruel sweaters, believe in ‘God.’
It is goodness that ennobles a life, and goodness is not
necessarily associated with godliness. It is not a hope of
heaven that makes a life beautiful. Many who believe in
heaven are very hard to live with here. It is gentleness,
kindness, considerateness, friendliness, love, that make a
life beautiful; and these qualities are not necessarily
associated with a hope of heaven. It is not piety that
wins esteem. There are many pious persons whom you
would not trust with a five pound note. It is fair dealing,
honesty, and fidelity that win esteem; and they are not
associated with piety.”
�16
WHY DO RIGHT ?
Darwin, in his Descent of Man, gives potent reasons why
we should live good lives. He points out that the
possession of moral qualities is a great aid in the struggle
for existence; that people with strong moral feelings are
more likely to win in the race of life than persons who are
destitute of such feelings. Goodness has in itself its own
recommendation, inasmuch as it secures for its recipients
peace of mind, temperance in their habits, and a sense of
justice in their dealings with others. Men of honor, whose
lives are regulated by the principle of integrity, furnish the
best of all reasons for being good. They are happy in the
consciousness of the nobility of their own nature, and they
derive consolation from the knowledge that they render
valuable service to others by the dignified example they
set, and the exalted lives they live. Those who can see
the worth of virtue and of truth in human character are
embued with a spirit of emulation; they desire to be
associated with a superior order of society. Such members
of the community can readily see that without “ confidence
and trust” the commercial world would collapse. The
same principle applies to the whole of human life, for it is
not simply that “ honesty is the best policy,” but that it is
the only policy which will secure a tranquil state of
existence. Rectitude is the source of self-reliance in life
and at death. Men who are able to distinguish the good
from the bad are attracted by honor and refinement.
They shun malignity and vulgarity, and are repelled by
what is vicious and demoralising. Men should be good
because goodness qualifies them for friendship, and wins
for them the esteem of the best of their kind. Further, it
awakens within them a sense of what is most fitted to
enable them to adopt an elevated mode of living. They
become practical believers in that which is just and useful,
and they are thereby inspired to strive to realise their
ideal born of newer and higher perceptions of truth. Let
the lover of goodness once be admitted into the presence of
the intellectually gifted and morally heroic, and life will
present to him a new aspect. When we read of Plutarch’s
heroes; of Greece with her art and her literature; of Rome
with her Cicero and her Antoninus ; and of the muster-roll
of men and women whose memories are surrounded with a
halo of intellectual brilliancy and ethical glory, we no
�A SECULARISTS ANSWER.
17
longer regard the world as the habitation only of moral
invalids and of mental imbeciles. On the contrary, a
higher faith in the potency and grandeur of human good
ness is evoked, exalted thoughts are inspired within us,
and we are induced to believe that goodness will be more
than ever appreciated for its own sake, and that virtue
will be honored and revered for its intrinsic merits.
While admitting that the moral brightness of life is some
what tarnished by the base, the brutal, the suicidal, and
the insane characters that are still found in our midst, we
believe in the law of progress and the work of reform.
We recognise a powerful motive for being good in the belief
that such conditions may be produced that shall tend to
remove depravity and to establish righteousness. Such
disasters as the cholera, and numerous other epidemics that
once made uncontrolled havoc upon society, have been
checked by the application of suitable scientific remedies;
why, then, should not moral evils be made to yield to
judicious treatment ? When men understand that moral
law is as certain as physical law, and as necessary to be
obeyed if we are to have a healthy state in human ethics,
the reformation of the community will be capable of
achievement. Whether we regard man as the creature or
the creator of circumstances, or as both, it is certain that
his organism and its environment act and re-act upon each
other. While intelligence indicates the best way to pursue
in life, it is obvious that circumstances must be such as to
permit of our pursuing that way. From what we know of
human nature, it appears to us necessary that it should be
surrounded with inducements that have the power to draw
out the best that is in it. It has been well said that man
is a bundle of habits ; therefore moral forces become strong
as they become a part of the habit of life. We cannot
reasonably expect the State to be ruled by right and love
unless these virtues exist in the citizens. No nation has
ever attempted to live like a society of friends—without
gaols, policemen, etc.—because the idea of moral duty has
been only partially realised. In proportion as we properly
understand the nature of goodness, and regulate our lives
by its genius, so shall we be governed by ideas instead of
by force. The misfortune of our present societarian condition
is the difficulty attending its improvement. Although, like
�18
WHY DO RIGHT ?
trees, we grow and expand from within, there seems, as it
were, an iron band around us, that prevents our free expan
sion and our full growth. The quality of our acts may be
good in a certain degree, but it is not of the required
strength. The quality has been impoverished through
neglect and theological adulteration; and what is now
required is persistent and intelligent conduct, that shall
purify life, and rid it of the legacy of the ignorance, the
folly, and the superstition of the dark past. Our hope is
in purification ; we want earnestness and candor to take the
•place of the apathy and hypocrisy which have so long held
sway. Then real goodness will illuminate the hearts of
men, and virtue will shed its lustre upon the emancipated
humanity of the world.
Why should we be good 1 The answer, from a Secular
standpoint, is : Because goodness, in itself, is the basis of all
true happiness; it is the progenitor of peace, order, and
progress. To be good is a duty we owe to society as well
as to- ourselves. In virtue alone are to be found those
elements that ennoble character and exalt a nation. . The
unselfish love of goodness, and the desire to acquire a
practical knowledge of the obligations of life, have hitherto
been too much confined to the few, while the many have
neglected to strive to realise the highest advantages of
existence. The cause of this misfortune is not difficult to
discover. It is apparent in the radical evil underlying the
whole of the theological creeds of Christendom—namely,
an objection to concentrate attention on the present life,
apart from considerations of any existence “ hereafter.”
The mistake in the theological world is that its members
regulate their conduct and control their actions almost
exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology,
and their modes of thought are too much a reflex of an
imperfect antiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient
inspiration from this source fly into the fancied boun
daries of another world—a world which is enveloped
in obscurity, and upon which experience can throw no light.
History has been subverted by this theological error from
its proper purpose. Instead of beihg the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations ; instead of being
a guide to the future, it is really the master of the present.
�A secularist’s
answer.
19
The proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard
of appeal in these. The wisdom of the first century is
regarded as the infallible rule of the nineteenth. The
watchword of the Church is “As you were,” rather than
“As you are.” Christian theology hesitates to recognise
active progressive principles, but holds that faith was stereo
typed eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subsequent
actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Secularism
prefers the healthy and progressive sentiments thus ex
pressed by J. R. Lowell:—
New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth ;
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
Orthodox Christianity appeals to the desires and fears
of mankind. It is presented to the world under the two
aspects of hope and dread. Some persons regard it as a
system of love, offering them a pleasant future, stimulating
within. them hopes delightful to indulge, and supplying
their imagination with splendors enchanting to con
template. On the other hand, many reject Christianity
because it contains gloomy forebodings, presenting to them
a being who is represented as constantly sowing the seeds
of discord and unhappiness among society, who has nothing
but frowns for the smiles of life, and whose chief business
it is to crush and awe the minds of men with fear and
apprehension. If Christianity furnishes its believers with
hopes of heaven to buoy them up, it also gives them the
dread of hell to cast them down. The one is as certain as
the other. As soon as a child begins to lisp at its mother’s
knee, its young mind is impressed with the notion that
there is “ a Heaven to gain, and a Hell to avoid.” As the
child grows to maturity, this notion is strengthened by
false education and religious discipline, until at last the
opinion is formed which frequently culminates in making
the victim an abject slave to a fancy-created heaven and an
inhumanly-pictured hell. Christians sometimes assert that
to deprive them of their hope in heaven would be to rob
them of their principal consolation. If this be correct,
so much the worse for their faith. Better have no con
solation than to derive it from a creed which condemns to
eternal perdition the great majority of the human kind.
�20
WHY DO RIGHT ?
The true object of rewards and punishments should be
to encourage virtue and to deter vice. Most, if not all, of
the religions of the world have employed these agencies in
the promulgation of their tenets, not, however, as a rule,
in the correct form. Theologians have connected their
systems of rewards and punishments with the profession
of arbitrary creeds and dogmas that have little or no
bearing on the promotion of virtue or the prevention of
vice. The final reward offered by Christianity is made
dependent on beliefs more than on actions. This is unjust,
inasmuch as many persons are unable to accept the belief
that is supposed to secure the reward. Moreover, accord
ing to the Christian system, the same kind of encourage
ment is held out to the criminal who, after a life of crime,
repents and acknowledges his faith in Christ, as to the
philanthropist whose career has been one of excellence and
goodness.
Equally defective and objectionable is the system of
punishment as taught by Christians, making, as it does,
correction to proceed from a motive of revenge rather than
from a desire to reform. Through life we should never
cherish revenge, nor harbor malice. To forgive is a virtue
all should endeavor to practise. Governments who desire
to win national confidence do not seek to make the chief
feature of their punitive laws of a retaliative spirit; they
aim rather to enact measures that tend to the reformation
of the criminal. Now, the drawback to the threatened
punishment of Christianity is, that it offers no incentive to
reformation, for, when once in hell, the victim must for
ever remain, and there no opportunity is afforded for
improvement, and no facility offered for repentance. It
cannot be said that the sufferings of those in the bottomless
pit exercise any beneficial influence upon those on earth,
inasmuch as we cannot witness their torture, and, if we
could, instead of inspiring within us love and obedience,
doubtless it would excite detestation towards the being
who, possessing the power, refused to exercise it to prevent
mankind enduring such barbarous cruelty. The rejected
of heaven are here represented as being the victims of
unutterable anguish; as having to endure tortures which
no mind can fully conceive, no pen can adequately
portray.
�j.
A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
21
This Christian doctrine of punishment is based upon a
principle opposed to all good government. It allows no
grades in virtue or vice. It divides the world into two
classes—the sheep and the goats, leaving no intermediate
course. Now, mankind are not either all good or all bad;
there are degrees of innocence and guilt in each. Horace
recognised this ; hence he said :—
Let rules be fixed that may our rage contain,
And punish faults with a proportioned pain.
Punishment is valuable- only so far as it tends to the
reformation and the protection of society. It has been
shown that hell fire must fail in the former, and experience
proves that it is cpiite as impotent for the latter. Our law
courts are constantly revealing the fact that those who
profess the strongest faith in future retribution have
frequently been remarkable for savage brutality and
uncontrolled cruelty.
If it be asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adhe
rents as being superior to theological and other speculative
theories of the day ? the answer is, (1) Because Secularists
believe its moral basis to be more definite and practical
than other existing ethical codes; and (2) because Secular
teachingsappear to them to be more reasonable and of greater
advantage to general society than the various theologies of
the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in particular.
That Secular teachings are superior to those of orthodox
Christianity the following brief contrast will show.
Christian conduct is controlled by the ancient, and
supposed infallible, rules of the Bible; Secular action is
regulated by modern requirements and the scientific and
philosophical discoveries of the practical age in which we
live. Christianity enjoins as an essential duty of life to
prepare to die ; Secularism says, learn how to live truth
fully, honestly, and usefully, and you need not concern
yourself with the “how” to die. Christianity proclaims
that the world’s redemption can be achieved only through
the teachings of one person ; Secularism avows that such
teachings are too impracticable and limited in their
influence for the attainment of the object claimed, and that
improvement, general and individual, is the result of the
brain power and physical exertions of the brave toilers of
�22
WHY DO RIGHT ?
every country and every age who have labored for human
advancement.
Christianity threatens punishment in
another world for the rejection of speculative views in
this; Secularism teaches that no penalty should follow the
holding of sincere opinions, as uniformity of belief is
impossible. According to Christianity, as taught in the
churches and chapels, the approval of God and the rewards
of heaven are to be secured only through faith in Jesus of
Nazareth; whereas the philosophy of Secularism enunciates
that no merit should be attached to such faith, but that
fidelity to principle and good service to man should win the
right to participate in any advantages either in this or any
other world.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives
little or no assistance from orthodox Christianity. Not
withstanding the fact that Broad Churchism or Latitudinarianism has begun to make some concessions to reason and
scientific progress, and however strongly apparent may be
the desire for compromise on the part of the theologians,
there are still many of the most distinctive doctrines of
orthodoxy which are most decidedly opposed to the
standard of modern ethics and influence. Such, for example,
is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, where paternal
affection is ignored, and where the innocent is made to
suffer for the guilty; that right faith is superior to right
conduct apart from such belief ; and, most especially, that
unjust and equity-defying dogma of eternal condemnation.
It is really beyond the scope of such a system as the
orthodox one to promote the moral development of
humanity. This can only be effectually done by the
action of those social, political, and intellectual forces to
which we are indebted, as it were, for the building up of
man from the very first institution of society. These have
been, are, and ever must be, the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is
by them that we are what we are. It is: (1) the social
activities that have led to the formation, maintenance, and
improvement of human society; (2) the political activities
that have led to the formation, maintenance, and improve
ment of the general government, to the establishment of
States or nations, and to the recognition of the mutual
rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
�A secularist’s answer.
23
activities that have led to the interchange of human
thoughts, to the formation of literature, to the pursuits of
science and art, to the banishment of ignorance and the
decay of superstition, to the diffusion of knowledge, and,
finally, to all mental progress.
It is said that, without a fixed rule for conduct, all
guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not so; Secularism
recognises a safe and never-erring basis for moral action,
which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad
general maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the
supreme law.” This may be taken as a fundamental
principle for all time and all nations. The kind of action
which will produce such well-being depends, of course,
upon individual and national circumstances, varied in their
character and diversified in their influence. This
progressive morality is the principle of the Utilitarian
ethics which now govern the civilised world. It is not
merely the individual, but society at large, that is con
sidered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian
existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual
bee labors only for individual necessities. No ; but that all
is subordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the
drones increase, they are expelled or restricted, and well
would it be for our human society if all drones who
resisted improvement were banished from among us. In
the moral world, as in religious societies, there are too
many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the
good conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing
to contribute to the store of the ethical hive. The
morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their
kindly charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—
all these spring directly from their long-acquired and
developed experience. As the poet of Buddhism sings :—
Pray not, the Darkness will not brighten ! ask
Nought from the Silence, for it cannot speak !
Vex not your mournful minds with pious pains :—
Ah, brothers, sisters ! seek
Nought from the helpless gods by gift and hymn,
Nor bribe with blood, nor feed with fruit and cakes ;
Within yourselves deliverance must be sought;
Each man his prison makes '
�CHARLES WATTS’S WORKS.
The Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox
Christianity, is., by post is. 2d.
Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence. 4<d-, by
post 5d.
Secularism: Destructive and Constructive. 3d-> by post 4d.
The Glory of Unbelief. 3d., by post 4d.
Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is the More
Reasonable? 3d-, by post 4d.
A Reply to Father Lambert’s “Tactics of Infidels.” 6d.,
by post 7d.
Theological Presumption.
R. F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr.
2d., by post 2j^d.
The Natural and the Supernatural; or, Belief and Know
ledge. 3d., by post 4d.
Evolution and Special Creation. ContentsWhat is Evolu
tion ?—The Formation of Worlds—The Beginning of Life upon the
Earth—Origin of Man—Diversity of Living Things—Psychical
Powers—The Future of Man on Earth. 3d., by post 3%d.
Happiness in Hell and Misery in Heaven. 3d-, by post 3%d.
Science and the Bible. 4d-, by post 5d.
Bible Morality: Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and
Defective as an Ethical Guide. 3d., by post 3j^d.
Secularism: Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient
to Meet the Wants of Mankind ? Debate between the Editor
of the Evening AZh/Z (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll,
and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener, is., by post is. 2d.
Secularism: its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2%d.
Is there a Life Beyond the Grave ? 3d-, by post 3%d.
Education: True and False. (Dedicated to the London School
Board.)
2d., by post 2j^d.
Christianity and Civilisation: Why Christianity is Still
Professed. 3d., by post 3^d.
Saints and Sinners: Which? 3d., by post 4d.
The Horrors of the French Revolution. 3d., by post 4d.
The Existence of God; or, Questions for Theists. 2d., by
post 2%d.
Secularism: Its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2j^d.
Miscellaneous Pamphlets.
232 pp., in neat binding, 2S., by
post 2S. 3d.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why do right? a secularist's answer
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Why</span> <span class="highlight">do</span> <span class="highlight">right</span>? a secularist's answer), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N680
RA1576
RA767
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Secularism