1
10
7
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/13f81322efb5ef82706171ef2a41c194.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=r85%7E%7Eok0WYAnvCs-721166u--WEAbHUYn9k%7Ee3ru%7EyCTtltbcfqAM-2kfxETzzvrg9u2hqoMJ4EMqwwobbpcv-AMPEUbWz2cWyT7cOm%7E3ZuAX6KTWbXbRwLHVSMtrF3VknXD%7EJuAZM4o39gtENl6GLpug8IyjlvtceTQrp%7EwpT0Cr7s0OA9BiNSMxhayy-ym6yKIsvapdmC20qOTIFtQjlm9ghw6wlWcVEqiy43-nQBowTfv5PFFUDL6CQtsmYD%7EtjSlr1Z-BMOTwowVhheXMblepHiLsJqLUjkQzYG4pNolSJ8A22wt8O4GU1jLqgcjOGvPdwB%7EZVpqpEyTuyGTKw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d26b300a4f6f12489e8692dd5fff1835
PDF Text
Text
THE ENGLISH MONARCHY
AND
AMERICAN REPUBLICANISM.
Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli by
CHARLES
WATTS,
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON REPUBLICAN CLUB.
On April 3rd, 1872, the Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli delivered
a political manifesto in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester. His
statements On the occasion were endorsed generally by the Tory
press throughout the country, and accepted by them as indicat
ing the programme of that “ enlightened ” party. Whatever is
publicly uttered by the hon. gentleman is deemed of more than
ordinary importance in consequence of the prominent position
he occupies as chief of English Conservatism. The principal
topic chosen by Mr. Disraeli for his speech was English Monarchy
and the American Republic ; his object being to show that the
form of Government in this country has certain advantages that
the American Republic does not possess. The reason for the se
lection of this subject maybe given in the speaker’s own words:—
“ The fundamental principles of the [English] Constitution have
been recently impugned and assailed. The flag of the Republic
has been raised, and therefore, gentlemen, I think it is not in
appropriate to the present hour and situation if I make to you
one or two brief remarks on the character of those institutions.”
It is evident that Mr. Disraeli had not only become conscious
of the rapid growth of Republican principles in England, but
that he had made up his mind to do his best to prevent their
further extension. Now there can be no objection to a person
stating why he differs from the Republican programme, supposing
he considers that programme wrong ; but no man has a right to
misrepresent facts, and utter statements before a public audience
which have no authority, and that are unsupported by statistics
or records of history. To show that Mr. Disraeli did this in his
Manchester speech is the object of the present reply.
�2
Before noticing the hon. gentleman’s fallacies, it may conduce
to the better understanding of the question under consideration
to inquire briefly into the nature of Monarchy. Generally
speaking, there are four kinds—absolute, constitutional, heredi
tary, and elective. In addition to these, we have in England an
imported Monarchy, that is, when the throne, being vacant, and
no one of native growth was found to occupy it,we sent to Holland
and Germany, andimported an occupant. True, these importations
have proved expensive, but then that is an “ advantage” shared
principally by the “ people,” and therefore it has commanded
official silence. The present Monarchy in England is supposed
to be a limited, constitutional, and hereditary one. Strictly speak
ing, however, it is not hereditary, because on several occasions that
principle has been set aside in the history of England, and some
of the best writers upon constitutional government agree that,
whenever the people pronounce in favour of an elective Monarchy,
they can have one in strict accordance with the law under which
they live. The hereditary principle is unwise, inasmuch as it pre
supposes that good and intelligent parents must necessarily have
good and intelligent children. This, however, is not so. The late
Prince Albert possessed some excellent qualities that the Prince
of Wales shows no inclination to emulate. Thus,as Dr. Vaughan
observes : “ In a hereditary Monarchy the worst men may come
into the place of the best.” To guard against such an evil is the
duty of every Republican. Moreover, the principle is unjust.
We are not justified in urging that because one generation
prefers a King or Queen, therefore succeeding generations
should do likewise. Each age should be at liberty to elect that
kind of Government which it finds most in accordance with the
genius of the time, and the aspirations of the people who have
to be ruled. There is some truth in designating the English
Monarchy limited. In one particular its limitation is very
perceptible. This, of course, is no reproach to the Queen, who,
from the best of motives, has for some years lived a life of seclu
sion. Her Majesty is a far-seeing woman, and can discern that
in the future of England a Republican form of Government will
obtain; and as a thoughtful sovereign, she absents herself, so that
her subjects may get initiated into the art of self-government,
that when they come to fulfil the duties thereof, they shall not be
taken unawares, but shall be able to perform such duties with
credit to themselves and with a benefit to the commonwealth.
Whilst opposed to all Monarchies, that form certainly may be
pronounced the best which recognises the right of election.
Kings and Queens should win their position by their ability, and
not rule because they have descended from royal parents, whose
only claim to Royalty was that of birth.
To prove the superiority of the English Monarchy over the
American Republic, Mr. Disraeli said that for two centuries
Monarchical governments had prevented a revolution in this
country, and had established order, public liberty, and political
rights. Now, accepting the term revolution in the limited sense
�3
used by Macaulay, it is true that in this country for nearly two
hundred years it has been unknown. But taking revolution, in
its comprehensive signification, as embodying the elements of
public discontent at, and rebellion against, official artifices and
governmental opposition to the people’s rights, England has
experienced many such outbreaks since 1688. What was the
American rebellion but a revolt against the wicked and unjust
obstinacy and oppression of the English Monarchy ? If it had
not been attempted to enforce taxation without representation
upon the inhabitants of America, they might still have been
bound to us by national ties, and then England would have been
saved the disgrace of an expensive and unnecessary war. The
numerous uprisings and manifestations against injustice in India,
in Jamaica, and in Ireland were so many revolutionary pro
tests against the cruel and tyrannical acts of Monarchical mis
rule. And if in England during the last two centuries revolution
has not broken out in its worst forms, it has not been in conse
quence of an enlightened and amicable policy adopted by our
Governments, but ’ rather the result of the forbearance of the
people, who desired to advance their cause by peaceable means.
The Monarchical policy has too often provoked anarchy and
public discord, by withholding reforms from the nation until it
was driven to despair, by insults and procrastination. Where is
the proof that Monarchical Governments have established order
and promoted public liberty, as stated by Mr. Disraeli? Not
in the history of the Derbyshire outbreak and Snow Hill riots of
1816 and 1817 ; not at the Peterloo massacre of 1819 ; not at the
riots of Bristol, Nottingham, and other towns in ^832; not
during the struggles for Free Trade, Catholic Emancipation, the
admission of Jews into the Legislature, and for Parliamentary
Reform. In connection with these movements, the conduct of
the Governments was such as to produce the very opposite of
order. They refused to grant what the people required until
there was “ no alternative but concession, or the horrors of civil
war.” At the close of the last, and in the early part of the present,
century, great efforts were made to obtain Parliamentary Reform
and an improvement of the land laws. And how were these
efforts met by the “ powers that be ?” Public petitions were
unheeded, supplications were disregarded, and traps were laid
by the Government to catch within the clutches of the law the
leading agitators of the time. Dr. Vaughan says the Govern
ment “ instituted a spy system, which was made to spread itself
everywhere; and miscreants, who could not detect treason to
satisfy their employers, were careful to stimulate and sometimes
to invent it. Hence came a long series of State prosecutions, in
which law was so perverted, or so openly violated, that each one
of them, in place of removing disaffection, multiplied it mani
fold........ Men of the most worthless character were accepted as
witnesses ; and juries who wanted evidence managed to pro
nounce the verdict of ‘ guilty ’ in the absence of it.” Even Sir
Samuel Romilly declared that “he believed in his conscience
�4
the whole of the Derbyshire insurrection was the work of persons
sent by Government.”
The State prosecutions that took place a little more than half
a century since will prove how reliable Mr. Disraeli’s statement
is, that Monarchical rule has favoured political rights and public
liberty. The trials of Muir and Palmer in Scotland, and Hardy,
Tooke, Thelwall, Cobbett, and Leigh Hunt in England, reveal
to us the fact that when Monarchical influence was paramount,
the solitude of a prison and heavy fines were the rewards of
those who sought to advance the social and political condition
of society. When and where has the throne of England ever
pleaded for the liberty of the people ? When has it attempted
to vindicate the rights of man ? or to extend that national freedom
which is the birth-right of every citizen ? Upon what page of
history is it recorded that modern progress has sprung from
Monarchy ? The liberties we now have were dearly bought by
the energies and self-sacrifice of those brave men whose aspira
tions and labours were sought to be crushed by royalist intrigues
and aristocratic exclusiveness. The lever that impelled forward
political and social freedom was found among the masses, apart
altogether from the occupants of the throne. For, as recorded
by Cassell, in his “ History of England,” “ whilst Royalty sat in
emblematic darkness, the people were breaking into light and
power by the efforts of genius born amongst them.”
The right hon. gentleman, in order to prove that Monarchy is
a national benefit, referred to the reign of George III. Now,
it is only reasonable to suppose that in Mr. Disraeli’s opinion
this sovereign was the best that could be cited as illustrative of
the alleged advantages of Royalty. A glance, therefore, at the
condition of society under George III. will enable us fully to
appreciate the value pf Monarchical “influence” on the progress
and well-being of the country. The following facts are taken
from pages 570, 571, and 572, vol. vi., of Cassell’s “ History of
England —-“George III. could not comprehend the right of
America to resist arbitrary taxation; he could as little comprehend
the right of his subjects to have full freedom of conscience, but
opposed doggedly the emancipation of the Catholics on account
of their creed. To all other reforms he was equally hostile, and his
Government and his son had, to the hour of his death, rigidly main
tained the same principles of rule. They had, as we have seen,
done their best to destroy the freedom of the press, the freedom
of speech, and the right to assemble and petition for the redress
of grievances. They had turned loose the soldiery on the people
exercising this right, and had armed the magistracy with full
powers to seize any person whom they pleased to suspect of free
ideas ; and having shut them up in prison had suspended the
Habeas Corpus Act, to keep them there without a hearing during
their pleasure. Never in the history of England, since the days
of the Stuarts, had there been so determined an attempt to
crush the national liberties as toward the end of this reign.......
The same reluctance had always marked the mind of George
�5
III. to reform the penal code as to reform political abuses.
During his period of sanity he continued to behold unmoved
the frightful ferocity of the criminal code, and to sign, unshudderingly, death-warrants for men and women, some of the
latter with children in their arms, for the theft of a sheep, or of
a few yards of calico.......The same darkness and apathy existed
on the subject of education. The great bulk of the people during
the Georgian period were almost wholly unable to read.” This
monarch’s “ influence,” no doubt, was great on the religion of
the time, for the same historian records that “ the Christianity
of the reign of George III. was a bloody farce, and an abomina
tion.” If this is the state of society to result from the influence of
Royalty, England will do well to get rid of it as speedily as
possible. For a full and correct account of what George III.
did for this nation, the reader is referred to Mr. C. Bradlaugh’s
“ Impeachment of the House of Brunswick,” where the deeds of
that worthy monarch are faithfully recorded.
Mr. Disraeli’s next statement in favour of Monarchy was that
this country “ is properly represented by a Royal Family.” This
sentence is the very opposite of truth. When has Royalty re
presented the intelligence, the industry, or the poverty of the
people ? What great literary or scientific production has ever
emanated from the wearer of the English Crown ? Indolence
and luxurious wealth have too often surrounded the throne, while
those who have been compelled to support it have had to “ toil
night and day ” amidst penury and squalid wretchedness. As
a nation we boast, among our characteristics, virtue, honour,
domestic purity, and benevolence. But in what Royal Family,
within the two hundred years mentioned by Mr. Disraeli, have
these characteristics found their representative ? Was virtue
represented by Charles II., who kept so many mistresses, and
had such a host of illegitimate children that no historian has
committed himself by naming the number of either? “No
man,” says Cassell, “ ever saddled the country with such a troop
of bastards ” as did Charles 11. Among the numerous progeny
resulting from his licentiousness may be mentioned the Dukes
of Monmouth, Southampton, Grafton, Northumberland, St.
Albans, and Richmond. Truly, these aristocratic families had
a noble origin ! Writing of this king, Buckle says : “ With the
exception of the needy profligates who thronged his Court, all
classes of men soon learned to despise a king who was a
drunkard, a libertine, and a hypocrite ; who had neither shame
nor sensibility ; and who in point of honour was unworthy to
enter the presence of the meanest of his subjects.” Did James
II. represent the honour of the country when he made secret
arrangements with Louis of France, whereby he sacrificed
England’s prestige and integrity for so many bribes, one alone
amounting to 500,000 crowns, which was followed by a second
remittance of two million livres ? His dishonour was only
equalled by his hypocrisy, for when he wanted sums of money
voted him by Parliament, he declared that he had “ a true
�6
English heart;” and when soliciting bribes from the French’
monarch, he proclaimed that his “ heart was French.” James 11,
represented nothing that was noble and true. “ He hoped to
turn a free Government into an absolute Monarchy,” but in this
he failed; and having disregarded the rights of the people, and
defied their wishes, he was driven from the throne. His fate
should be a warning to future would-be monarchs. Were the
wishes of the country represented by William III., in whose reign
commenced an extensive warfare, a reckless expenditure, and
the official inauguration of our National Debt ? In the twelve
years Queen Anne occupied the throne, she not only sided with
the Tories in their frequent quarrels with the Whigs, but she
raised the funded debt in that period from ^12,600,000 to
^36,000,000. Was this the Royal mode of illustrating the progress
and economy of the country ? Of domestic purity, as exhibited
within the domain of Royalty, but one instance shall be given,
and that from Mr. Disraeli’s king par excellence, George III.,
of whom Washington Wilkes, on pages 130—1 of his history of
the first half of the present century, writes :—“ It is generally
supposed that he was a model of domestic morality ; whereas he
was either a seducer or a bigamist........ It is not common for
virtuous parents to bring up a whole family of licentious profli
gates ; and yet what family ever exhibited such a troop of the
most shameless and sensual ones as that of George III. ? He
saw his sons seduce and abandon one woman after another, and
he could not reprimand them ; for he knew his own story better
than they who now act the historian seem to do.” No doubt,
by some, Queen Victoria is supposed to be a true representative
of benevolence. Well, if to give away portions of the money
that has been annually voted by Parliament for that purpose,
constitutes benevolence, then Her Majesty may be entitled to
that honour. But the record of sums given from the Queen’s
private .purse for benevolent purposes is difficult to find. View
ing, apart from class interest, the characteristics of the country,
and the conduct of Monarchy, it will require a Conservative
genius to discover how the former have been represented by the
latter.
Mr. Disraeli’s attempt to prove that the English Monarchy
was less expensive than the American Republic was a perversion
of facts, and a misrepresentation of figures. He said that her
Majesty had a considerable estate in the country which she had
given up, and the revenues from them had gone into the public
exchequer. The hon. gentleman did not inform us what estates he
alluded to. At the present moment the Queen is in possession of
large estates at Balmoral, at Osborne, and in the West of London,
the revenues of which the country does not receive. Did Mr.
Disraeli refer to the Crown lands ? If so, they never belonged to
the Queen, and, therefore, she could not have given them up.
Is it, however, correct to allege that the revenues derived from
the Crown lands are equal to the annual sum we pay to the Royal
Family ? That sum, according to the Blue Book and other
�official'documents, amounts to £692,373. This does not, it should
be observed, include the entire cost of Monarchy, but simply
represents the net cash paid in one year to and for the Royal
Family. Now, towards this £692,373, what is obtained fromthe
Crown lands? There was paid into the Exchequer in 1847,
.£68,000; in 1854, £272,000; in 1855—6, .£260,000 ; in 1870—1,
£385,000 ; and for the present financial year the amount named
is £375,000. Thus it will be seen that until the last few years,
the Crown land receipts were exceedingly low, and even now
they do not equal half the cost of the Queen and her family.
Mr. Disraeli said : “ I will deal with the cost of sovereignty in
the United States of America. Gentlemen, there is no analogy
between the position of Queen Victoria and the President of the
United States.” There is much truth in this remark; there is no
analogy between the two. The President of the United States
has to work; and the Queen as the right hon. gentleman re
marked on a former occasion, had become “physically and morally
incapacitated from performing her duties.” A man who aspires
to the Presidential chair must possess political ability, while a
knowledge of politics has not been deemed a necessary qualifica
tion in the occupant of the English throne. Besides, the Queen’s
salary is £385,000 a year, and the President’s is but £3,750.
In dealing with the relative costs of the two forms of Govern
ment, Mr. Disraeli did not put the case fairly. He was careful
to speak of the cost of the American Cabineg, but he never men
tioned the cost of our English Cabinet. The English Cabinet is
composed of sixteen members, who receive annually between
them in salaries £66,000. The American Administrative Depart
ment is composed of seven members, who receive among them
£8,400. In England some members get £5,000, others £7,500,
and one as much as £10,000 per year. In America no member
gets more than £1,200. Then we have the entire administration,
for which we pay, in salaries alone, £176,718, which, with the
£45,023 for expenses of the House of Lords, and £49,806 for the
House of Commons, together with £692,373 paid to the Royal
Family, make the cost of the English Government to be
.£963,920, while, as admitted by Mr. Disraeli himself, the
Republic in America costs only between £700,000 and
£800,000. And out of this sum the Americans pay their
representatives, an advantage we should do well to emulate ;
for if men are sent to Parliament to do our work, they ought to
be paid for it. If that were done, we should not find so many
empty benches as we do when the money of the country is being
voted away. In America, moreover, the sovereignty is the people.
There the people pay to rule themselves, while here we pay
Royalty to rule us. In America the sovereignty supports itself; in
this country it is supported by something outside of itself. Surely
then that which is self-supporting is more economical than that
which depends on something extraneous for its existence.
In
America its £700,000 or £800,000 are distributed among nearly
five hundred persons, but in England the £963,920 are given to
�8
less than one hundred individuals. So that in this country about
one hundred Government officials cost over £ 163,000 more than
five times that number in America.
There is a striking contrast also in the expenditure for diplo
macy in the two countries. As shown by Mr. Bradlaugh, in his
recent letter to Mr. Disraeli, America pays her Ambassador in
London a yearly salary of £3,215, and the total cost of the
American Embassy here is £4,336. Our Ambassador at New
York receives the sum of £5,000 per year, and an annual allow
ance of £1,000 for house rent, and the total cost of our Embassy
in America is ,£8,150, or nearly double. The Americans pay their
Ambassador at Paris £3,670, and the total cost of the Embassy
is ,£4,146. We give our Parisian Ambassador £10,000, and the
total cost of our Embassy is £13,595. Thus diplomacy in France
costs America less than one-third of our expenditure. In Eng
land the Lord Chief-Justice receives an annual salary of £8,000,
while the same functionary in America is paid £1,700 a year.
Many other instances could be given to show that Mr.
Disraeli was decidedly inaccurate in his comparisons of the ex
penses of the two countries. But, leaving particular departments,
what is the total cost of each nation ? The general cost of the
Governmentof Americafor 1871 was£s8,012,584,while the general
cost of England was £69,698,539 12s. 2d. The advantage to
America will appear the greater when we remember that last year
her population was 38,555,983 persons ; Great Britain and Ire
land 31,817,108. Territory of Great Britain and Ireland is about
119,924 square miles ; United States, 2,933,588 square miles.
Notwithstanding the much larger population, and the greater
extent of territory, the Republic has a much less expenditure
than the Monarchy.
Too much importance is not here attached to what has been
termed the “ cheap argument.” Because an article is cheap, it
does not therefore follow that it is preferable to that which is
more expensive. And the present examination of the relative
costs of the American and English forms of Government has
been to show, that in his speech the Right Hon. Benjamin Dis
raeli stated the very opposite of facts. True economy consists
in the usefulness of that which is purchased. Monarchy is dear
at any price, because it lacks the elements of good government.
The basis of all sound legislation is the public will, made known
through a fair and comprehensive system of representation; and
as this advantage is recognised and enforced by Republicanism,
its claims are established as superior to Royalty, even if it were
not less expensive.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London : Printed and Published by Austin & 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
The English monarchy and American republicanism. Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. B. Disraeli
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Disraeli, Benjamin [1804-1881]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: [Disraeli's speech delivered April 3rd, 1872 in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4944
Subject
The topic of the resource
Monarchy
Republicanism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The English monarchy and American republicanism. Reply to the Speech of the Right Hon. B. Disraeli), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Monarchy
Republicanism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/01445ca0e8c72a4f0b8b4be09e0b17e4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qe-SUiNe6TtyVhDUAii3FPfCxbaMJz%7EMkic1FsOKVbYnxNR9mD%7E8qnAp-XqO9j1uK9t-RJ-s5s8Ri17GH35YX3Jx%7Ed4BW1vR6EomloJYuXN4tbWQACOzrXaAruLMmJ19dI7Mjv3mstU%7EK6EZ96dq4qZcDxcPpJFbTnHKvhawVuUWGwKymXujWj7s38m0oyqBvAhG0PRdzLNlY7WJKCEbi9sTNtmhG9UYXsmGdsD7vYI%7EHOB-VkQKAm80l5aVwiVOimmRl8RsF-Pdpenxw5VlIwLwzhAQpTABXAdW6jKdYQKKO38v5iZjT1FAoctuiBak-w7fnw5wo%7EtxVza7Z1tgXA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7d31400272d5c17196bd7550965e7f6b
PDF Text
Text
BIBLE MORALITY.
'Secularists have no desire to extol the Bible above its
merits, nor to depreciate it below its deserts. We gladly
admit that it contains some useful precepts; but these, as
a rule, are intermixed with so many teachings of an in
jurious character that their beauty is often overshadowed
and their utility annulled. Its coarse language in many
places renders it unfit for general perusal, and destroys its
value as a standard for every-day life. The true worth of
literature should be its moral tone. Novels are appreciated
by the intelligent reader in proportion to their being
“ adorned ” with a moral. And dramas fail to gain the
approval of the thoughtful public unless virtue is inculcated
in a chaste form. So with the Bible : if in its ethical tone
it is defective, or if it is questionable in its injunctions or
indelicate in its records, it cannot with advantage be accepted
as an absolute monitor in human conduct.
All correct codes of morals should be clear in their
authority and practical in their application. This is the
more necessary when severe penalties—as in the case of
Christian ethics—are threatened for non-acceptance and dis
obedience. Now, the ethics of the Bible are both contradic
tory and impracticable. The same line of conduct is enjoined
in one passage, and just as explicitly prohibited in another.
One man is blamed because he is not cruel enough, and
will not go on slaying the Lord’s enemies; another man’s
chief glory consists in being a mighty man of war and a
great destroyer of men, women, and children; while other
passages proclaim, “Thou shalt not kill,” and enjoin mercy
and “loving-kindness.” The most absolute rest is enjoined
on the Sabbath, and the fiercest denunciations are hurled
at the most vigorous Sabbatarian. Retaliation for wrong is
counselled, and forgiveness is enjoined. We are told to
“ love one another,” and we are commanded to hate our
�2
BIBLE MORALITY.
own flesh and blood. Industry is advised and also dis
couraged; lustful pursuits are condemned and also permitted.
Thus Biblical morality is destitute of the first fundamental
condition of all just ethics.
Among the general principles taught in the Bible and ex
pounded by orthodoxy in this country is that belief, not
conduct, is the foundation of virtue, and that uncharitable
ness towards opponents is justifiable. One of the first in
structions which a parent should enforce upon a child is
never to impute bad motives in matters of belief or non
belief. No lesson is more valuable than this, none more
calculated to render the child’s life happy and unsuspicious,
and to make its influence in the world more useful and
beneficial. The Bible permits just the opposite. Accord
ing to Christian teachings, if a man does an act of kindness,
we are not to accept it with gratitude simply as an act of
kindness, but we are to judge from the motives of his con
duct. Did he perform the act from love to God, or did he
do it only from respect for his fellow man ? If the former,
his services will go up as a sweet smelling offering to Deity;
if the latter, he merely performed a “ splendid vice.” The
motive, not the act, is the thing to be considered. If men
slay, ravish, and destroy for the glory of God, the motive
not only condones, but consecrates, the act. Hence, in the
early history of Christianity, the practice of lying for the
good of the Church was not only allowed, but considered
praiseworthy. To require universal belief in one particular
faith, and to condemn to eternal perdition those who are
unable to comply therewith, is not the most moral doctrine.
Truly, a book that teaches that “many are called but few
are chosen,” or, in other words, that the majority of our
fellow creatures are to be cast into a burning lake, cannot
assist to promote the happiness and good of mankind. The
tendency of such teaching as this cannot have a beneficial
effect, inasmuch as it often produces mutual hatred between
man and man. Artificial and unjust distinctions of govern
ment and of classes have often produced ill-feeling between
man and man; but that evil has been increased by the
religious distinctions based upon Biblical teaching. The
natural law of love is simple and clear. It is a duty to love
all men until we have reason to believe that the trust is mis
placed or abused. It then becomes necessary to slightly
�BIBLE MORALITY.
3
modify our conduct as an act of self-defence; hence the
enactment of laws for the repression of crime and the curtail
ment of injury. If a man’s belief teaches him that he can
persecute, we have a right to be upon our guard, for we
know from bitter experience that such belief has frequently
shaped itself into conduct. But whatever man believes
about matters that do not affect his conduct should produce
in us neither love nor hatred towards him. His belief may
be ever so curious, absurd, unreal, and fantastic, ever so
ridiculous and self-contradictory, and in proportion of its
partaking of those qualities it may excite and amuse us; but
it ought not to make us respect or dislike him one whit
more. With the Bible it is quite different: its defect con
sists in its teaching us to love and respect certain people
who believe certain things which have no direct beneficial
bearing on their conduct; while we are to avoid those whose
lives may be a model of purity and benevolence, but who
cannot subscribe to a certain faith.
The great principle of Bible morality is supposed to be
contained in the Ten Commandments. The Decalogue, we
are assured, enunciates moral lessons, against which no sub
stantial objections can be brought. There are two versions
of the Decalogue given in the Old Testament, varying in
certain not unimportant particulars. Moses brought down,
we are informed, the Ten Commandments from Mount
Sinai, where he had been having a tete-d-tete with the Lord.
They were written on stone, and were copied off for future
generations in Exodus xx. They are also given in Deuter
onomy v.; but that was merely from memory, when Moses
had become somewhat advanced in age. It is not surpris
ing, therefore, that he should insert certain interpolations in
the second giving of the law which are absent from the
first. How this incongruity can be reconciled with the doc
trine of the Divine inspiration of the Bible may be left for
Christians to decide among themselves. The Decalogue is
divided into two parts : that which relates to man’s duty to
God, and that which relates to the mutual duties of man to
man. It is worthy of notice that, although the second half
contains six commands, and the former half only four,
nevertheless the first half is a great deal longer than the
second. Most of the commands of the second half are con
tained in the most condensed form. The second, third,
�4
bible morality.
and fourth Commandments are all developments of the first.
7 he first really contains or assumes the three which succeed
it. The first? which is, “ Thou shalt have no other gods
before me,” of course involves the second against idolatry,
the third against blasphemous swearing, and the fourth en
joining restful remembrance of the creation of the world by
God. It is curious, while God in these Commandments
had so much to say in giving a complete code of conduct
to his creatures, and confining himself as he did within the
limits of a certain number of Hebrew characters, written on
a stone small enough for a man to carry down the side of a
steep mountain, that he should have wasted so much time
in telling them how to behave to him, and have left so little
space to contain what was far more important—viz., the
rules to regulate our conduct to each other. The whole
prescribed duty of man to man is contained in seventy
seven words. The second Commandment brings out that
particular character of the Christian God which is so con
spicuous in other parts of the Bible. We are not to make
and bow down to images. Very good advice, we readily
admit. But why are we not to do so ? Is there any appeal
to the generous and reverential sentiments of the human
heart ? Surely a noble and good God would have said
something similar to this : “ Thou shalt not bow down thy
self to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am
a great, beneficent, and generous God, with a wide, allembracing love. Thou shalt not degrade thy soul nor debase
thy being by worshipping the gods of the heathen. I am
your only father, who made and cares for you, and your
place of reverence and trust is in the all-sustaining hollow
of my hand.” Had the Deity said this, and proved his
sincerity by appropriate actions subsequently towards his
subjects, it would have done more to have won the affec
tions of his children to him than the whole of his present
recorded sayings contained from Genesis to Revelation.
But no; we find that a sordid appeal is made partly to the
mean fears, and partly to the paternal affections, of the Jews.
They are forbidden to worship other gods: “ For I, the
ILord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
rthe fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me.” Fancy a great, Almighty
(God, creator of the earth, being jealous of the estranged
�BIBLE MORALITY.
5
affection of an unfortunate Jew! But this is in keeping
with the general character of the Christian Deity, and most
of his particular and immediate acquaintances. The part
of the Decalogue which has reference to us, as members of
society, is so brief, in comparison to that which has been
occupied by theology and the requirements of God, that
little room is left for the introduction of rewards and punish
ments which are to follow the fulfilment or non-fulfilment
of so important a behest as “ Thou shalt not kill.” But the
punishment of idolatry, a most cruel, unjust, and revengeful
one, is given at full length. The fifth Commandment,
“ Honour thy father and mother,” is certainly, as far as it
goes, an excellent one. It comes home to the heart of
everyone who has the feelings of love and duty within him.
We can take no possible exception to its request. But the
reason given for its fulfilment is as selfish as it is untrue.
Yielding to no one in the belief that filial affection and re
verence are not only duties, but carry with them (as all
virtues do to some extent) their own reward in the satisfac
tion of an approving sense of right, it has yet to be shown
that the keeping of the first part of this command will secure
the accomplishment of the second. Honouring parents
does not invariably carry with it the fulfilment of the pro
mise, “ Thy days shall be long in the land which the Lord
thy God giveth thee.” The best of sons have frequently
been called upon to pay the last debt of nature when still
in the bloom and vigour of their manhood, while some of
the worst of characters live to a comparatively old age, a
grief to their parents and a disgrace to themselves. Though,
therefore, we would echo the command, “ Children, obey
your parents,” we would also say : Do so, not from any selfish
hope of personal gain or long life, but for the love you
should have for those who have toiled for and protected you
through years of infancy and helplessness. Duty, gratitude,
and affection should be the inspiration to obedience, not
the grovelling incentive given by the Bible. But may not
this be taken as a fair sample of Bible teaching ? When
ever we discover a noble thought, a just precept, or a gener
ous sentiment, we generally find it surrounded by much
that is impracticable, misleading, and fallacious. The sixth,
seventh, and eighth Commandments call for no special
remark, save that, when they point out the extremes of
�6
BIBLE MORALITY.
certain vices, and forbid their indulgence, they fail to state
how far persons may go in their direction without commit
ting fatal errors; and this difficulty is all the greater when we
reflect that these were the very Commandments which most
of God’s favourites had the greatest predilection for break
ing- The chief object of the ninth Commandment is its
limitation. Why should the word “ neighbour ” be intro
duced in the prohibition of false swearing? It is equally a
wrong to swear falsely against a stranger as against a neigh
bour. The tenth Commandment is the only one of the
second part of the Decalogue which errs by excess of Puri
tanism. There can be no harm, for instance, in coveting a
neighbour’s house if sufficient compensation is offered to in
duce him to give up the lease; and, if we did not occasionally
covet our neighbour’s oxen, beefsteaks and surloins would
be even more scarce among the working classes than they
are at present. Speaking broadly, the one great objection
to the Decalogue is the absence of any noble, inspiring
principle of conduct. It teaches no real love, no true
charity; it is a penal code, not a rule of life.
Orthodox believers are continually proclaiming that love
is the foundation of Biblical ethics; the fact is, however,
that, if human actions were regulated by some teachings of
the Bible, there would be but few manifestations of love.
To kill the inhabitants of a conquered city, and to save none
alive (Deut. xx. io-i6),is a peculiar mode of exhibiting love to
our fellow men. The conduct of Christ was not calculated
to inspire us with a superabundance of love when he said:
“Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my father which is in heaven ” (Matt. x. 33);
or when he stated : “ But those mine enemies which would
not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and
slay them before me” (Luke xix. 27). Here we have an
indication of that unforgiving and revengeful spirit which
destroys true affection. If there be any truth in the popular
notions of sin and forgiveness, it was not moral for Christ
to act as he did when speaking in a parable to his disciples.
They, not being able to understand him, asked him for an
explanation of what he then said. His reply was : “ Unto
you is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God;
but, unto them that are without, all these things are done
in parables; that seeing, they may see and not perceive,
�BIBLE MORALITY.
7
and hearing, they may hear and not understand, lest at any
time they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven
them ” (Mark iv.). This is not only partial and unjust, but
a planned determination to teach so mysteriously that people
should not learn the truth, in case they should thereby be
saved. Such a mode of advocacy would be deemed in
jurious, indeed, in these days, and is only equalled by the
following “ inspired ” information to certain persons : “ And
for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned
who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous
ness ” (2 Thess. ii. n, 12). We are advised to be holy, even
as God is holy; but what is holiness according to Bible
morality? If a “Divine” sanction to a thing constitutes it
holy, then deceit, murder, lying, and the deepest kind of
cruelty are allied with Scriptural holiness. In 2 Kings x.
God is represented as rewarding the following crimes, and
thereby giving the Bible sanction to the worst kind of im
morality. Jehu, having become King of Israel, commences
his reign with a series of murders. Having resolved upon
the destruction of the house of Ahab, Jehu commences his
task in a manner possible only to those who fight with the
“ zeal of the Lord.” Killing all who were likely to obstruct
him in the carrying out of his base object, he arrived at
Samaria, his purpose being to slay all the worshippers of
Baal. In order, therefore, that he might entrap them all
into one slaughter house, he announced that he was a great
worshipper of Baal, and that he had come to offer a mighty
sacrifice to this idol. By this craft he succeeded in drawing
all the worshippers of Baal together. When the unfortunate
victims were assembled, tendering their sacrifices, Jehu
ordered his captains to go in and slay them, allowing none
to escape. Accordingly, they were all sacrificed to the
treachery of this “ servant of the Lord.” And this conduct
is approved by God; for in verse 30 is recorded : “ And
the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in
executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done
unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine
heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the
throne of Israel.” Bible morality is further illustrated in
the case of Samuel (1 Samuel xvi. 1-4). This prophet is
commanded by God to go on a certain mission under false
�8
BIBLE MORALITY.
pretences, and with a direct falsehood upon his lips. Now,
is it moral to deceive and murder ? If not, why did God
command and encourage such vices ? And why should
men be invited to imitate the example of one who practised
such immoralities ? Biblical ethics are alleged to be based
upon the “holiness of God.” In order to ascertain what
that “holiness ” really is, it is only necessary to read Genesisxxx. and xxxi., where immorality, ingratitude, deceit, and
theft are found to be ascribed to Jacob, who was encouraged
and beloved by God; Exodus ix. 13-16, where people are'
seen to have been raised up by God for the very pur
pose of being “cut off from the earth;” Exodus xxxii.,
for an account of the anger, injustice, and cruelty of Moses,
culminating in the slaughter of thousands of human beings
at the command of God ; Joshua vi., viii., and x., for a
record of his reckless murder of thousands of human beings,
among whom were men, women, and children, at the special
command of God; 2 Samuel xii. n-31, for adultery and
cruelty in connection with David; and then peruse Psalms
xxxviii. and cix. for a confession of a life of deceit, lying,
and licentiousness. Yet we are told that David “ was a
man after God’s own heart,” and that he “kept God’s com
mandments, and did that only which was right in his eyes ”
(1 Kings xiv. 8). Such maybe Biblical morality; but it is
certainly opposed to Secular ideas of ethical philosophy.
The teachings of the Bible in reference to slavery are
barbarously unjust. According to its permit, men and
women can be bought and sold like cattle, the weak being
compelled to serve the strong. In Exodus xxi. 2-6 we have
a most cruel law for regulating this “ Bible institution,”
the cruelty and injustice of which law are two-fold. First,
if the slave when he is bought be single, and if, during his
seven years of slavery, he marries and becomes a father,
then, at the expiration of his time, his wife and children are
his master’s, and the slave goes out free. Is this moral ?
What becomes of the poor man’s paternal affections ? Isthe love for his wife nothing ? Is he to be separated from
that he holds dear, and to see the object of his affectionsgiven to the man who for seven years had robbed him of his
independence and his manhood? If, however, the poor
victim’s love for his wife and children be stronger than his
desire for liberty, what is his fate? He is to be brought
�BIBLE MORALITY.
9
to the door, have his ear bored with an awl, and doomed to
serve his master forever. Thus Bible morality makes per
petual slavery and physical pain the punishments of the
exercise of the purest and best feelings of human nature.
Where is the moral lesson in the statement: “ And thou
shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after;
for oxen or for sheep, or for wine or for strong drink, or for
whatsoever thy soul desireth ; and thou shalt eat there before
the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine
household ” ? If this is not giving a license to the worst of
passions, words have no meaning. But Bible morality strikes
at the manhood and happiness of man. It stifles our
tenderest affections, and urges the exercise of the cruellest
passions by teaching that a man may kill the wife of his
bosom if she dare to entice him secretly from his God
(Deut. xiii. 6-9). Where is the man who will so far belie
his nature as to accept such morality as this ? Unfortunately,
Bible teachings have frequently caused a complete severance
and breaking up of the ties of affection in families. The
Bible commands its believers to leave father, mother, sister,
and brother to follow Christ. According to its teachings, it
is justifiable to break up a certain and a human bond that
we may get a problematical chance of a problematical
blessedness in a problematical future. There are few, doubt
less, who have not learned in their own sad experience how
the family tie has been often disunited by Christian teach
ings. Brothers and sisters have been separated for years
from the home of their childhood because they dared to
emancipate themselves from the shackles of the prevailing
faith.
Accepting the term “ moral ” as expressing whatever is
calculated to promote general progress and happiness, what
morality is contained in the following passages from the
Bible : “ Take no thought for your life “ Resist not evil
“ Blessed be ye poor“ Labour not for the bread which
perisheth “ Servants, be subject to your masters with all
fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward “ Let every man abide in the same calling wherein
he was called“ Submit yourself to every ordinance of man
for the Lord’s sake “ Let every soul be subject unto the
higher powers, for there is no power but of God............
Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the
�IO
BIBLE MORALITY.
ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to them
selves damnation”? Were these injunctions obeyed, health,
independence of character, and political progress would be
ignored. For the reforms we have hitherto secured we are
indebted to men and women who practically disregarded the
Bible, and based their conduct upon the principle of utility.
To teach, as the Bible does, that wives are to be subject to
their husbands in everything (Eph. v.); to “set your affections
on things above, not on things on the earth ” (Colos. iii.);
to “ love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world ’* (i John ii.); to “ lay not up for yourselves treasures
upon earth” (Matt, vi.), is not to inculcate the principle of
equality, or to inspire man with a desire to take an interest
in “the things of time.” Whatever service the Bible may
render in gratifying the tastes of the superstitious, it cannot,
to men of thought and energy, be of any great moral worth.
To persecute for non-belief of any teaching, but more
particularly of speculative questions, is not in accordance
with ethical justice. Is it true that the Bible encourages
persecution for the non-belief in, or the rejection of, its
teachings ? If yes, so far at least is its moral worth lessened.
For belief in the truth of a doctrine, or the wisdom of a
precept, is, to the honest inquirer, the result of the recogni
tion on his part of sufficient evidence in their favour. When
ever that evidence is absent, disbelief will be found, except
among the indifferent or the hypocritical. Now, in the
Bible there are many things that the sincere thinker is com
pelled, through lack of evidence, to reject. What does the
New Testament inculcate towards such persons? When
Christ sent his disciples upon a preaching expedition he said
(Matt, x.) : “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear
your words, when ye depart out of that house or city shake
off the dust of your feet.” This, we are informed by
Oriental writers, was a mode in the East of showing hatred
towards those against whom the dust was shaken. The
punishment threatened those who refused the administra
tions of the disciples is most severe, for “ it shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day
of judgment than for that city.” In St. John xv. we read :
“If a man abideth not in me, he is cast forth as a branch,
and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into
the fire, and they are burned.” This accords with the gloomy
�BIBLE MORALITY.
II
announcement (2 Thess. i.): “ The Lord Jesus shall be re
vealed from heaven, with his mighty angels in flaming fire,
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be
punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of
the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall
come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all
them that believe.” Again (Mark xvi.) : “ He that believeth
not shall be damned.” St. Paul exclaims (Gal. i.): “If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.” He also says (1 Tim. vi.
3-5): “ If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ
....... he is proud, knowing nothing......... From such withdraw
thyself.” “ Of whom is Hymenseus and Alexander ; whom
I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to
blaspheme” (1 Tim. i. 20). In these passages persecution
and punishment are clearly taught for disbelief. And that
such teaching has had an immoral tendency the excommu
nications, the imprisonments, and sacrifice of the lives of
heretics in connection with the history of Christianity abun
dantly prove.
Orthodox Christians contend that the Bible is a necessary
factor in the educational system of all nations. While
admitting the necessity of instruction in the affairs of daily
life, they allege that a question of far greater importance is
the preparation for existence “beyond the grave.” They
profess to be impressed with the notion that there is a city
of refuge in store for them when they arrive at the end of
life’s journey; and, having to encounter many storms and
difficulties ere they reach this supposed haven of rest, they
feel assured that the Bible is a sufficient guide to carry
them safely over the sea of time, and land them securely in
the harbour of eternity. They therefore rely on this book
as if it were unerring in its directions and infallible in its
commands.
Now, there is ample reason to doubt the capability of this
Christian guide. Its inability, however, as an instructor and
guide does not arise from any lack of variety of contents.
The Bible contains a history of the cosmogony of the earth,
and the story of man’s fall from what is termed his first
estate of perfection and happiness. Then we have the
�12
BIBLE MORALITY.
history of God’s chosen people, from their uprise to their
national extinction, with a record of the Jewish laws, speci
fying those acts most calculated to propitiate the favour and
secure the rew’ard of heaven, and those which are con
demned, with their appropriate and stipulated punishments.
We have also glimpses of the histories of other nations, the
causes of their fall, and the account of their national sins,
which drew down upon them that wrath of heaven which
extinguished or sorely punished them. Following this, there
is the story of Job—the lessons to be derived from the sudden
collapse of his worldly greatness, and his soliloquies upon
the mysteries of nature and of providence. Next come the
Psalms—a copious manual of praise, prayer, cursing, and
penitence, followed by the woes, lamentations, and mis
fortunes of a host of prophets—some practical, some
mystical, and some evangelical—together with the four
different versions of the life, actions, and death of Christ;
a short account of the early doings of the Church, recorded
in several epistles written by sundry apostles, culminating
in the strange and extraordinary nightmare of St. John the
Divine. Now, any man who fails to discover in so large a
field materials by which to regulate his life must do so, not
from the scarcity, but the valuelessness, of the article
supplied.
In estimating the real value of the Bible as a moral guide
it must be taken as a whole, by which is meant those books
of the Old and New Testaments which are bound together
and commonly called the Word of God. And here a ques
tion arises that, if the knowledge of the whole Bible be
necessary to our future happiness, which according to St.
John it is, why is it that so many of the books that originally
constituted the Bible are lost ? If the testimony of the
book itself can be accepted, we have only a portion of what
at one time composed the Bible. In Numbers a quotation
is given from a book called “ The Book of the Wars of the
Lord;” in Judges and Samuel we read of “The Book of
Jasher;” in Kings mention is made of “The Book of the
Acts of Solomon
and in Chronicles of “ The Account of
the Chronicles of King David.” We further read of “The
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah ” and “ The
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.” Allusion
is also made to “ The Book of Nathan the Prophet ” and to
�BIBLE MORALITY.
13
“The Book of Gad the Seer.” Notwithstanding the loss
of these books, Christians exclaim, How wonderfully their
book has been preserved ! Even the portions that are re
tained are so full of mistakes, errors, and corruptions that
its intelligent supporters are compelled to give the greater
part of it up as incapable of defence, while those who still
contend for its “ divinity ” hesitate to come forward and
support it in public debate.
Another question suggests itself: Are we to consider the
Old. Testament as the Word of God ? If so, upon the
Christian hypothesis, its teachings are equally as deserving
of our respect as are those of the New Testament. If, on
the other hand, the Old Testament is not intended for our
acceptance, why is it preached and enforced as God’s Word ?
True, it is sometimes stated that the Hebrew writings are
useful for instruction, although they are not of the same
authority with Christians as the New Testament. But here
it is overlooked that the New Testament is founded upon
the Old, and often appeals to it to corroborate its statements.
Furthermore, the New Testament distinctly says that the
Old was written by good and holy men for our instruction,
etc. Besides, does not Christ emphatically state that he did
not come to destroy its authority ? “ Think not,” says he,
“ that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto
you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever,
therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Here is
a command not to break even one of the least of the com
mandments. Again, Christ says: “The Scribes and the
Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; whatsoever they bid you ob
serve, that observe and do.” Among a collection of Chris
tian stories occurs the following anecdote :—A person once
asked a poor, illiterate old woman what she deemed to be
the difference between the Old and New Testaments, to
which she replied : “ The Old Testament is the New Testa
ment concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testa
ment revealed.” This has been triumphantly quoted by
Christian writers to show the harmony existing between the
�14
BIBLE MORALITY.
two books. But it is absurd and contradicts facts. The
assumption is, that the Old Testament is the partial statement
of a body of truths, from which the New Testament differs
not in kind, but only in degree. It is supposed that nothing
in the New Testament contradicts what is stated in the Old,
but only reveals and amplifies with a clearer light what had
already been stated partially and under allegorical semblance
in the Old. Now, so far is this from being correct that it
would be difficult to find any two alleged bodies of sacred
truths which differ from and contradict each other more than
the divine revelation made through Moses and the prophets,
and the revelation made through Christ and his Apostles.
For instance, Moses taught that retaliation was a duty, while
Christ strictly prohibits it. With Moses persecutors were
put to the edge of the sword; with Christ, however, they
were to be blessed. Under the old system, good works
and a virtuous life were the conditions of Divine favour and
reward, and bad works and a vicious life were to incur Divine
disfavour and punishment. Under the new system, faith is
the all-in-all, the essential condition of salvation.
A proof of the inadequacy of the Bible as a guide and
instructor is furnished by what are termed the “ liberal
Christians.” Here we have men of the best intentions and
of high intellectual acquirements refusing to accept the Bible
as an absolute guide, or as an infallible instructor. With
such persons the Bible has no value as “ infallible revela
tion.” If, however, the Bible is not an infallible record, it
is simply a human production, and has no more claim upon
us, except what its merits inspire, than any other book. Is
it not rather inconsistent to contend, as these liberal Chris
tians do, that certain portions of the Bible are “ divine,”
while the other parts are simply human ? If every Chris
tian sect put forward similar contentions, there would be
but few parts of the “ Holy Scriptures ” that would not be
divine and human at the same time, according to the respec
tive opinions of different classes of believers. But how are
we to decide what is “ divine ” and what is human ? To
what standard shall we appeal ? What criterion have we by
which to test its genuineness ? Shall we accept the authority
of the Protestant or the Catholic Church ? Shall we judge
from the standpoint of the Trinitarians or the Unitarians?
For the Bible to be trustworthy as a guide it should be
�BIBLE MORALITY.
15
reliable in its statements and harmonious in its doctrines.
That it is not so will be evident from the following reference
to its pages. The Bible teaches that God is omniscient and
omnipresent; yet in Gen. xi. 5 we read that the Lord came
down to see the city and the tower which the children of
menbuilded; and in Gen. xviii. 20, 21: “And the Lord
said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and
because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and
see whether they have done altogether according to the cry
of it, which is come unto me ; and, if not, I will know.” It
teaches that God is immutable ; yet, on several occasions,
we find him changing his mind, repenting, and sometimes
turning back from his repentance; as in the great instance
(Gen. vi. 6) : “ And it repented the Lord that he had made
man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart ” (also
1 Sam. xv. 10, 11). God told Balaam to go with the men
(Num. xxii., 20), and was angry with him because he went
(Num. xxii. 21, 22). It teaches that God is invisible, yet we
read (Gen. xxxii. 30) : “And Jacob called the name of the
place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is
preserved and (Ex. xxiv. 9, 10): “Then up went Moses,
and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders
of Israel; and they saw the God of Israeland, again (Ex.
xxxiii. 11,23): “ And the Lord spake unto Moses face to
face, as a man speaketh unto his friend....... And I will take
away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but
my face shall not be seen and, finally (Gen. xviii.), we have
the remarkable though perplexed account of the Lord paying
a visit to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, and eating with
him of cakes, butter, milk, and veal. It teaches that God
is all good ■, yet we read (Isa. xlv. 7): “I form the light and
create darkness : I make peace and create evil: I the Lord
do all these things and (Lam. iii. 38): “ Out of the mouth
of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good ?” and
(Ezekiel xx. 25): “ Wherefore I gave them also statutes that
were not good, and judgments whereby they should not
live.” It teaches that God is no respecter of persons ; yet
we read (Gen. iv. 4, 5): “And the Lord had respect unto
Abel and to his offering ; but unto Cain and his offering he
had no respect;” and (Ex. ii. 25) : “ And God looked upon
the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them;”
and (Rom. ix. 11-13) : “For the children being not yet
�16
BIBLE MORALITY,
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose
of God, according to election, might stand, not of works,
but of him that calleth ; it was said unto her, The elder shall
serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated.” And, in fact, nearly the whole Bible
story is that of a chosen people, preferred above all other
nations, surely for no superior goodness on their part! It
teaches (Ex. xx. 5) that God is a jealous God, “ visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me;” yet we read (Ezekiel xviii. 20):
“ The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither
shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” It teaches
that Christ is God (John i. 1, 14; Heb. i. 8); yet we read
(John viii. 40) : “ But now ye seek to kill me, a man that has
told you the truth, which I have heard of God;” also (1
Tim. ii. 5): “ One mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus.” It teaches (John x. 30) that Christ and his
father are one ; yet we read (John xiv. 28): “For my father
is greater than I.” It teaches (John xvi. 30; Col. ii. 3)
that Jesus knew all things ; yet we read (Mark xi. 13): “And
seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he
might find anything thereon; and, when he came to it, he
found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet■”
and, far more significant (Mark xiii. 32) : “ But of that day
and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which
are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” It teaches
of Jesus (John viii. 14): “ Though I bear record of myself,
yet my record is true; for I know whence I came, and
whither I go ;” yet we read (John v. 31): “ If I bear witness
of myself, my witness is not true.” It teaches further (1
Tim. ii. 6) that he gave himself a ransom for all; yet we
read (Matt. xv. 24): “ I am not sent but to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel;” and (Mark vii. 26, 27): “The
woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation; and she
besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her
daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first
be filled; for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and
cast it unto the dogs.” It teaches that miracles are proofs
of a divine mission (Matt. ix. 6; John v. 36 ; Heb. ii. 4);
yet (Deut. xiii. 1-3; Matt. xxiv. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 9) warns
against false prophets and anti-Christs, who shall show great
signsand wonders. It teaches in many passages of the New
�BIBLE MORALITY.
17
Testament that the end of the world is at hand, as in
Matt, xxiv., 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 15; 1 Peter
iv. 7; yet we read (2 Thess. ii. 2, 3): “ That ye be not
soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor
by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ
is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means.”
Further, on this subject, we read (Matt. x. 23), in which
Jesus is addressing the Apostles he sent forth : “Ye shall
not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man
be comeyet we read (Matt. xxiv. 14) : “ And this gospel
of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come
and, similarly (Mark xiii. 10): “And the gospel must first
be published among all nations.” It teaches (Luke i. 33 ;
Heb. i. 8) that the kingdom of Christ shall endure forever;
yet we read, in one of the most remarkable passages of the
New Testament (1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28) : “Then cometh the
end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and
all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put
all enemies under his feet........ And when all things shall be
subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject
unto him that put all things under him, that God may
be all-in-all.” It teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts
v. 3, 4); yet we read (John xv. 26): “ But when the Com
forter is come, whom shall I send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father
and, again (John xiv. 16): “I will pray the Father, and he
shall give you another Comforter and, again (Acts x. 38);
“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and
with power.” Finally, it teaches that “ all Scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable” (2 Tim. iii. 16);
yet we read (1 Cor. vii. 6, 12): “ But I speak this by per
mission, and not of commandment....... But to the rest speak
I, not the Lord and similarly (2 Cor. xi. 17) : “ That which
I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were fool
ishly, in this confidence of boasting.”
The foregoing are but a few of “ apparent discrepancies,”
or, as we call them, direct self-contradictions; and, be it
remembered, they concern the essentials of Christianity—
the three persons of the God, the inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures, and the end of the world. The Bibliolater may
�18
BIBLE MORALITY.
be encouraged in the endeavour to reconcile them by the
assurance that an indefinite further number, just as perplex
ing, await solution.
Those Christians who are too enlightened to accept the
Bible, as it has chanced to come down to us, as in every
word the very Word of God, and too free-minded to
submit to the authority of a tradition which has varied
with all climes and ages, or a Church whose history is a
record of blunders, compromises, falsifications, self-contra
dictions, probably unequalled in the annals of any merely
secular institution whatever, manage to remain, in their own
estimation, Christians, by believing that God’s saving revela
tion to mankind is made in the Bible, and that everyone
may read it for himself if he studies the volume in a re
verent and prayerful spirit. They admit many errors of
copyists, reject many passages, and even books, as decidedly
spurious, and regard many others as doubtful; yet maintain
that, all deductions made, there is left a clear and sufficient
Divine message, whose essential character is untouched by
.any of the errors or defects, and unchanged by any of the
various readings.
Now, this theory is certainly the most illogical which a
Christian can hold ; for that of the thorough Bibliolater is
consistent in its blind submission of reason to faith ; and
the Roman and Church views are equally consistent in their
blind submission to faith and tradition and ecclesiastical
authority; while this new theory seeks and pretends to
•conciliate things which are essentially irreconcilable—reason
and faith, freethought and revelation, liberty and servitude,
the natural and the supernatural. But, as it is the theory of
some of the best and ablest of our religious fellow-citizens,
and of those who are most heartily with us in much sound
Secular work, it practically claims a fuller consideration here
than it intrinsically merits.
In the first place, it is evidently open to the fatal objec
tion that it makes man the measure and standard of his
God, setting up certain Scriptures as supernatural and
Divine, then subjecting them to the arbitrament of human
nature, the reason and conscience of the creature. Each
of those who hold it says in effect: “ Here are books pur
porting to contain the Word of God, and I believe they
do contain it, but mixed with many vain words of men;
�BIBLE MORALITY.
19
therefore, what suits me I shall consider Divine, and what
does not suit me I shall reject.” Numerous clever attempts
■have been made to smooth away this sharp self-contradic
tion ; but, so far as we are aware, and as was to be expected,
not one that can be deemed even plausible by any candid
outsider. There is but one mode of getting rid of it—a
mode swift and effectual, obvious, and facile in theory; but,
as long experience proves, very hard to put into practice—
.and this is to surrender the initial claim of Divine inspira
tion of the books, when, of course, it would be quite natural
and consistent to sit in judgment on them, as on any other
human writing, welcoming what in them we find good and
true, rejecting what we find bad and false.
It is indeed alleged that the special grace of the Holy
Spirit always illumines and guides every one who studies
these books in the proper frame of mind; but, as we find,
in fact, that no two serious students read quite alike—each
.reading in accordance with his peculiar temperament, intel
lect, training, and circumstances, precisely as he would read
were there no Holy Spirit in question—the said special
grace, having no perceptible effect, may be safely left out of
the calculation. Innumerable sectaries, all alike devout
and sincere, all alike drawing their inspiration from the
Bible, have differed widely on the very fundamental doc
trines of Christianity; and we never heard of the Holy
Spirit doing anything towards bringing these brethren into
unity. A Christian eclectic submits the Bible to the test of
his own reason and conscience, which have been educated
and purified, not by the book itself, nor by any supernatural
grace, but by the results of a long and gradual progress in
secular enlightenment and civilisation ; which progress has
been at nearly every step opposed on the authority of the
book, and in the name of the religion founded on it. Doc
trines that now revolt the common conscience did not in
former centuries revolt the consciences of men who were
taught by the book and purified by the Holy Spirit. It is
not by special grace, nor revelation of the Holy Scriptures,
but by critical scholarship, that men have come now to
decide as to the genuineness and authenticity, the date and
authority, of the various portions. Until free learning was
revived at the classical or heathenish Renaissance, the Holy
Spirit was content to leave all the most pious Biblical
�20
BIBLE MORALITY.
students in very deep darkness as to nearly all the points ott
which our eclectic Christians are now so clearly enlightened.
The family ideal set forth in the Bible is certainly not one
of a high ethical nature. The domestic relationship of
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon could
not be emulated to-day without practising gross injustice,and submitting to utter moral degradation. The IndoEuropean race has developed in morals as in knowledge,
and two thousand years ago, when Germanicus led the
Roman legions, he beheld with wonder the respect with
which the ignorant, rude, and warlike Germans treated their
wives and daughters. It is an insult to civilised women for
any one to commend the family ideal of those who made
woman a slave. Even Christ is represented as treating
women as if they were necessarily inferior to men ; while
his conduct to his mother, his commendation and personal
practice of celibacy, and his encouraging others to renounce
their own obligations to their families, are not calculated to
shed a halo of peace and happiness within the home circle.
Moreover, St. Paul’s doctrine of the absolute submission of
wives to their husbands can hardly be offered us to admire
as an ideal.
The Secularist family ideal is far superior to that of the
Bible, inasmuch as it is on a level with the ethics of our
societarian development. It teaches that marriage should
be the result of mutual affection, and that such a union
creates the responsibility of undivided allegiance, mutual
fidelity, and mutual consideration. It affirms that in the
domestic circle there should be no one-sided, absolute
authority; that husband and wife should be partners in
deed, not only in theory, animated alike by the desire to
promote each other’s happiness.
The basis of Bible morality, being God’s will, is very
delusive, for the simple reason that, if such a will has been
recorded, it is not known to us; and the conjectured repre
sentations of it given to us by theologians of all ages are
impracticable and conflicting. In the Bible there is not to
be found only one will ascribed to its Deity, but many;
and those are as contradictory as they are various. For
instance, murder, adultery, theft, deceit, and other crimes
can be proved from the Bible to be opposed to the expressed
desire of God, as given in the Scriptures; while upon the
�BIBLE MORALITY.
21
same authority these crimes can be shown to accord with
God’s will. The result is, it is impossible to regulate human
conduct upon the sanctions of either the “ inspired ” records.
It is this peculiar nature of Bible teachings which was, prob
ably, the cause of the early Christians lying for the glory of
the Church (see Mosheim’s “ Ecclesiastical History ”), and
of Christians at a more modern period robbing and murder
ing those whom they termed heretics. In doing what they
did in this persecuting business, the Bible believers, no
doubt, thought that they were acting in accordance with
•“God’s will,” as set forth in the “ Divine revelation.” The
founders and promoters of those body-and-mind-destroying
institutions, the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, were in
all probability sincere, and many of them in the affairs of
every-day life, apart from theology, good men. In religious
matters, however, they were cruel and inhuman in the
extreme. Why was this ? Because, no doubt, in punishing
even to death those who opposed the true faith, they thought
they were following the Bible as a guide (see Deuteronomy
xiii. 6-9).
The acceptance of the Bible as a standard of morality
involves also the recognition of teachings and doctrines that
are conflicting and impracticable. In one place we are told
that faith alone will save us (Romans iii. 27, 28); while in
another portion of this same “ authority ” we are assured
that works are necessary to secure salvation (James ii. 24).
In St. John we read, “No man cometh unto the Father but
by me ” [Christ] (xiv. 6); and in the same gospel it is
recorded, “ No man can come to me [Christ] except the
Father draw him ” (vi. 44). This makes salvation depend,
not upon man, but upon God. In John it is written, “ For
there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one
while Timothy states distinctly that “ there is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
The New Testament teaches that Christ brought glad tidings
for all men ; yet we are assured that he came but to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel—that many are called, but
few are chosen. In one chapter we learn that all sin can
be forgiven, while in another part of the same book it is
said that the sin against the Holy Ghost is never to be for
given. In Timothy we read : “ For this is good and accept
�22
BIBLE MORALITY.
able in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all mento be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’7'
But this cannot be if it is true that “ for this cause God
shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a
lie.” If the delusions are sent by God, and if in conse
quence mankind believe a lie, and get punished hereafter
for such belief, it is only fair to suppose that God’s will was
that they should not come to a knowledge of the truth;
which contradicts what is stated in Timothy. John assuresus that “ whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and
ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”
This is very consoling when we read the following : “ If any
man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters—yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” To be a disciple
of Christ you must hate your brother ; you are thus a mur
derer, and “no murderer hath eternal life.” If you wish,
therefore, to have eternal life, you must not become a dis
ciple of Christ. Martyrdom by death may not always be
the best way to advance a principle, inasmuch as more
good can generally be done by living for a cause than by
dying for it. But Christians say the martyrdom of the
early Christians proves the truth of their doctrines, and in
support of their contention they quote the words of Jesus :
“ And I [Jesus] say unto you, My friends, be not afraid of
them that kill the body, and after that have no more that
they can do.” These words, it is thought, prove that Jesus
taught and held life cheaply, in order to advance more
readily his doctrines. It appears, however, from John that
Christ did what many of his followers now do—taught one
thing and practised another; for on one occasion John says,
“ Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Jewry,
because the Jews sought to kill him.” What are we to do
in this case—follow Christ’s teaching, or his example ? To
follow both is impossible. Some persons condemn all war
upon the ground that it is anti-Scriptural, and in their justi
fication they quote Matthew, where he says : “ Then said
Jesus unto them, Put up again thy sword into its place; for
all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
The soldier, on the other hand, tells the peace man that we
ought to possess swords ; for in Luke it is said : “ He that
hath no sword let him sell his garments and buy one.”
�BIBLE MORALITY.
23
Both would be equally justified, and both would be equally
condemned, by the New Testament—a very perplexing
position to be in. But the man fond of fighting would
keep his sword, believing that the more Christianity became
spread the more use there would be for the sword, as Christ
declared: “ Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am
come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law.” If Christ had succeeded in his object
-—and he has partially—the advocate of the sword would
have had good grounds for justification.
St. Paul considers charity the highest of virtues, without
which all other acquirements are as nothing. But then he
immediately destroys the efficacy of such teaching by the
following command : “ As we said before, so say I now
again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed.” We are told
that “ wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get wisdom.”
But we are also assured that in much wisdom there is much
grief, and that he that increaseth knowledge increaseth
sorrow. It is folly to guide man to wisdom, telling him
that it is better than riches, while he is taught that “ the
wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.” Where is
the incentive for a youth to acquire knowledge when St.
Paul says, “It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the pru
dent ” ?
From these samples of the incoherent nature of Bible
statements and teachings, it will be seen how impossible it
is to rely implicitly on such a book as a guide in human
conduct. True, Christians may urge that there is no con
tradiction in the cases cited; that the Bible is God’s Word,
and must therefore be all true. It is in vain that the
student points out that this revelation abounds with impos
sibilities and absurdities, for he is reminded that with God
all things are possible, therefore let “ God be true, and
every man a liar.” It is further urged that the mistakes
occur through our lack of comprehension ; that the Scrip
tures would be plain enough if we could only “ see our way
clear ” to accept them as gospel; and that the depravity of
our nature prevents us viewing revealed truth in a spiritual
�24
BIBLE MORALITY.
light. These are the sentiments of many who profess to
accept the Bible as a guide. Truly, we must become as
little children if we endorse the doctrine of Scriptural infalli
bility.
The conduct of those who, in the face of such incon
sistency, contend for Bible infallibility is something more
than foolish; it is criminal. To shelter all that the Bible
contains under the halo of “ divinity ” is to pay homage to
the worst of human weaknesses. If a man is to pursue an
intellectual career; if he is to foster a manly independence;
if he is to live a life of integrity, he must not be bound
either by ancient folly or modern orthodoxy; but, unfettered,
he should learn the lessons afforded by a knowledge of the
facts of nature, and from the discoveries of science acquire
those rules which through life will be a surer counsellor than
the Bible, and a safer guide than theology.
�
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
Bible morality
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the NSS pamphlet collection. Title in KVK given as 'Bible Morality: Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide'. Publication given in KVK as London : Watts and Co., [19--].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[19--]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1582
N658
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Ethics
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 /><p>This work (Bible morality), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
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
Bible-Criticism
NSS
Philosophy and Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/04907467207e63934fe77fc9a03ac790.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=e3dAe9xjn2kxPGgmX10oU50cQZg3F5encijau-Ts6GL4pSXxlBMpzAg58UtNTU5oprUubJ5Nty9BdisKp-clwkpqp-6fMZSXUnMPfEtzcjHvl3obLA0mpxLS%7ESS71rMbh7vs6uPHIjChi-2Xn-h1WpO%7EdzDHZDZCDs9KvqjQiBvopiyGmlHzHfWRt3XoN1mxFBSlIPzWIdNa1tkwrN1YMKOLVkPecr8j9FzYirkz3K7-qIT7WQiREw6ivJjij2mDL7aZ%7EtYb-3rxsYm-0DIKOXqUUZUgkUq6eKZMsXLvDOi4CLODChj7lohexjboEmirujq2%7Eafu2PEFnCa6BEoqKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b01d27c7319819f27814a3ad30ba98a0
PDF Text
Text
AND
CHRISTIANITY
A EEPLY TO
THE EEV. E. SHEPHEED, OF GEIMSBY,
BY
CHARLES WATTS,
Secretary of the National Secular Society.
LONDON:
AUSTIN AND CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
1867.
Price Twopence.
�PREFACE.
It may be necessary perhaps to give a few words of expla
nation, in order that the reader may understand the cause
of the present reply, and the delay in its publication. Some
few months ago, the Eev. R. Shepherd, of Grimsby,
delivered and published a lecture entitled, “ What is a
Secularist ?” Finding that their principles had been mis
represented by the rev. gentleman, the Secularists of
Grimsby invited me to visit Grimsby, and deliver a lecture
in answer to Mr. Shepherd. Accordingly, in September
last, I reviewed the pamphlet “ What is a Secularist?”
in the Odd-Fellows’ Hall, Grimsby. At the conclusion
of the lecture it was the unanimous desire of those present
that as the Rev. R. Shepherd had been invited to attend, and
had. declined to do so, I should write the substance of what
I then said and publish it. The delay in complying with
the above request has arisen in consequence of my pro
vincial engagements having prevented me from writing
what I now present to the consideration of those who
desire to know what a Secularist is. It may be well
here to intimate that it is not intended in this pamphlet to
notice every statement made by Mr. Shepherd. Sufficient,
however, has been considered to show that the rev. gentle
man was as incorrect in his assertions as he wras fallacious
in his reasoning.
C. W.
�SECULARISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
Mb. Shephebd commences his attack on Secularism by
comparing it to the old Greek God Proteus, in conse
quence of its being subject to continual changes. The fal
lacy of depreciating Secularism by such a comparison must
be clear to the most superficial reasoner. Surely progress
is not a crime. Does not experience prove that principles
that are stationary are not congenial with modern society ?
What is civilisation but the result of perpetual advance
ment? Whatever, therefore, clashes with any “onward
movement ” is antagonistic to the progressive spirit of the
time. Even Christianity—which is claimed to be “ the same
yesterday, to-day, and for ever,”—is frequently assuming
new phases to suit the “'spirit of the age.” It is quite true
that Secularism is constantly progressing, profiting by the
advance of time, and stimulating its adherents to gather the
germs of truth as they are revealed by the light of science
and experience. The rev. gentleman, however, urges as a
charge against Secularists that we have adopted a new name
and relinquished that by which we were formerly known.
But the rev. gentleman should remember that the word
‘‘infidel ” was not of our own choosing, and certainly when
we discovered that it was a term used only as a reproach
by our enemies, we had a right to disclaim it. Besides,
“Infidelity” does not express our views so correctly as
Secularism does. Christians should be the last to complain
of our accepting a fresh name, inasmuch as many of the
religious sects have frequently deemed it desirable to call
themselves by other names than those by which they were
once known, in consequence of the odium attached to their
former appellation. For example, the Quakers, Methodists,
Socinians, &c., have altered their names ; and more recently
the Independents have changed to Congregationalists. There
can be nothing in the change of a name to justify our rev.
opponent in protesting as if some great moral wrong had
been done. Speaking of us, Mr. Shepherd says—“ They
are Infidels, and why do they call themselves by a name
which is just as applicable to me and to every honest man
who seeks to do his duty in the world, as it is to them ?”
Well, we have no objection to our friend calling himself a
�4
Secularist if he chooses. But I think that I shall show
hereafter that this term is not as applicable to Mr. Shepherd1
as it is to us. But if it were, the same may be said of
the term “ Infidel.” Mr. Shepherd is as much an infidel to
Mahomedism, Buddhism, and -other religions, as we are to
his. Christians overlook the fact that there are other
systems of religion besides theirs, and other alleged sacred
books than the Bible, all of which are as firmly believed in
by some portion of the human race as Christianity is in this
country. The man who believes in only one of these is as
much an infidel to the rest as Secularists are to the whole.
Indeed, Mahomedans would call Mr. Shepherd an Infidel
notwithstanding his Christianity. To this our Christian
friend would doubtless object, but his objection would be
no better founded than is ours to be designated by the same
term.
We are next informed by the rev. gentleman that thete Infidels found that they could not lay hold of the great mass
of the people—that they could make no progress unless they
put on new forms. ... So you find them taxing all their
ingenuity to clothe the old thing in a new garb, in which it
may be more acceptable to the people.” Such an accusation
as this, Mr. Shepherd, is a two-edged sword, very dangerous
to wield, and if employed without great skill, it is likely to
inflict considerable injury on him who uses it. Suppose the
question were asked, in what “garb ” Christianity shall be
clothed, where shall we obtain the answer ? Shall we find
it in the hundreds of different sects with their diversity of
creeds, each professing to be the true followers of Jesus, and
yet they are unable to agree as to what Christianity really is ?
Shall we peruse the history of the early Church, in which the
most violent disputes and better persecutions were carried,
on by various members of that Church against each other,
in consequence of the difference of opinion as to which
“ garb ” Christianity should wear ? If Mr. Shepherd’s atten
tion is drawn to the long catalogue of black crimes, which
were practised in the name of religion during the middle
ages, when the vilest deeds were considered justifiable, so
long as they tended to advance the faith and uphold the
Church ; when murder was a virtue, and lying a creditable
accomplishment, what will be our friend’s answer ? “ Oh
that was not Christianity.” It was, however, unfortunately
the Christianity of that day. Like Proteus, Christianity
has changed since that time, and now wears “ a new
garb in which it may be more acceptable to the people.” In-
�5
'fact, no sooner do we catch hold of the Christian’s garb to
-examine its texture than, quick, presto, it is transformed into
something else. If we show the absurdity of supposing that
a few drops of water sprinkled on a child’s face can purify its
heart, we are told by the Evangelists that this is no part of
•Christianity. Point out the ridiculous character of immersing
an adult female in a bath as an initiation into the Church, and
the Independents, Wesleyans, and Churchmen state that is
not Christianity. Attack the horrible doctrines of eternal
torments, and the Universalists exclaim, that is not Chris
tianity. Demonstrate the irrational nature of the Trinity,
and the Unitarians answer at once, that is not Christianity.
Pourtray the horrors of war, the Quaker asserts that Chris
tianity is peace, and that all war is anti-Christian. Avow
that sometimes war has a high and noble mission, that of
■destroying despotism, breaking up long-standing tyrannies,
and freeing down-trodden peoples, intimate that any reli
gion which would stand in the way of a battle fought for
truth and freedom cannot be good, and we shall instantly
be told that Christianity does nothing of the kind, but that,
on the contrary, it sends its disciples to fight, appoints
chaplains to the army, and consecrates the weapons of de
struction. Thus at whatever point we attack this so-called
divine system it shifts its ground. With what grace, then,
does Mr. Shepherd compare Secularism to Proteus ? It is
Christianity that is for ever assuming new forms and shapes,
most of them hideous enough, but none of them permanent.
Christianity, we are told, “ is a grand old city, built of the
ipure, white marble of truth. It has existed through the
storms of two thousand years, and is as strong to-day as
when first it rose to view.” If this statement were true, it
would certainly say but little for the inherent power and
invigorating influence of Christianity. A constitution that is
• sound and healthy should possess greater strength in its
manhood than it had in its infancy. But what is the fact
with the teachings of the New Testament? After nearly
eighteen hundred years of Propagandism supported by the
wealth of the nation, with prayers to assist it, grace to
isupport it, and a God to protect it, yet with all these assumed
^advantages we are told that it is as strong as it was when it
was first promulgated. But the fact is Christianity is not
iso strong as it was in its “ palmy days.” The older it gets
the weaker it becomes. If Christianity is as strong as
ever, what means so much timidity on the part of the
clergy about the spread of infidelity? and the diffusion of
�6
Ereethought literature ? Do not the various congresses
which have recently taken place among Christians, indicate
that they think danger is in their camp ? Why are we
constantly told that Roman Catholicism (which I presume
is not Mr. Shepherd’s pure white marble of truth) is spread
ing so rapidly that it threatens once more to swallow up
the whole of the Protestant sects ? It requires no pro
phetic power to enable the close observer of the times to
perceive that society is fast approaching a period when the
religious world will be divided into two great parties, the
Roman Catholics and the Rationalists, neither of which Mr.
Shepherd would probably call Christians. At the present
time we find from Christian pulpits Ereethought sermons
preached that attack the very foundation of the faith as
it is in Jesus. When we have such men as Professor
Jowitt, Dr. Temple, the Rev. Charles Voysey, Mr. Kirkus,
of Hackney, giving up many of the leading doctrines of
“Primitive Christianitywhen bishops of the Established.
Church write books disproving the authenticity of the
Bible; when learned societies issue works atheistical in
their tendency, and public papers from their associa
tion upsetting the whole theory of the supernatural;
when our scientific men advise, as Professor Huxley did
recently at Birmingham, students to throw overboard the
Hebrew mythology, with its notions about Adam and
Noah, and the Ark—I submit when these things are taking
place around us, it is hardly the time to boast of the strength
of Christianity. Any statement therefore about religion
having withstood opposition for two thousand years, must
be looked upon rather as an attempt at rhetorical display
than a plain statement of facts.
In reference to Secular principles Mr. Shepherd proceeds
“ I will notice the very first principle these people put forth
In the words of Holyoake that principle is, that ‘ precedence
should be given to the duties of this life, over which pertain
to another world.’ What in the world does a statement like
this mean ? Every Secularist subscribes to it; and yet there
is not one of them who can show that there is the slightest
difference between the duties which pertain to this world and
the duties which pertain to another. The duties which
pertain to this world are the very duties which Christianity
enjoins; and it does more—it gives the moral power and
disposition to fulfil them.” It is to be regretted that Mr.
Shepherd did not tell us where to find the Christianity of'
which he speaks. Evidently it is not to be found in the-
�7
Bible. The distinguishing characteristic of New Testament
Christianity is that the “ sole concern” of mortals here below
is to prepare tor another world. The present state of exist
ence is regarded by Christians only as temporary, in a few
years at most, according to their faith, it will end, though life
after death is, we are told, to be eternal. How then can the
one be balanced against the other? “ What shall it profit
a man,” said Christ, “ if he gain the whole world and lose
his own soul ?” The things of this life are secondary, mere
trifles of the smallest moment, while those of the future are
of all- absorbing interest. Secularism;—or what pious people
call worldliness—therefore, must be altogether opposed to
religion, or what has been very appropriately termed by a
modern author, other worldiness. But the duties, says Mr.
Shepherd, are the same. Are they ? Is it not sad to know
how a preconceived theory shuts out a calm and impartial
observation of facts ? Birst in the category of Christian
duties stands worship. This takes precedence of everything
else, just as love to God stands before love to man. With
out this there is no salvation. Now, surely worship is not
a Secular duty to be practised alike by the Christian and
Freethinker. It can have nothing to do with the things of
this life, and therefore has no place in the principles of
Secularism. To praise some unknown Being whose dwell
ing place is supposed to be somewhere in the skies, or to
pray for supernatural assistance to combat natural forces, is
the first duty and common practice of a Christian, but such
conduct is considered by the Secularists as wild and visionary.
How then can the duties be the same? But, says Mr. Shep
herd, “prayer if it were never answered, would have a very
powerful effect in the culture of our moral nature.” Does
it not occur to the rev. gentleman that the ^avowed object
of prayer is here entirely ignored ? When men pray they
ask for something definite to be done; to talk therefore, of
the effect it has on the mind of the devotee is simply quib
bling. If there is great drought, prayers are offered up in
churches for rain ; if the cholera rages, men pray to have it
removed. To say that if these ends are not accomplished,
still the moral nature of the worshipper is cultivated is to
descend from reasoning to trifling. As Secularists, we doubt
the beneficial effect of prayer on the moral nature, having
seen the very opposite produced. To us it looks childish in
the extreme and appears to be calculated to destroy energy
and self-dependence, and to create a false trust upon that
which never befriends.
�8
Moreover, Christianity not only places the duties that are
said to pertain to another life before those which concern
this world, but positively inculcates disregard of the latter.
“ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth’’ is an in
junction about which there can be no mistake. Let this be
carried out and society could not exist. Christians know
this; hence they are constantly doing their best to violate
their master’s commands. “ 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 morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the
things of itself,” are commands as plain as their adoption
would be disastrous. Let our business men consistently
act them out, and we shall soon see how far the Secular
duties will be attended to. Every savings’ bank and insur
ance office is a standing protest against Christianity. And
had Christians the courage to carry out their principles they
would never avail themselves of one or the other. No two
classes of duties can be more opposed to each other than
those sanctioned by Secularism and those taught by Chris
tianity. The latter magnifies poverty as a virtue, and de
nounces riches as a curse; the former teaches that poverty
is a misfortune, and that riches are frequently advantageous.
The man who is poor is unable to play his part in life either
creditably to himself, or beneficially to those around him.
Poverty frequently comes upon a man as an iceberg, chilling
the noblest aspirations of his nature; it is an avalanche which
rushes down on the aspiring youth as he is ascending the hill
of prosperity, and often hurries him into the ruins of des
pair. Christianity teaches that the “ wisdom of this world
is foolishness with God.” Secularism says the wiser a
man is the better he is. The former inculcates improvidence
and recklessness of the future, the latter prudence and pro
vision for a rainy day ; the former puts trust in God and
prayer, the latter in human foresight, energy, and wisdom.
Mr. Shepherd next proceeds to argue in favour of a future
life from the fact that development has been always taking
place in the organic kingdom. First came animals low in
the scale, then higher and higher, and so on up to man.
Why then, reasons the rev. gentleman, may not man pass
at death into a still higher condition ? Now Mr. Shep
herd ought to know, wbat doubtless the merest tyro in logic
can recognise, that there is no analogy whatever in the two
cases. The higher animals are not the lower in another
stage, but an improvement upon them, a new individuality.
�9
The only argument that could logically be drawn from the
development theory on this point is, that after man, beings
of a still higher order might make their appearance but then
they would no more be individual men of a previous age,
than we are the Iguanodons of the “ age of reptiles.” Besides,
all the changes that we know of in the organic kingdom
have taken place in existence upon the earth, whereas the
future conditions which Mr. Shepherd contends for is to be
in some far-otf land of shadows occupied by what is termed
“ disembodied spirits.” To illustrate his position, Mr.
Shepherd takes the case of the caterpillar. “ He lives a
short life, and then he appears to die. But wait a little—
he seems quite dead—he begins to decay—he appears now
only a semi-transparent fluid. See now—from that fluid
has come the beautiful butterfly; and instead of being a
caterpillar, with difficulty crawding over the ground, it is a
beautiful creature flying from flower to flower, and sucking
the honey from each, and basking in the summer sun. You
see nature has changed its mode of existence from a lower
to a higher, and you dare not tell me that nature does not
intend to change the mode of my existence also, from its
present to a higher state.” Now what possible analogy is
there between the two cases! The caterpillar becomes
transformed into the butterfly before our eyes, we can see it
in both conditions, and can observe the process of change
going on. The butterfly is an improvement upon the cater
pillar in point of organisation, but in every other respect
they are both similar. Both are material, and each is liable to
■destruction and decay. The spirit, however, that is supposed
by Christians to be evolved from the human form at death,
■on the contrary is said to be immaterial and immortal, and
therefore totally unlike that material organisation from
which it has escaped. The change is not observed. The
body dies and the elements of which it was composed pass
into other forms—this is all that we see and all that we
know. Beyond this everything is mere conjecture and
vague speculation. Where then is the force of the rev.
gentleman’s comparison and illustration ? It must be un
derstood that the Secularist does not object to a life after
this, providing that it be an improvement upon the present.
He maintains, however, that the duties of this world are
paramount whilst he is here, and that should there be ano
ther state after death, it will be time enough to attend to
its concerns when we enter upon its existence.
The argument based upon the desire felt in most minds
�10
to live for ever is of a different character, and is thus put by
Mr. Shepherd :—“With your wise science, you tell us that
nature never does anything in vain. [Who said so ? Not I.]
She never contradicts herself—she has not put anything into
man or animal, except for a wise purpose. Working by
unerring laws, she never puts anything into a living being
unsuited [This is Theism and the recognitions of the design
argument, not Secularism] to its nature. She has put in
the boy the desire to be a man, because she intends the
boy to be a man. [Not always, many die in youth.] She
has not put into the dog the desire to be a man [How know
you that, Mr. Shepherd ?] because she does not intend the
dog to be a man; such a desire would be unsuited to its
nature. She never promises what she does not intend to
give. Well, if your God nature is so true to her word
[That is your theory, not ours], if she never excites false
hopes, how is it she has put into our minds the desire to live
for ever ? Clearly because she intends us to do
so.” Now it is not correct to assert that the desire
to live for ever is universal. Pouchet, in his “ Plurality
of Paces,” gives several instances of peoples where
this “ longing for immortality ” is absent. Dr. Living
stone and Moffat, the celebrated missionary, also allude to
the Bechuanas, an intelligent tribe in South Africa "who
have not the slightest idea of immortality. And, according
to Dr. Buchner, author of “ Force and Matter,” the same may
be said of the original followers of Buddha. But it is beyond
doubt that many persons are to be found in this country who
have a decided objection to live for ever in the “ future life ”
offered by Christianity. The fact is where this desire does
exist, it is to a great extent either the result of education
and impressions produced in early life, or the wish for a
continuance of our present state of existence improved by
the fostering and cultivation of the best conditions of that
existence. But then does it not occur to Mr. Shepherd
that to wish for a thing is no proof that we shall obtain it ?
Most men desire wealth and fame; how few possess either.
All wish for health; thousands nevertheless lack it. In
every-day life each of us aspires to some position which
in all probability we shall never reach. Any argument
therefore for the Christian’s future life based upon the
desire for immortality is futile in the extreme.
The proposition that “ Science is the providence of life
and spiritual dependence may involve material destruction,”
is next objected to by Mr. Shepherd, and he refers to the-
�11
accident at Sheffield to show that science does not always
prevent ruin and devastation. But surely it must be ad
mitted, even by Christians, that the Sheffield flood arose be
cause the teachings of science had been neglected.
In any
case, however, if attention to the laws of nature fail to pro
duce safety, there is but little chance of any other power
interfering on our behalf. iC It was not spiritual depen
dence,” says Mr. Shepherd, “ which led to the Sheffield
flood—it was dependence on that very science which the
Secularist regards as the providence of life—they depended
upon the embankment. It had been scientifically con
structed. But science made a mistake.” Had the rev.
gentleman acquired a little more scientific knowledge pro
bably he would have recognised that the simple fact of the
embankment giving wav proved most conclusively that it
had not been scientifically constructed. Science could make
no mistake. Ignorance of scientific laws, or of some of the
circumstances which they might be expected to control, may
lead to error, but a thorough knowledge of science never.
Suppose an astronomer, but imperfectly acquainted with
mathematics, should make a calculation as to the time of an
eclipse of the sun, or of the occultation of a planet behind
the moon, and it should afterwards turn out that he was
wrong in bis prediction, would that prove mathematics to
be at fault ? Certainly not; and any person who should
reason as Mr. Shepherd does, and say, see here your boasted
science of figures made a mistake, would be deservedly
looked upon as a man who had not learned the merest rudi
ments of logic. The mathematician made the mistake not
because his science led him astray, but because he was un
acquainted with the principles of that very science which he
professed to follow. A chemist places two'substances, of the
properties of which he knows but little, into a bottle, and
an explosion takes place, which kills him. Does this prove
that chemistry made a mistake? On the contrary, her laws
are infallible. The manipulator was guilty of the blunder,
and that because he was ignorant of the science with which
he was dealing.
But what reason can be given why that providence of
God, of which we hear so much as watching over all the
affairs of man, did not prevent the Sheffield flood or the
fire of Santiago ? “ The reply is clear,” says Mr. Shepherd.
t( If God were constantly working miracles to rectify human
mistakes, men would never be able to depend upon the laws
which govern Jmatter.” Exactly ! Hence the necessity for
�12
men to depend upon the laws which govern matter, which is
the same thing as depending on science. Here Mr. Shep
herd has unwittingly conceded the whole point for which
the Secularist contends, and himself disposed of his own
argument. A dependence on the laws which govern matter
is the position of the Secularist, and, judging from Mr.
Shepherd’s admission, it is also that of the Christian,
despite what he says about his special providence. The
fact is, the majority of Christians consider that the
ages of miracle working have passed away, and al
though they profess to believe in answers to prayers,
whenever they require any material end accomplished,
they take care to employ material means for that purpose.
Does the cholera attempt to land on our shores, science, not
prayer, is summoned to repel the dangerous invader. Does
the cattle plague show signs of returning again, science is
consulted in preference to any other power to avert the cala
mity. Does the lightning threaten to level the “ house of
God ” to the ground, “ spiritual dependence ” is ignored,
and science is immediately applied to the Church steeple to
prevent the catastrophe. Mr. Shepherd says that “ it has
always happened that the men who have been most distin
guished for scientific knowledge, have been Christians.” If
this were so, it would only show how little faith Christians
have in their religion. For nothing can be more clear than
the fact that the Bible ignores science, and puts in its place
a “ special providence,” which it asserts watches over spar
rows, and takes care of the hairs on one’s head. Science
has demonstrated the falsity of the Biblical system of astro
nomy, of the Mosaic account of the creation of the world,
•of the Adamic origin of the human race, of the Noahcian
■deluge, and the doctrine of demoniacs believed in by Christ.
It is hardly correct, therefore, to state that science is
favourable to Christianity. But is it true that the
most eminent scientific men have been Christians? It
is very difficult to ascertain what constitutes a Christian.
If a man keeps in the fashion and goes to Church once or
twice a year, even if it be to take a nap, and he does not
pointedly call in question the alleged truth of religious
dogmas, he is of course put down as a Christian; whereas if
such a man were questioned, he probably would be found as
sceptical about the supernatural as the most advanced Secu
larist. Newton is sometimes called a Christian, but he dis
believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, one of the essential
articles of faith, without a belief in which the Athanasian
�•
-/'if
.
r,-v-.
13
creed says man will be damned. Dr. Priestley, an illustrious
scientific discoverer of his day, was a most advanced Unitarian
and a Materialist, and therefore would not be recognised as
a Christian by Mr. Shepherd. In our own day Mr. Darwin
and Professor Huxley have been denounced by the Christian
world as “ infidels,” and therefore I suppose they are not
Christians. Sir Charles Lyell is Christian but in. name.
The greatest scientific man, perhaps that ever lived, was
Goethe, he made a discovery, that of transcendental anatomy,
which eclipsed all that had preceded it, with the excep
tion of gravity. He was a Pantheist, consequently not e
Christian. The illustrious Humboldt whose fame is world
wide in natural history, and whose name will live for ages
to come, certainly was not a Christian. In Prance scarcely
any of the scientific men even profess Christianity, and
Germany—the most scientific land of modern days—is
notoriously sceptical.
But we are further told that science will not satisfy man’s
heart. No one said it would if by heart be meant the emo
tional feelings. It has no bearing upon these, but there is
plenty of room for their cultivation without going to reli
gion or science. When the beauties of nature are suffi
ciently appreciated and truly valued, enough will be found
within the universe to venerate and adore. And here one
may recognise a noble aspect of Secularism. A Secularist
has a higher opinion of human life, and a better apprecia
tion of the world in which he lives than to regard it as a “ vale
of tears.” We do not groan to be delivered from our pre
sent state of existence. We desire rather to improve that
existence by suppressing the inferior, and encouraging the
superior qualities of human nature. We recognise the pos
sibility of a happier state of society if mankind would but
foster and cultivate better and more exalted conditions.
The last point attacked by Mr. Shepherd is that mora
lity can exist independently of scripture. Here it may be
mentioned that one thing is certain, that of all the moral
codes that have been given to the world by different men,
that contained in the Bible is the most imperfect. It makes
it an equal sin to wish for something in your neighbour’s
possession, and to murder a fellow creature; to repeat the
word Jehovah and to steal; to do a trifling article of
labour on the Sabbath and to commit adultery. . Moreover,
it teaches that the breaking of one command is a violation
of the whole, a most absurd principle, and one which if acted
upon in human society would prove most disastrous. Then
�14
the so-called commandments are really nine prohibitions
and one commandment. Does anyone believe that all the
positive side of man’s duty to man is summed up in “ Honour
thy father and thy mother/’and “Love thy neighbour as
thyself ?” Assuredly not. There are many other positive
duties required to enable a man to live a progressive and
useful’life. Bible teachings frequently sanction immorality
of the worse form; any secular scheme therefore need not be
very perfect to surpass it. “ When you look at lands where
Christianity is unknown,” writes Mr. Shepherd, “do you
find there a high morality independently of scriptural reli
gion ?” I answer, what sort of morality do we find here in
England, where Christianity is said to flourish so exten
sively? Bead the records of the police courts, and the vice
and depravity which are constantly being made known
through the medium of the newspapers, and then cease to
talk of the immorality of foreign lands. Visit the rural
districts of “ Christian” England, and the painful fact will be
too apparent, that the majority of the inhabitants are sunk
into the deepest ignorance and most depraved wretchedness.
Scripture teachings can have had but little influence for good
upon the morals of a people, when we find that, after three
centuries of the rule, discipline, teaching, and example
of 20,000 clergymen, besides dissenting ministers, the
very classes of society which have been most under their
direction and control, are the greatest stigma upon our
social condition. Wesley once gave a picture of Christian
society, which indicates the “ high morality ” produced
where “ gospel truths ” are disseminated.
After stating
that “ Bible reading England ” was guilty of every species
of vice, even those that nature itself abhors, this Christian
author thus concludes, “ Such a complication of villanies of
every kind considered with all their aggravations, such a
scorn of whatever bears the face of virtue; such injustice,
fraud, and falsehood, above all, such perjury, and such a
method of law, we may defy the whole world to produce.” More
recently Buckle, in his “ History of Civilisation,” has con
firmed many of the statements advanced by Wesley. And
two years ago Mr. Baker, the inspector of factories, in his
report of workers in South Staffordshire, published a number
of facts which showed the great amount of immorality and
ignorance existing under a Christian Government. If such
a disgraceful state of things as these were to occur in a com
munity governed by Secular principles, Christians would not
fail to preach of the immoral tendency of Secularism.
�15
Judging of a tree, therefore, by its fruits, the Christian root
must be bad indeed.
“ Look,” says Mr. Shepherd, “ at the palmiest age of
Greek philosophy and Greek art. What was the state of
morals in Greece, during the age of Pericles and Alcibiades ?
Was there ever an age in Greece of greater moral depra
vity ?” Is it not easy to retort and ask our rev. friend to
glance at the palmiest age of Christianity. What was the
state of morals in England during the age of Henry VIII.,
Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and George IV. ? Was
there ever a period of greater moral depravity and intellec .
tual poverty than during what is known as the “ dark ages.”
Greece and Rome, with all their immorality, will bear
■comparison with the early ages of Christianity. If history
may be relied upon, Christian England is indebted to Pagan
Rome and classic Greece for the incentive to much of that
morality, culture, and heroism, which give the prestige to
modern society. Upon this point, Dr. Temple, in his
<£ Essay on the Education of the World, is very clear.” “ To
Rome,” says the Dr., “ we owe the forms of local govern
ment which in England have saved liberty and elsewhere
have mitigated despotism.”.... ° It is in the history of Rome
rather than in the Bible that we find our models of precepts
of political duty, and especially of the duty of patriotism.”
....To the Greeks we owe the corrective which conscience
needs to borrow from nature.”
Coming to the present time, the influence of Christianity
is visible in Spain and in Rome of to-day. Spain is a
•country professed to be governed by Christian principles,
and what is its condition ? As a nation, it is rotten to its
very core. Standing upon the brink of bankruptcy and
ruin, it requires but the application of the spark of deter
mined heroism to kindle the flame of revolution and anarchy,
whereby it will be made to share the fate of all ^corrupt and
imbecile monarchies. In Rome, we behold another melan
choly proof of the influence of Christianity. Rome, once
the mistress of the world, renowned alike for its valour, its
learning, and its taste; from whose forums emanated that
•eloquence which still shines forth as the production of a
noble and heroic people—Rome, once the depository of
poetry and the cultivator of art, whose grandeur and dig
nity could command the admiration of the world—such was
Rome, but alas I how has she fallen. Now she is a miser
able, downtrodden, priest-ridden country, the victim of a
vacillating and despotic policy. Her former glory, dignity,
�16
and valour, are gone, and are replaced by a shameless, mean,,
and cowardly terrorism. She has lost her prestige, her in
dependence has disappeared, and she stands forth a wreck
and a monument of reproach to a degrading priesthood and
an uprincipled tyrant, who have sapped her vitality and
destroyed her very life. With these facts from history, Mr.
Shepherd should be more guarded in his assertions as to the
influence of Scriptural religion. The truth is, Christianity
and morality have no necessary connection whatever with
each other.
For the information of the Rev. R. Shepherd, and those
who think with him, it may be necessary in conclusion to
give a brief but correct answer to the question “ What is a
Secularist ?” A Secularist is one who prefers a knowledge
of the natural to faith in the supernatural; who selects
reason rather than belief; who will rely upon “ those princi
ples having reference to finite determined time as opposed1
to the undetermined infinite ” believed in by Christians. As
the question of the existence of God is simply one of con
jecture, Secularism leaves it for each mind to decide, if it
can, for itself. A Secularist rejects the popular religious
dogmas, such as the “ Infallibility of the Bible,” “ Efficacy of
Prayer,” “ Original Sin,” “ Eternal Torments,” “ Salvation
through Christ,” etc., inasmuch that these Christian tenets
interfere with and would prevent the performance of Secular
duties. The free search after truth Secularism considers is
one of man’s first duties, and it also urges that the right and
duty to express an opinion are equally imperative. In short,
a Secularist is one who is willing, irrespective of any creed,,
to unite into one common brotherhood to promote the wel
fare and happiness of the human kind, or, in the words of
Mr. Shepherd himself, “ a Secularist is one who efficiently
discharges his worldly duties, and so promotes his own in
terests, and the welfare of the community.” It matters but
little what a man’s belief may be, providing that that belief
does not interfere with a progressive career. To learn how
to perform the functions of life aright; how to regulate his
conduct in every-day life; how to excel in virtue and in
telligence ; how to promote the good of others —in a word,
how to secure “the greatest happiness for the greatest
number,” is the object a Secularist has in view. And if there
be a God of love and justice, we cannot believe that such a
being will punish his. children, for doing that which their
reason assures them is right and commendable.
THE END.
�
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
Secularism and Christianity: a reply to the Rev. R. Shepherd of Grimsby
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: The Rev. R. Sheoherd had recently published a pamphlet entitled 'What is a Secularist?'
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Austin and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1867
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4955
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Secularism and Christianity: a reply to the Rev. R. Shepherd of Grimsby), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Christianity
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ae1a798a31747da46840c780c5cc1786.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nbl4V52IV-TfiF0pak%7Ek7jP02LjPciTlvcSYrSkCYOSrCA9-UHICGcgsA52ffPduX8v7iLAAQ3OEFtBb3A981brGojnmob7sU-YqCOL1BknCnUfcU2UeAwN8Tw5SdMR1ytptw7VidpqIYESQYZmsRZKtz%7ENez7JEYGglZb0RB97vToWo-dOG0BDLbSoXRa91buDOetGQ5fOBwAewfrGW-do%7EyiAPNeRGSJr19WL0hx%7EfK-ZFsd6p4bwDP5rOrYpUwYFi5iGb8gLKCjjAsdJYEsJgw3YPYJuOg1X4QqnMV8QztWtW2WWyhF%7Eo2o%7E3Eo8tn7JOZpmkPFcNQNA5oOII4w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
18c98df79f0dbfd3db716502abd4bf95
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������
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
Spiritualism a delusion: its fallacies exposed. A criticism from the standpoint of science and impartial observation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Author's list on back cover. Includes Appendix: Origin of the Belief in a Future Life -- Bodily Changes and Immortality -- Life is the Result of Organisation -- The Caterpillar.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company Ltd.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1900
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G2932
Subject
The topic of the resource
Spiritualism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Spiritualism a delusion: its fallacies exposed. A criticism from the standpoint of science and impartial observation), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Spiritualism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2497b488fb98c4561bfe43128bb0eda6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cRTVgnan8Ec64XIoZnXkDxZidsgGchjH2Tf4SI1johLuyHnnCsCEGs7e04BH9pVNuRbR%7Esc4C2QTGOU1ornYGvjuXC9Ea8pYBQfSQcEfZ2blHCOyKiwiDMHYJX%7EKPjheqaQ83cpUFs%7EtMUGL1o0TGDXaJZ7CmaIzeGxf9A0O6ms1G7ql%7EhJ4tMjGJ1q1fobc6iU9MEVr6zuw1jhKNCMimohh%7EsXm5KbmeBv2NqwXknQpfSKPt62oH4lsjonRAN3PGdnOKbCKkdUBFh1%7EXoA9RNt80iB45RwS63zR%7EBcKim7tNleYP4ubglUU937VCt-tDAdI4hWYAicaey5dED%7E4Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3fc045419e6a41a7b262adf13c2c9085
PDF Text
Text
THE
GOVERNMENT & THE PEOPLE;
A PLEA FOR REFORM. •
' '
BY CHARLES WATTS.
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON REPUBLICAN CLUB.
The question about to be considered may be divided into two
'
parts—first, Government ; and secondly, the People. The object
in dealing with these divisions will be to show that reform is re
quired upon the part of those who govern, and that improvement
is necessary among those who are governed. Let us understand
what is meant by the word government." It is a term applied to
a body of men who superintend the making and administering
■of laws, and who conduct the general affairs of the nation. A
true government should represent the wishes of the people it
governs ; if it fails to do this, it is an usurpation, and therefore
■unworthy of the support of the community at large. There are
many forms of government, but it will suffice to notice here
two of the principal ones that have hitherto existed in this
country. The author of the “ Rights of Man ” has written
that governments arise either out of the people, or over the
people.” The governments which arise out of the people are
Democratic or Republican, and therefore of a nature to repre
sent the public will, having, as it doubtless would, a prac
tical knowledge of the wants of the people. Now the very
reverse of this is true of the governments of this country. As the
writer just mentioned observes : 11 The English Government is
■one of those which arose out of a conquest, and not out of society,
and consequently, it arose over the people.” The reins of go
vernment in this country have been held by a few aristocratic
persons—so few that a person could almost count them on the
ends of his fingers. When one family had held the reins long
enough to grow tired, and had well filled their pockets, then
they handed the reins to some other aristocratic family, without
■consulting the wishes of the people, and thus our governments
had been kept in a narrow circle, ignoring the working-classes,
who are the great support of the nation. Thus patronage has been
used for personal gratification rather than for the public good.
The great object of successive governments in filling the posi
tions in the Church, has not been to comply with the alleged pious
desires of the people, nor has the morality or qualification of the
persons that have been put into office been always considered;
but the great aim of the “ powers that be ” has been to place
some member of the aristocratic families into good livings. That
has been so patent, that Lord John Russell, in his “ Essay on
the English Constitution,” says : “ In the Church the immense
and valuable patronage of Government is uniformly bestowed
on their political adherents. No talent, no learning, no piety,
can advance the fortunes of a clergyman whose political opinions
are adverse to those of the governing powers;” Thegreat bishoprics
�2
throughout the country have not been filled by men remarkable
for intelligence or moral purity, but by those who had sworn
allegiance to the Government of the time. Bishop Warburton
wrote that the “Church has been of old the cradle and the throne
of the youngermobility.”
A true government should be guided by constitutional laws.
Much has been said recently about our “ glorious constitution.”
When Conservatives, or “ Constitutionalists,” talk of loving the
English constitution, they are indulging in a delusion, because,
-as a matter of fact, we have no political constitution in this
country—not a political constitution in its most comprehensive
sense. What is a political constitution ? “ A constitution is
not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an idea, but a
real existence ; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible
form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a
government, and a government is only the creature of a consti
tution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its
government, but of the people constituting its government. It
is the body of elements, to which you can refer and quote
article by article; and which contains the principles on which
the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall
be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections,
the duration of parliaments, or by what other name such bodies
may be called; the powers which the executive part of the govern
ment shall have; and, in fine, everything that relates to the
complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles
on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A con
stitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made
afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature.
The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it
alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made ; and
the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”
In order to have a constitution it is necessary to have a political
programme, drawn up by the people, to which the government
—whether Whig or Tory—should conform, and. be guided by.
Therefore, if we were asked as Republicans whether we would
support a constitutional form of government, the answer would
be, by all means ; but let us have a properly-constructed con
stitution, and not that sham constitution which we have hitherto
had, which has been for the benefit of the few, and to the injury
of the many. What are the defects of the form of government
now in existence ? First, its exclusive and aristocratic nature.
In it there is no provision made for the general representation
of the people. It is only certain classes of society which are
represented. If we analyse the House of Commons, as at
present constituted, we shall find that, while wealth, law, and
land are fully represented, poverty and labour have no bonafide
representatives there. It cannot be a true form of government
where the working classes are thus ignored. True, there are a
few men in the House who sometimes speak boldly on behalf of
the toiling millions, but even those cannot fairly represent the
wants of the excluded classes. Labour requires for its advocates
�3
those who know what it is to toil; poverty needs men to speak for
it who have felt its pangs. And the system that does not allow
this is partial and unconstitutional. The facts which Sir Charles
Dilke gave in his Manchester speech, every working man should
be made acquainted with, for they show the imperfection of our
representative system, and indicate clearly that under its unequal
provisions, the majority of the public are not represented. The
votes of the large towns are more than counteracted by those of
small aristocratic boroughs and counties. Sir Charles Dilke
drew the attention of his audience to the fact that, whereas
136 electors in Portarlington return a Member to Parliament,
the 56,000 electors who are on the register for Glasgow only
have three representatives awarded to them. They were reminded
that, while Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Birmingham,
rqake up with the ten metropolitan boroughs, a population of
five millions, and an electoral body collectively amounting to
450,000 voters, they return but thirty-four members in all; yet
seventy boroughs, with a population about equal to that of Man
chester, and about the same number of voters, send eighty-three
members to the House. Instances also were quoted of counties
returning two members only, though possessing a population and
a number of voters equal to those of other boroughs, which
together return twelve or fourteen. Sixty-two boroughs return
sixty-two members by 42,800 votes, and possess a population of
about 400,000 souls. Hackney, with about the same number of
voters, and nearly as large a population, returns two members
instead of sixty-two ; and as a final illustration, it was stated
that no members sit for 1,080,000 voters, and another no for
83,000. If under the reign of a monarch we are obliged to yield to
this kind of representation, it would be far better that Monarchy
should be swept away, and that we should have that form of go
vernment that would recognise the rights of the working classes.
There is an important defect in connection with the present
mode of government, and that is, its whole machinery is so expen
sive. Take parliamentary elections. There is no fair chance for
a working man to be successful at those elections. Why are they
made so expensive ? Surely it is not necessary under a proper
form of government that a candidate should be kept down under
the weight of money bags, and that the influence of the aris
tocracy should be brought against him, to crush him when he
is doing his best to become a member of Parliament. Not
only are the elections expensive, but the associations therewith
are also expensive. Hence, until we obtain something like a
proper arrangement of elections, and also the payment of mem
bers, we have little hope of having a real and legitimate form ot
government. The expenses attending law are the result of an
imperfect form of government. At present its use is principally
enjoyed by the rich, instead of being within the reach of all
classes. In a properly-constructed constitution, the poor should
be able to avail themselves of the law as well as the rich. Now,
the poor man is obliged to keep clear of the clutches of the law,
in consequence of the enormous expense which it entails. The
�4
salaries which are paid to the legal profession are so high that
many clients have frequently to turn aside, and not pursue the
course of justice. Another great defect in the government is
the present monopoly of land. No more gigantic injustice
could be done to a country than is being perpetrated by the
aristocratic millionaires of England in reference to the mono
poly of land. The land of-the United Kingdom, it has been
estimated, is owned by about 30,000 men, and the bulk of the
land in England and Wales by only 150- families. The Duke
of Richmond and Lord Leconfield own between them, in the
county of Sussex, land to the extent of nearly 800 square miles.
The Marquis of Westminster has an annual income of nearly a
million from his property. The Earl of Derby has ^40,000
per year from land at Liverpool alone, upon which he has never
spent one farthing to increase its value ; while the Marquis
of Breadalbane can ride upon one hundred miles without
going off his own property. Are these things just, and do they
not indicate a necessity for a different form of government to
that under which we are living ? Professor Levi has estimated
that there are 2,000,000 acres of land devoted to deer forests in
Scotland ; and Baillie Ross, of Aberdeen, has made a calcula
tion that 20,000,000 pounds of meat are lost every year through
such misappropriation of land. Many complaints are made as
to thte high price of meat, and some persons have stated that the
working classes ought to do without it. While those who
are willing to do without that which is now becoming almost a
luxury have a perfect right to do so, it is unjust that they
should be compelled to do so because of the monopoly of the
land. Our first and primary duty, is to protest against such
monopoly. In less than 160 years there have been no less than
7,000,000 acres of land enclosed and devoted to the interests
of the aristocrats of the country—for the amusement and be
nefit of those who have never studied the wants of the popu
lation, who never knew what it was to want food, and who
lived idle and—many of them—reckless lives, forgetting the
claims of their fellow countrymen who were starving for that
food which was being denied to them. No wonder that the
people should agitate for the repeal of the Game Laws—laws
which ought not to exist, and which are a curse to the nation,
excluding as they do the people from the advantages of the land.
We do not want to do things recklessly, but we desire that the
present monopoly of the land should be destroyed ; and we are
determined not to rest till our desire is realised. Our inten
tions are to pursue a peaceable advocacy, and we trust ere longto be able to say to the landowners : “You must use the land
for the benefit of all, or give it up to those who are able and
willing to do so.”
There is another serious impeachment against the present
form of government. Whether Whigs or Tories were in office,,
they had ever objected to reforms. The people had met toge
ther in public assemblies, and decided upon the necessity for
reform, and the will of the nation had been almost unanimous
�5
in its favour, but the Government still refused it. So long as the
people acted quietly and temperately, so long had their appeals
been disregarded. The result was, that often in a state of des
peration they did what they would not otherwise have committed
themselves to. The riots we have had in times past were to be at
tributed in a large degree to the refusals of necessary reform by
the Government of the country. Take the struggle for reform
in 1832. What did Wellington do? He who represented the
old form of government put his command in this form : “ The
people were born to be governed, and governed they should be,
and if they would not be governed contentedly, then at the
cannon’s mouth they should be made to obey the ‘ powers that
be.’ ” The Duke affirmed that U nder the Bill it would be
impossible for the government of the country to be carried on
upon any recognised principle of the constitution.” The Duke of
Newcastle said, “ If the Bill passed it would destroy the throne,
despoil the church, abolish the House of Lords, overthrow the
constitution, violate property, desolate the country, and annihilate
liberty.” It was only after the riots of Bristol, London, and Man
chester, when prisons were set fire to, and when prisoners were re
leased ; it was not till the people had committed such actsof des
peration, that the Government granted the reform that had been
quietly asked for. Now, precisely the same thing applied to
Catholic Emancipation. It was not until the Government by
their obstinate conduct had driven the country to the eve of a
civil war that they granted that measure of religious liberty.
The fact is, that hitherto the Governments had granted to force
what to reason they had denied. Governments that did this
were unworthy of support, because as the guide and protector of
the nation, they should endeavour to foster the moral and intel
lectual aspirations of the people, and not make them desperate
by withholding such reforms as they desired.
The leading defects, then, of the English form of Government
are its exclusive and aristocratic nature; its class policy ; its
imperfect representative system ; its monopoly of land, and its
reluctance to grant required reforms. What has been the effect.
of this mode of government on the nation ? Shall we judge of
the tree by its fruits ? Let us turn to the people and endeavour
to ascertain their real condition. This is a fair argument, for if
among the masses the governmental tree has borne disastrous
fruit, is it not a duty to uproot it, that something better may
thrive in its stead ?
If the condition of a people may be taken as a reflex of the
government under which they live, the governing classes of
England have indeed much to answer for. For among the toiling
millions of this country, ignorance, privation, and social inequa
lities exist to an extent perhaps unparalleled in the history of
civilised nations. The two reports presented to the House of
Commons in 1868 and 1870, exhibited the degrading state into
which the agricultural labourers had been driven through class
customs and unequal legislation. The evidence of Mr. Simon,
medical inspector, showed that more than one-half of our southern
�(fTp'.-,-
- sM»
6
agricultural population, was so inadequately fed that starvation,
disease, and ill-trained minds were the necessary results. As
a sample of many like cases, it was mentioned that in Haverhill,
Suffolk, nine out of ten adults could neither read nor write, and
only one in twenty-five could both read and write. The report
states that the population round Mayhill appeared “ to lie en
tirely out of the pale of civilisation, type after type of social life
degraded to the level of barbarism.” It refers to the “ immora
lity and degradation arising from the crowded and neglected
state of the dwellings of the poor” in many parts of Yorkshire.
“ In Northamptonshire, some of the cottages are disgraceful,
necessarily unhealthy, and a reproach to civilisation.” The
Reverend J. Fraser, in his report, says of the wretched con
dition of the parishes in Gloucestershire and Norfolk : “It
is impossible to exaggerate the ill-effects of such a state
of things in every respect............. Modesty must be an un
known virtue, decency an unimaginable thing, where in one
small chamber, with the beds lying as thickly as they can be
packed, father, mother, young men, lads, grown and growing up
girls—two and sometimes three generations—are herded pro
miscuously ; where every operation of the toilette and of nature
—dressings, undressings, births, deaths—is performed by each
within the sight or hearing of all; where children of both sexes,
to as high an age as twelve or fourteen, or even more, occupy
the same bed; where the whole atmosphere is sensual, and
human nature is degraded into something below the level of the
swine. It is a hideous picture, and the picture is drawn from
life;” In alluding to the same class of labourers, Professor
Fawcett writes : “ In some districts their children could not
grow up in greater ignorance if England had lost her Chris
tianity and her civilisation ; the houses in which, in many cases,
they (the labourers) are compelled to dwell, do not deserve the
name of human habitations.” Nor is the condition of many of
the working people in some of our large towns much better.
Despite our boasted national wealth, there are thousands who
exist in daily anxiety as to how to obtain food to eat, and to
whom the rights,, comforts, and pleasures of real living are
strangers. In his work, “ Pauperism, its Causes and Remedies,”
the Professor says: “Visit the great centres of our commerce and
trade, and what will be observed ? The direst poverty always
accompanying the greatest wealth...... Within a stone’s throw ”
of the stately streets and large manufactories of such towns
as Manchester and Liverpool, “ there will be found miserable
alleys and narrow courts in which people drag out an existence,
steeped, in a misery and a wretchedness which baffle descrip
tion.........Not long since, I was conversing with a West-end
clergyman, and he was speaking, not of Bethnal Green, nor of
Seven Dials, but of a street quite within the precincts of luxurious
and glittering Belgravia, in which he knew from his personal
knowledge that every house had a separate family living in each
room. Dr. Whitmore, the medical superintendent of Marylebone, in a recent report, states that in his district there are
�7
hundreds of houses with a family in every room...... Official re
turns show that in London there are never less than 125,000paupers, and that as each winter recurs the number rises to
170,000. There is abundant reason to conclude that a number
at least equally large are just on the verge of pauperism.” Such
facts as these require no comment, they speak in language
terrible enough in all conscience/ We have become so accus
tomed to the Verdict “ died from starvation,” that the extent of
misery it represents is not always fully recognised. It isnot merely
the death of the victim to be contemplated, but the pain of body
and torture of mind experienced ere the spark of life was ex
tinguished ; also the sorrow and bitter pangs of the relatives of
the deceased left to mourn the loss of the one departed. And,
judging by the past, there is but little hope of much improve
ment while the present form of government lasts. Mr. Joshua
Fielden recently stated, in his speech at Todmorden, that in the
last eighteen years our poor rates had increased ,£2,700,000.
Our laws touching imperial taxation are so unjust that its
burden falls unfairly upon the shoulders of the working classes.
Last yeartheimperial taxation in round numbers was ,£70,000,000.
Now,from whom was this revenue derived? During the reign
of Charles II. an important change took place in our fisqal ar
rangements. Up to that time land had borne a more equal share
of the taxation of the country. Charles II., being desirous of
favouring the aristocracy, relieved them of much of the taxa
tion then upon the land, and placed instead heavy duties upon
articles of consumption. From that time up to the presentan
unjust system of taxation had been in existence, and had been
’ working as injuriously as it possibly could upon the labouring
portion of the community. In the last century the land of this
country paid one-third of all the taxes, now it pays less than
one-seventieth. And this palpable injustice has been going on
while land-rents have increased enormously, for the same land
that seventy-two years ago yielded a little over .£22,000,000,
now yields nearly £100,000,000. The following extract is from
"the papers issued by the Financial Reform Union :—
“ The acknowledged principles of all fiscal reforms since the
report of the Import Duties Committee of 1840, are the repeal
of all duties upon the necessaries of life, the remission of unpro
ductive duties, and the abolition of protections and prohibitions.
Notwithstanding this report, a duty is still levied upon corn,
which yields the greatest return when the people are least able
to pay it, and involves a necessity for fourteen other duties,
yielding from nothing to £2, £3, and up to ,£2,841 per annum
each. The total revenue from these sources in 1866-7 was nearly
£800,000 ! The duty on sugar, an article described by Mr.
Gladstone as next to corn in importance as a necessary of life,
produces above .£5,800,000, and involves duties on nine other
articles in which it is an ingredient, yielding a yearly revenue
varying from £1 to .£2,000 per annum. Tea, coffee, chicory,
and cocoa, all of which have become necessaries of life to the
great bulk of the population, produce upwards of ,£3,200,000.
�8
Currants, figs, plums, prunes, and raisins, notwithstanding
dates are admitted free, are taxed to the extent of ,£400,000.
The total revenue from these sources in 1866-7 was <£10,310,056,
or nearly one-fourth of the total revenue from customs and excise.”
A recent writer in the Liverpool Financial Reformer, divided
the community into three divisions—first, the aristocratic, re
presented by those who have an annual income of £1,000 and
upwards ; the middle classes were represented by those who
had incomes from £100 to £1000 ; and the artisan or working
classes were those who were supposed to have incomes under
£100 per year. He then assessed their incomes respectively at
.£208,385,000; £174,579,000 ; and £149,745,000. Towards the
taxation, each division paid as follows : The aristocratic por
tion contributed £8,500,000, the middle classes £19,513,45 3, and
the working classes £32,861,474. The writer remarks : The
burden of the revenue, as it is here shown to fall on the different
classes, may not be fractionally accurate, either on the one side
or the other, for that is an impossibility in the case, but it is
sufficiently so to afford a fair representation in reference to those
classes on whom the burden chiefly falls. Passing over the middle
classes, who thus probably contribute about their share, the re
sult in regard to the upper and lower classes stands thus:—
Amount which should be paid to the revenue by the higher classes
(that is, the classes above £1,000 a year), £23,437,688 ; amount
which they do pay, ,£8,500,000; leaving adifference of £ 14,937,000,
so that the higher classes are paying nearly £15,000,000 less
than their fair share of taxation. Amount which should be paid
by the working classes (or those having incomes below £100),
,£16,846,312 ; amount which they do pay, £32,861,474 ; making
a difference of £16,015,162; so that the working classes are
paying about £16,000,000 more than their fair share. In other
words, the respective average rates paid upon the assessable in
come of the two classes are—by the higher classes, iod. per
pound ; the working classes, 4s. 4d. That is to say, the working
classes are paying at a rate five times more heavily than the
wealthy classes.”
Now, with these inequalities existing, is not a reformation of
government highly desirable ? The happiness of the people
requires it, and the progress of the nation demands it. How is
it to be obtained ? There are two fundamental remedies neces
sary in order to effect true reform. First, the real representa
tion for the people, and, second, their control over the national
purse. Until these are obtained true government will exist only
in name. Let the working classes be united, discreet, and de
termined in their present struggles ; and if the “ stupid party ”
and their supporters will not be “ wise in time,” they must mar
vel not if that electricity that now charges the political atmos
phere shall ultimately strike the present imperfect institutions,
thereby making way for the establishment of principles that
will secure political justice and social equality.
London : Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s
Court, Fleet Street, E.C.—Price One Penny.
*
�
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
The government & the people: a plea for reform
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4943
Subject
The topic of the resource
Social reform
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The government & the people: a plea for reform), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
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
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/62d3528316601b71d06dead15744cfee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kQTP7O7yGDGKaHdCP8LJGBrIuItN6cyCgVwa1PbZLViHniLwcMlsqTEUvqDt2w27co-knV8UuGz6WMw7t2qdLWRlHB43HW1CjPeoU3QVBO22gKkHHbvU2UJ5oMOQx89nHJxOd1npW%7EQ7Pa1PtOnT6cuJJLCThep8uvuocC9JBdiB2P-oMDPXxnE4R2%7Ez92FLg1sn33u4-j04e7xx1NDbmw8eU34%7Eprv02xlXTeGZCwRk98N0jlZLFuqeLdRQ9zPf5OxOU7oprMvDJAzbTLiKIeJcypvMo47OBilhEps8iYbWqg-E8jO0WRZJ7VDNNrLFi6hr4oIojFH9uzZhAw8knA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
27cd7d425e8712431a4470e175273041
PDF Text
Text
AGNOSTICISM
AND
CHRISTIAN THEISM
I
Which is the More Reasonable ?
«
By CHARLES WATTS.
CONTENTS:
(1) What is Agnosticism? (2) Its Relation to the Universe and
Christian Theism ; (3) Is it sufficient to satisfy man’s intellectual
requirements?
The Natural and the Supernatural.
Price
Ten Cents.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE,
Toronto, Ont.
�omhmm
�AGNOSTICISM & CHRISTIAN THEISM :
WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ?
I.
WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM ?
This is pre-eminently a critical age, when the right to examine teach
ings submitted for our acceptance is more than ever recognized. In
the light of modern thought, no subject is too sacred for honest criti
cism, and no opinion too ancient for reasonable investigation. Rea-on
is now rapidly taking the place of blind belief, and serfdom to authority
issyielding to the influence of mental freedom.
Christian Theism as taught by the Churches has been so long regarded
by its adherents as being the embodiment of absolute truth, that to in any
way question its pretensions has been condemned as almost an unpar
donable sin. Every new philosophy that has challenged the positive
claims of Theism has been avoided and misrepresented apart from its
-pertinency and value. This has been the case particularly with the
philosophy of Agnosticism. It will, therefore, be interesting to in
quire, What is this Agnostic phase of thought ? In answering this
question, the reply will be classified under three divisions—(1) What
is Agnosticism ? (2) Its relation to the Universe and Christian
Theism; and (3) Is it sufficient' to satisfy man’s intellectual require
ments 1
What is Agnosticism ? The word is one that has become tolerably
familiar to a large section of society in sound, if not in its strictest
philosophical signification. It has come into use within the last few
years, and has achieved a great popularity. Friends arid foes alike
employ it—the former to approve it and the latter to condemn it, and
both to describe a certain phase of thought which is recognised as being
very extensive. Like most technical phrases, the term is derived from
the Greek, and signifies “ not knowing.” An Agnostic, therefore, is
one who confesses that he has no knowledge upon those subjects to
which his Agnosticism is applicable.
�4
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
Although the word Agnostic is comparatively new, that which it
represents is as old as humanity. Men are not now for the first time
discovering that there are questions which lie altogether beyond their
gnosis or knowledge. That discovery was made at the dawn of human
thought. A knowledge of his own ignorance was one of the qualities
which Socrates boasted that he possessed, and which distinguished him.
in such a marked manner from his wily antagonists, the Sophists ; and
at Athens, two thousand years ago, St. Paul is said to have found an
altar, the remaining one of many, dedicated to an “ Unknown God.”'
The limits of human knowledge have been recognized by the foremost,
men of the race in all lands and in every age. Before the mighty
mysteries of the universe the greatest thinkers have stood awe-stricken,,
aghast and dumb. The intellect has again and again been paralyzed
in its ineffectual attempts to read the riddles of existence, before which
those of the Sphinx are lost in their insignificance ; and no GEdipus hasyet been found competent to the task of furnishing the solution. “ Alli
things,” said the schoolmen, “ run into the inscrutable,”—a thought
equivalent to one to be found in Professor Tyndall’s “ Belfast Address.”'
Therein that eminent scientist says : “ All we see around and all wefeel within us....... have their unsearchable roots in a cosmical life.......
an infinitesimal span of which is offered to the investigation of man.”'
Thus it will be seen that Agnosticism is an old friend with a new name,,
and perhaps a few additional qualities. We meet with it under certain,
forms in the pages of the history of every age. The profoundest intel
lects have been familiar with its character, and have not felt themselves
ashamed to confess to the attitude of mind which it represents.
It should be distinctly understood that Agnosticism is not to be in
any way confounded with ignorance as that phrase is used in every-day
life. Herein consists ©ne of the errors into which our orthodox op
ponents are continually falling. They use the words Agnosticism and
general ignorance as if they were synonymous, which is misleading, to say
^the least of it—that is, unless the latter term be employed as the direct
/antithesis of omniscience. No one pretends to know everything, and
the knowledge of many persons is considerably less than they in their
own opinion imagine. It is stated that an admirer of Dr. Johnson
began on one occasion to praise him for the great extent of his know
ledge. “Pooh,” said Johnson, “you would say I had great knowledge
even though you did not think so.” “ And,” rejoined the admirer,
“ you would think so even though I did not say it.” The fault of
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ?
5
'Over-estimating our own knowledge is very common, and frequently
begets an egotism of a very dangerous nature. Invariably, the less a
man knows the more dogmatic he becomes, and the weaker the evidence
upon which his convictions are based the more positively will he assert
them to be true. It should require no extensive self-examination to
convince the careful thinker that, even if he knew all that can be
known upon every subject within the range of human gnosis, still
then the domain into which his knowledge does not extend would be
infinitely large compared with that small sphere which his information
has covered. In that larger province he is an Agnostic, and it would
be very unfair to designate him an ignorant person on that account.
Therefore, although Agnosticism means “ not knowing,” it is in no way
the equivalent of general ignorance.
The word Agnostic, however, in its philosophical sense, has a still
broader meaning. An Agnostic is not simply a person who is profossedly
ignorant concerning many subjects upon which other persons pretend to
have an extensive knowledge ; but he maintains that there are problems
the solution of which by man is impossible at the present stage of
his mental development. Further, an Agnostic is one who limits the
human mind by the measure of its capacity. That the finite can never
become infinite is probably a matter about which there can be no
difference of opinion, inasmuch as such a statement is a self-evident
truth, or as axiomatic as a proposition of Euclid. On the other hand,
a mind which is less than infinite cannot possess all knowledge. The
■consequence is, that there must always remain a wide field beyond the
range of the human faculties. In relation to that field every man must
be Agnostic, for the simple reason that his knowledge cannot penetrate
therein. Even the most orthodox believer proclaims his Agnosticism,
in a sense—that is, he admits that there are subjects which he not only
does not know, but which, from their very nature, he can never know,
since they relate to that which lies outside the sphere of thought. As
Herbert Spencer observes : “ At the utmost reach of discovery there
arises, and must ever arise, the question, What lies beyond ? ” (“First
Principles.”) And that beyond does not diminish, but rather widens,
•as knowledge increases ; for, the more we know, the more we discover
we have to learn. “ The power which the universe manifests to us,”
remarks the same writer, “ is utterly inscrutable.” Why should there
be any hesitation in admitting this truth ? No one looks upon it as
derogatory to human nature to admit that his power is limited, and
�6
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
that there are things which he cannot do. Why, therefore, should it beconsidered humiliating to confess that man’s knowledge, is limited, and
that there are topics which he does not and cannot know ? Not simply
that he has not advanced sufficiently in intellectual research to grapple
with them, but that they lie completely outside his sphere of thought.
In nature we can never know more than phenomena; and yet thesevery phenomena involve the necessity of the existence of something
which is their ground and support—that something being to us un
knowable. The unknown is postulated in the very terms we are com
pelled to use when speaking of the unknown. “ The senses,” as Lewes
observes, “perceive only phenomena; never noumena” (“History of
Philosophy ”). This opinion is not of modern origin, since Anaxagoras
maintained it, and Plato gave it his support. Thus it will be seen that
Agnosticism is not only not synonymous with what is generally termed
ignorance, but that it is compatible with the very highest and most
profound knowledge of which the human mind is capable.
Agnosticism being a philosophical, or certainly a quasi-philosophical,
question, must be judged of in the same manner as any other subject
of philosophy. Dogmatism is out of place in regard to it, and those
who accept its teachings must be content to practise humility and to
lay aside all arrogant assumptions of their great superiority to other
men whose views may not be identical with their own. As the ancient
philosopher observed : “We are never more in danger of being sub
dued than when we think ourselves invincible.” The object of the
whole Agnostic system is to learn, as far as possible, the limits of the
human mind in reference to the acquisition of knowledge, and, having,
done this, to use every effort to effect improvement wherever it is
possible, and to leave the useless and impracticable labour of sowing
the wind to those who seek to know the unknowable and to perform
the impossible. Wesley, in one of his hymns referring to the death of
Christ, says : “ Impassive he suffers, immortal he dies ”■—that is, in
capable of suffering, he did suffer; incapable of dying, he did die.
Now, is not this the very height of absurdity ? And yet, in reality, it
is not a whit more absurd than much that is put forth by those who
claim a knowledge of matters which lie beyond the sphere of human
reason. Agnostics, refusing to profess a knowledge they cannot com
mand, aim to differentiate the knowable from the unknowable, and
then devote their time and energies to widening the sphere of that
within human gnosis. Whatever else is possible, it is certain that we
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
7
can never extend the domain of the known into the unknown by in
dulging in wild flights of the imagination respecting the unknowable,
A® Socrates wisely observes : “ Having searched into all kinds of
science, we discover the folly of neglecting those which concern human
life and involving ourselves in difficulties about questions which are
but mere notions. We should confine ourselves to nature and reason.
Fancies beyond the reach of understanding, and which have yet been
made the objects of belief—these have been the source of all the dis
putes, errors and superstitions which have prevailed in the world. Such
notional mysteries cannot be made subservient to the right use of
humanity.”
“ Fear not to scan
The deep obscure or radiant light.
Heed not the man
Who draws old creeds to keep thee tight.
Examine all creeds, old and new :
Test all with reason through and through.”
II.
THE RELATION OF AGNOSTICISM TO THE UNIVERSE AND TO THEISM.
Agnosticism maintains that the teachings of theology relative to the
origin and nature of the universe, the existence of God, and immor
tality are simply questions of speculation, and that reason, science
and general knowledge do not support their dogmatic claims. Tne
theologian, on the other hand, contends that sufficient is known upon
these teachings to entitle them to our credence. In the face of these
two contentions, it will be profitable to ascertain as far as possible
which is the correct one. When the truth upon the matter is made
manifest, the wisdom of confining ourselves to the known and knowable
of existence yill probably be more readily recognized. What, then, are
those subjects which are dogmatized upon by the theologian, and to
which our attitude is purely Agnostic ?
THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.
This is a question which, to us, is involved in absolute mystery. Not
only can it not be fathomed by the human mind, but no approach can
be made towards the solution of the'problem by the mightiest efforts of
the human intellect. We may go back millions of years in imagination,
�8
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
but even then we are no nearer to a beginning than we were before.
Indeed, the possibility of such a beginning at all cannot be thought—
in other words, is not thinkable. As Mr. Mansel observes, “ Creation
is, to the human mind, inconceivable.” Precisely the same with the
other alternative, of an external existence, whether of matter or
spirit. It presents no idea that we can deal with intellectually, because
it ^sembles nothing of which we have had, or can have, the smallest
possible experience. Something must have existed from all eternity ;
that is a necessary truth, from which there is no escape. And yet the
how of that eternal existence lies utterly beyond the sphere of human
thought. To waste time in trying to comprehend it, to say nothing of
making it the subject of discussion, much less of dogmatism, is the
supremest folly. Nor can we have the slightest idea as to what was,
or is, the eternal existence. The dogmatic Theist ascribes it to God,
and the positive Atheist declares it to be matter • but what in reality
either the one or the other means, in the strictest sense, by the terms
used, neither of them knows. For what is God, and what is matter <
Are they the same, or are they two different existences ? The Mate
rialist, of course, denies the existence of spirit, and hence by matter he
means something other than spiritj-but what ? Matter is simply a name
given to that which originates in us sensations. But all that is known
of this is phenomenal, and phenomena, as before pointed out, cannot
exist by themselves, but must be supported by something which underlies
them. What that something is, however, no one knows, since it lies
completely outside the sphere of sensation. Besides, modern science
has clearly shown that the existence of which alone we can be said to
have any knowledge is not matter, but force. But, then, force can only
make itself manifest by motion, and where there is motion something
must be moved. Say that this moving body is matter, as it probably
is, and then comes the question, Which was the eternal existence, force
or matter, or both ? If force, how could it exist as motion when there
was nothing to be moved ? And, if matter, how could theje be motion
—and we have no conception of matter without motion—in the ab
sence of force, which is the cause of motion ? If it be contended that
both—matter and force—were eternal, then have we not two absolute
and infinite existences, which is a contradiction ? The Theist postulates
spirit; but that only adds a fresh difficulty, as will be seen presently.
Here Agnosticism at once declares the whole subject to be outside of
our gnosis, and, therefore, one which does not concern us, and of which
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
nothing is known, or can be known. Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks
that, on the origin of the universe, three hypotheses only are possible:
—1. That it is self-existent (Atheism). 2. That it is self-created (Pan
theism). 3. That it is created by an external agency (Theism). Mr.
Spencer has, at very considerable length, examined each of these
theories, and shown them all to be unthinkable. His position is, that
a self-existent universe, which is a universe existing without a begin
ning, is inconceivable. We cannot even think clearly of “ existence
without beginning.” And, if we could, it would afford no kind of
explanation of the universe itself. The first theory, therefore, is un
tenable. But no less so is the second—that of a created universe. To
hold this, it is necessary, in Mr. Herbert Spencer’s words, to “ conceive
potential existence passing into actual existence.” Is it possible, how
ever, to form a conception of potential existence except as something
which is, in fact, actual existence—the very thing which it is not I It
cannot be supposed as “nothing,” for that involves two absurdities—
(1) That nothing can be represented in thought; (2) That some one
nothing is so far separated from other nothings as to be capable of
passing into something, Again, existence passing from one state to
another without some external agency implies a “ change without a
cause—a thing of which no one idea is possible.” A self-created uni
verse is, consequently, inconceivable. There is still left the third theory
—that the universe was created by some external agency. But here a
difficulty arises in the attempt to think of “ the production of matter
out of nothing.” Moreover, there is still greater difficulty if we suppose
the creation of space. If space were created, then there was a time
when it was non-existent, which is also utterly inconceivable. But
suppose all these difficulties overcome, there is yet another, the greatest
of all. What is the external agency referred to ? And how came it
into being ? These are questions to which no satisfactory answers have
been or can be given. Thus the origin of the universe belongs to a regior
into which no human mind can enter, and therefore Agnosticism is the
only possible attitude of thought we can consistently take with regard
to the matter.
THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE.
In connection with this question we encounter speculations in
abundance ; but demonstrative facts are nowhere to be discovered.
Herbert Spencer has shown that every sensation we experience com
pels us, whether wo will or not, to infer a cause, and this-
�10
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
idea of causation drives us irresistibly to a First Cause. And
yet the moment we have reached it we are landed in all kinds of
contradictions and absurdities. For instance, is this First Cause
infinite or finite ? If infinite, it is beyond our comprehension,
outside the sphere of our knowledge; and if finite, then there
must be something beyond its bounds, and it is no longer the First
Cause. The Duke of Argyle, in his “ Reign of Law,” observes :—
“We cannot reach final causes any more than final purposes ; for
every cause which we can detect there is another cause which lies be
hind ; and for every purpose which we can see, there are other purposes
which lie beyond.” By holding that the Universe is infinite, to use
the words of Spencer himself, “ we tacitly abandon the hypothesis of
causation altogether.” The First Cause must also be either independent
or dependent. But if independent, we can have no idea of it at all,
because everything we know and think of is dependent. If, however,
the First Cause be dependent, then it must, being dependent, depend
on something else, and that something else becomes the First Cause, to
which the same argument will apply. In a similar manner, this cause
must be absolute, and yet, as Mansel has shown, “ A cause cannot, as
such, be absolute ; the absolute, as such, cannot be a cause.” The
reason of this is very obvious; the cause, as a cause, exists only in
relation to the effect. But the absolute must be out of all relation, or
it would cease to be absolute. But, in truth, we cannot conceive of the
absolute at all. It lies beyond the reach of finite faculties to grapple
with; hence, we are compelled to relegate the entire matter to the
domain of the unknowable. The power which manifests itself in the
universe is utterly inscrutable, and therefore we are driven to Agnos
ticism to find in it a solid resting-place in reference to the origin and
nature of the universe.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
This is another question which, as already demonstrated, lies beyond z
the reach of finite powers. Let us glance at some of the various
methods that have been pursued—indeed, are still resorted to—to prove
the existence of God. The object in doing this, be it observed, is not
to attempt the foolish impossibility of proving the non-existence of
God. That would not be Agnosticism ; but the desire here is to
indicate that the question of the existence of God is a subject upon
which man, to be logical, must, from the very nature of the case
be Agnostic. Demonstration of the existence of God will hardly
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ?
II
be contended for, except perhaps by the advocates of the a priori
method, and that need not be noticed here, since few representative
Theists resort to it, and fewer still have any idea what it really means.
The kinds of proof that are conceivable to be relied upon in this mat
ter are as follows :—
(a) The Senses.—These, however, can never furnish an argument to
prove the existence of God, inasmuch as our organs of sense have no
power to perceive anything that does not belong to the mere pheno
menal part of matter, and, hence, can never show us the noumenon
underlying appearances, much less an existence which is said to be in
no 5^ay material. If God has given a revelation, such revelation may
be seen or heard; but this, of itself, can only prove the revelation, not
God. Suppose we heard a voice, in tones of thunder which shook the
earth and reached every human ear, declare “ There is a God,” it
would prove nothing but the voice—not the God proclaimed. The
senses would perceive a sound, to which a very definite meaning might
be attached ; but the sound would not be God. It will not be denied
by any intelligent Theist that God can never become an object of
sense, and, therefore, that method of proof may be dismissed as totally
unavailing in the case.
(b) Scientific Research.—“ Canst thou by searching find out God 1” is
a question that was asked some thousands of years ago, and only one
answer has ever been, or probably ever can be, given, and that is a
negative one. Science, mighty and potent as it is for good, much as
it has done to ameliorate the condition of mankind, and great as its
triumphs are likely to be in the future, can never transcend sense
knowledge. All its processes are of a material character ; its instru
ments, together with the subjects which they explore, are material, the
phenomena with which it deals are material, and all its discoveries are
reported to the bodily organs of sense. Beyond the physical domain
of appearances no scientific investigations can ever go ; no telescope or
microscope can show us a trace of spirit; nor, in fact, of that, whatever
it may be, which underlies phenomena. Scientific facts may lead up to
philosophical generalizations ; but such generalizations are reached
by ratiocination (process of reasoning), and are no longer exclusively
scientific—in fact, are in a sense altogether independent of science. A
scientific fact and the interpretation of the fact are totally different
things. We may use science as a means for reading the riddles
of nature ; the reading, however, is not science, but philosophy; and
�19
v.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
science has but helped us to the facts which
process that is not
scientific has to explain. The Theist tells us, with Newton, that
science leads up to God ; but it will be seen that the upward road has
ceased to be withm the domain of science long before its termination
is reached.
Logveal Reasoning.—Here, of course, it will be argued by the
heist that we start on firm and solid ground. A moment’s reflection,
however, will show that this is by no means the case. Our starting
point and the conclusion at which we seek to arrive lie so far apart that
by no process of logic can we pass from one to the other. There is, in
truth, a great gulf between them, and we do not and cannot possess
the means of bridging it over. Xu all mathematical reasoning we start
from some axiom or necessary truth, which we find in our minds, and
which, by a law of our mentation, cannot be got rid of. This we make
the basis of all our reasoning and the foundation of the entire super
structure that we desire to erect. In geometry, in arithmetic, and in
logic this is equally the case. Now, all these starting points, whether
they be axioms relating to space, notions regarding quantity, or
mental conceptions, lie in our own minds, and are only known to us
by the fact that we find them there. From these we may reason, form
ing a long chain of logical links, until, at the end, we reach some truth
of a marvellous and startling character, which is as easy of demonstra.
tion as the concept or axiom with which we started. In this way
Theists endeavour to reason up to God. But it requires no very
profound thought to show that the process must break down before it
reaches that point. For instance, there is the fact that the conclusion
must be of the same quality as the starting point. If the primary
truth with which we commenced be internal to our minds, so must the
conclusion be at which we arrive. Beginning with ourselves, we must
continue and end with ourselves, and by no possibility can we reach
anything that is exterior to us. If, therefore, we reason up to a concept
to which the name of God is given, we shall be as far as ever from a
demonstration of his actual being. We. shall still be dealing with an
idea which exists simply in our own minds, and may or may not__for
here demonstration ceases and the logical argument breaks down_ be
a measure of some real existence. But there is another reason why
this logical process must fail. The attributes ascribed to God are of
that character about which we cannot reason. However exalted the
conception at which we arrive, it must be finite, relative, and condi-
�\
WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
13
tioned, while God is said to be infinite, absolute, and unconditioned.
It is, therefore, impossible that God can be the last term of a
logical induction. Of course, this does not furnish conclusive proof
that the absolute and unconditioned has no existence; it does, how■ever, prove that we cannot know everything of it, since it transcends
all our powers and faculties. It belongs to a sphere to which we have
no access. Hence, in all our research, investigation, and thought, we
bait when we approach the domain of the unknowable, bow our heads
and unfurl the banner of Agnosticism.
For a person to assert positively that he knows that a God exists,
who is an infinite personal being, is, in the face of the present limita
tion of human knowledge, to betray an utter disregard of accuracy of
expression. With the majority of orthodox believers, the term God
is a phrase used to cover a lack of information.
Persons behold certain phenomena ; the why and wherefore they
cannot explain • and because to them such events are mysterious, they
pause at the threshold of inquiry, and to avoid what appear to be
inscrutable difficulties, allege that such phenomena are caused by God.
Dr. Young, the Christian Theist, in his “Provinceof Reason,” says :—
“ That concerning which I have no idea at all, is to me nothing, in
-every sense nothing.............To believe in that respecting which I can
form no notion is to believe in nothing; it is not to believe at all.’r This
represents t-he position of Christian Theism. Although a person may
picture an object in his mind from an analogous subject, it has yet to
be shown how an idea can be formed of that upon which no knowledge
exists, either analogous or otherwise. All notions that have been
entertained of Gods have been but reflexes of human weaknesses,
human desires, and human passions, and therefore do not represent an
infinite personal Being. Xenophanes is reported to have said, that
“ If horses and lions had hands, and should make their deities, they
would respectively make a horse and a lion.” Luther, too, remarked :
“ God is a blank sheet, upon which nothing is found but what you
yourselves have written.” Schiller also stated : “ Man depicts himself
in his Gods.” The history of the alleged God-ideas justifies the truth
of those statements ; hence, we find that in different nations, at various
times, the most opposite objects have been adored as deities. The sun,
-moon, and stars, wood, and stone, and rivers, cows, cats, hawks, bats,
/monkeys, and rattlesnakes, all have had their worshippers. Even now
the professed ideas of God in Christendom are most discrepant. The
�14
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
God acknowledged by “ Advanced Theists ” is not the same Being in
many respects as the one depicted by Talmage and his school. Neither
does the object worshipped by the Deist correspond with the “Supreme
Power of the Pantheist. Then, if we go to the Bible, we discover
very different notions of God therein recorded. He is there described
as material, and then as immaterial j first as all-wise, and then again as
betraying a lack of wisdom j in one place as being all-powerful, and in
another as being exceedingly weak ; at one time as being loving, merci
ful, and unchangeable, at another as being revengeful, cruel and fickle
in the extreme. Surely, to rely on such absurd and contradictory
descriptions of a Being as these is more unreasonable than to frankly
admit that, if God exist, he is and must be unknown to us. This is
not a denial, but an honest confession that mentally no more than
physically can we perform the impossible.
It is alleged that the “God idea” is firmly rooted in the human mind.
What folly ! What is meant in this instance by an idea ? A mental
picture of something external to the individual. But where is that“ something ” corresponding with the many and varied representations
of a God ? The truth is, this supposed “ idea ” is no reality whatever,
but simply a vague “ idea ” of an “ idea,” of which, in fact, no idea
exists.
Besides, the term “ Infinite Personal Being ” is a contradiction.
Personality is that which constitutes an individual a distinct being.
This definition implies three requisites : First, that the person shall be
a personage ; second, that he shall be distinct from other things • and
thirdly, that he shall be bounded, that is, limited. But a bounded,
limited being is a finite being, and, therefore, cannot be an infinite
personal being. Is the assumed personality of God differentm fro
mine 1 If so, where is the difference ? Furthermore, is my personality
a part of God’s personality ? If it is, my personality is “ divine ; ” if
it is not, then there are two personalities, neither of which can possibly
be infinite, for where there are two each must be finite. Furthermore,.
personality is only known to us as a part of a material organization.
If, therefore, God is material, he is part of the universe. If he be a
part, he cannot be infinite, inasmuch as the part cannot be equal to the
whole. Personality involves intelligence, and intelligence implies ; 1.
Acquirement of knowledge, which indicates that the time was when,
the person who gained additional information lacked certain wisdom.
2. Memory, which is the power of recalling past events ; but with the •
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE 1
15
"infinite there can be no past. 3. Hope, which is based on limited per
ception, and which shows the uncertain condition of the mind wherein
the aspiration is found. Now, if God possesses these imperfect, faculties
he is finite; while, on the other hand, if they do not belong to him, he
is not an intelligent being.
Neither does the Theistic definition of God, as being infinite, har
monize with our reasoning faculties. Reason is based upon experience,
but an Infinite Being must be outside the domain of experience , reason
implies reflection, but we cannot reflect upon infinity, because it is
unthinkable ; reason implies comparison, but the Infinite Being cannot
be compared, for there is nothing with which to compare him; reason
implies judgment, but the finite is totally incompetent to judge of the
infinite ; reason is bounded by the capacity of the mind in which it
resides, but the mind to conceive the infinite must be unbounded;
reason follows perception, but we have no faculties for perceiving or
recognizing the infinite. Therefore, is not the Agnostic position of
silence as to the unknown the more reasonable ? If it be urged that
it is no part of Agnostic philosophy to consider these Theistic assump
tions, the answer is, that if such notions are well founded on demon
strated facts, there is no reason for the Agnostic attitude towards
them. It is the proving that Theistic allegations are unsupported by
observed truths which renders Agnosticism logical and justifiable.
Let it be distinctly understood that it is not against the existence and
nature of a God, per se, that exception is here taken—of that we know
nothing, but against the positive claims urged in reference to these
subjects. To these our indictment is directed.
The Orthodox notion of the “ innate consciousness of God’s exist
ence ” does not strengthen the position of the Christian Theist, for the
reason that it is groundless in fact. No doubt the error upon this point
has arisen with many persons through their regarding consciousness as
a separate faculty of the mind, whereas James Mill, Locke, Brown
and Buckle have shown it to be a condition of the mind produced by
■early training and surrounding associations. George Grote, in his
Review of J. S. Mill’s Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Phi
losophy,” aptly remarks : “ Each new-born child finds its religious
creed ready prepared for him. In his earliest days of unconscious in
fancy, the stamp of the national, gentle, phratric God, or Gods, is
imprinted upon him by his elders.” Thus it happens that what are too
frequently but the consequences of youthful impressions and subsequent
�AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
tuition are regarded as veritable realities. If this “ God idea” were
innate, is it not reasonable to suppose that all persons would have it ?
But there are thousands of persons who are ready to acknowledge that
ey have it not; and those who profess to have it are unable to ex
plain what it is. Probably, if a child never heard of God in the morn
ing of life, it would have no fancies concerning him in its mature age.
t is to be feared that these Theistic pretensions arise from an inade
quate acquaintance with the now admitted natural forces. There is
however, this hope, that as knowledge still more advances, dogmatism
will proportionately disappear, priestcraft will yield to mental freedom,
and work in controlling Nature and reliance on her prolific resources
will more than ever take the place of supplicating for, and dependence
on, alleged supernatural help.
The once favourite argument drawn from design in the Universe
affords no justification for the positive allegations of Theism. As Pro
fessor Taylor Lewis admits :—
“ Nature alone cannot prove the existence of a Deity possessed of
moral attributes.” Has it ever occurred to Theists that at the very
most the God of the design argument can only be a finite being, for
nowhere amongst what are supposed to be the marks of design in
Nature is an infinite designer indicated ? Now, a God that is finite isneither omniscient, omnipotent, nor eternal. The design argument,
moreover, points to no unity in God. According to natural theology,
there may be one God or hundreds of Gods. The Rev. S. Faber fairly
observes : “ The Deist never did, and he never can, prove without
the aid of Revelation that the Universe was designed by a single
designer,” Paley’s well-known comparison of the eye and the telescopeproves the very opposite of that for which it was used. It should beremembered that, but for the imperfection of the eye, the telescope
had not been required. Plainly, the argument may be stated thus :_
Designer of the telescope, man; designer of the eye, God ; telescope
imperfect, hence its designer w^s imperfect; the eye more imperfect,
since the telescope was invented to improve its power • ergo, God, the
designer of eyes, was still less perfect than man, the designer of
telescopes.
Dr. Vaughan, in his work “The Age and Christianity,” declares :
“ No attempt of any philosopher to harmonize our ideal notions as to
the sort of world which it became a Being of infinite perfection to
create, with the world existing around us, can ever be pronounced sue-
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
17
-cessful. The facts of the moral and physical world seem to justify
inferences of an opposite de-cription from the benevolent.” The Rev.
George Gilfillan, in his “Grand Discovery of the Fatherhood,” noticing
the horrors and the evils that exist around us, asks : “ Is this the spot
chosen by the Father for the education of his children, or is it a den of
banisment or torture for his foes ? Is it a nursery, or is it a hell ?
there is nb discovery of the Father in man, in his science, philosophy,
history, art, or in any of his relations.”
If nothing else rebuked the dogmatic assumption of the Christian
Theist, the existence of so much misery, evil, and inequality in the
world, should do so. What man or woman having the power, would
hesitate to use it to alleviate the affliction, to cure the wrong, and to
destroy the injustice which cast such a gloom over so large a portion
of society ? Let the many records of the world’s benevolence, devotion,
and kindness give the reply. To lessen the pain of the afflicted, to
assist the needy, to help the oppressed, are characteristics of human
nature which its noblest sons and daughters have ever felt proud to
manifest in their deeds of heroic self-denial. Contemplating the suc
cess of crime, the triumph of despotism, the prevalence of want, the
struggles on the part of many to obtain the mere means of existence,
the appalling sights of physical deformity—beholding all these wrongs
this sadness and despair, who shall dogmatically exclaim, “ All Nature
proclaims a Fatherhood of of ^df?The question of immortality scarcely belongs to the same class of
subjects as the others which have here been discussed; nevertheless,
even upon this subject, the Agnostic position appears to me to be the
correct one. Personally, I refuse to dogmatise either one way or the
other; and the question, after all, is but of little consequence. Our
business, for the present at all events, is with this world; and the,
affairs of the next may be left until we land upon its shores, if such
shores there be. To ignore the teachings said to refer to another life
is not necessarily to deny the existence of that life. One thing is cer
tain, and that is our present existence. Furthermore, experience
teaches us that time is too short, duties too imperative, and consequences
too important to justify us in wasting our resources and displaying a
‘disturbing anxiety about, to us, an unknown future.
“ Life’s span forbids us to extend our cares,
And stretch our hopes beyond our years.”
�18
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
DOES AGNOSTICISM SATISFY MAN’S INTELLECTUAL REQUIREMENTS 1
There are two objections frequently urged against the Agnostic posi
tion which with some people have considerable force. The first is, that
Agnosticism robs man of the great consolation and incentive imparted
by the belief in the certainty of the existence of a “ Heavenly Father”
and a future life. In the second place, it is contended that Agnosticism
fails to satisfy the demands of the human intellect. Let us exa.m in e
these objections, with a view of ascertaining whether or not they pos
sess any weight bearing upon the present question.
The first objection supposes that without Theism and its teachings
there is no adequate comfort and peace for the human race ; that this
life of itself is but little more than “ a vale of tears,” alike destitute
of the sunshine of joy and the power of imparting happiness in every
day life. Persons who entertain these gloomy ideas regard existence
as being necessarily full of trouble, aud think that mankind are incapable
with mere natural resources of enjoying a high state of felicity, and that
true bliss is only to be secured by believing in God and entertaining
the hope of pleasure in another world. Such morbid notions are born
of a dismal faith, and find no sanction in the real healthy view of life’s
mission. Existence is not a mere blank ; its condition depends largely
upon the use mankind make of it. To some the world may be as a
garden adorned with the choicest of flowers, and to others as a wilder
ness covered with worthless weeds. Life of itself is not destitute of
beauty, glory, solace and love. True, it is sometimes darkened with
clouds, but it is also enlivened with sunshine ; it is degraded by serf
dom, and elevated by freedom ; it is shaded by isolation, and illumin
ated by fellowship ; it is chilled by misery and persecution, and warmed
by kindness and affection ; it is blasted by poverty and want, and in
vigorated by wealth and comfort; it is marred by shams and inequalities,
and glorified by realities and equity ; it is humiliated by unequal and
exce sive toil, and dignified by fair and honest labour; it has its
punishments through wrong and neglect, but it has its rewards in right
and correct action. The lesson of experience teaches us unmistakably
that life is worth having even if Theism and the teachings in reference
to a future existence be nothing more than emotional speculations. In
the language of the Rev. Minot J. Savage, in his work, “ The Morals
of Evolution,” “ I believe there is not a healthy man, woman, or child
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
19'
on earth who will not join me in saying that life is worth living simply
for its own sake, to-day, whether there ever was a yesterday or there
ever will be a to-morrow. Have you ever stood, as I have, on a moun
tain summit, with the broad ocean spread out at your feet on the one
side, a magnificent lake or bay on the other, the valley dotted with
towns, with growing fields of greenness, or turning brown with har
vest ? Have you ever looked up at the sky at night, thick with its
stars, glorious with the moon walking in her brightness ? Have you
listened to the bird-song some summer morning ? Have you stood by
the sea, and felt the breeze fan your weary brow, and watched the
breakers curling and tumbling in upon the shore ? Have you looked
into the faces of little children, seen the joy and delight they experi
ence simply in breathing and living, beheld the love-light in their eyes,,
heard their daily prattle, their laughter, their shouts of joy and play i
Have you, in fact, ever tasted what life means 1 Have you realized
that, with a healthy body, in the midst of this universe you are an
instrument finely attuned, on which all the million fingers of the uni
verse do play, every nerve a chord to be touched, every sense thrilling
with ecstacy and joy ? No matter where I came from, no matter where
I am going to, I live an eternity in this instant of time. Is it not a
mistake, in the face of facts like these, to say that life is not worth,
living unless it is supplemented by a heaven ? ”
“ Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream.”
As to the second objection, it is said that man is born to inquire ;
his whole nature is bent in the direction of discovery ; curiosity to pry
into the secrets of nature and being forms one of his leading character
istics ; therefore, Agnosticism, which places a barrier to his further
investigation, must be objectionable, because it fixes the limits beyond
which he may not’ go. This allegation, if worth anything, must be
urged, not against Agnosticism, but against the limit of human powers.
To tell man that there are subjects which he can never master, not for
lack of time to look into them, but because they lie in a domain to
which, by the very nature of the case, he can gain no access, should
certainly not be calculated to stop his inquiry with regard to matters
upon which knowledge is to be obtained. The Theist believes that he
can never fully comprehend God; but does that prevent him from
�20
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM.
endeavouring to learn what he can? Agnosticism has not placed
limits to the human mind, but only defined them; it has not erected
the barrier beyond which the human intellect cannot pass, but only
described it j it has not invented the line which has separated the
knowable from the unknowable, but only indicated its position. The
mind of man is, therefore, free to inquire to the utmost extent of its
powers, and the complaint that it cannot do more is foolish in the
extreme.
Agnosticism is sufficient for all the purposes of life, and more than
that cannot surely be needed. There is no human duty that it is not
compatible with, no human feeling that it does not allow full play to,
and no intellectual effort that it would attempt to place restrictions
upon. It leaves man in possession of all his mental force, seeking only
to direct that force into a legitimate channel where it may find full
scope for its use. In a beautiful passage in his Belfast address, Pro
fessor Tyndall remarks :
“ Given the masses of the planets and their distances asunder, and
we can infer the perturbations consequent upon their mutual attrac.
tions. Given the nature of disturbance in water, or ether, or air, and
from the physical properties of the medium we canlinfer how its parti
cles will be affected. The mind runs along the line of thought which
connects the phenomena, and from beginning to end finds no break in
the chain. But when we endeavour to pass, by a similar process, from
the physics of the brain to the phenomena of consciousness, we meet a
problem which transcends any conceivable expansion of the powers we
now possess. We may think over the subject again and again, it eludes
all intellectual presentation.”
These words present a great truth, indicating, as they do, the proper
scope of man’s intellectual activity. The Agnostic does not fail to
carry on his investigations into Nature to the utmost extent of his
ability. He seeks to wring from her secrets hidden through all the
ages of the past; he pushes his inquiries from point to point, and learns
all that can be known of the marvellous processes of life and mind, and
only stops when he confronts the unknowable, beyond whose barrier
he cannot pass. His are the fields, the groves, the woods, the sea, and
all the earth contains ; the starry sky, too, is his domain to explore
All nature, with its majestic varieties, lies before him, presenting sub
jects of the keenest interest. In these he revels with delight; but the
�NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
21
incomprehensible he seeks not to comprehend, the unknowable he does
not make the idle attempt to know. In a word, he is a man, and he
aims not at the impossible task of becoming a God. Is not this course
more courageous, more dignified, and more candid than that adopted by
the dogmatic theologian, who, yearning for a knowledge of the absolute,
and yet failing to discover it, lacks the courage to avow his inability
to achieve the impossible ?
“ Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.”
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
There have been a large number of books written on this subject,
some of them by men of eminence in their respective departments of
thought. It has been dealt with from very different standpoints, and
therefore exceedingly conflicting arguments have been brought to bear
upon it. Two able American writers, Dr. Bushnell and Dr. McCosh,
have discussed it with considerable learning ; but one has to put down
their works with a great degree of dissatisfaction, since nothing like
clear definition is to be found in their pages. In England the subject has
been made the theme of several large works, of hundreds of magazine
articles, and of thousands of pulpit discourses, an<J yet the whole subject
is enveloped in the densest darkness. There must be some cause for
this, and the cause, I think, is not far to seek. The natural we know f
but the supernatural, what is that ? Of course, as its name implies, it
is something higher than nature—something above nature. But, if
there is a sphere higher than nature, and yet often breaking through
nature, nature itself must be limited by something, and the question
that at once arises is, By what is such limitation fixed, and what is the
boundary line which marks it off and separates it from the supernatural ?
And this is just what no two writers seem to be agreed upon. But, further
supposing such a line to be discovered, and to be well known, so that
no difficulty could arise in pointing it out, a still more difficult problem
presents itself for solution—namely, how man, who is a part of nature,
�-22
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
and able only to come into contact with nature, can push his knowledge
into that other sphere which, being non-natural, cannot be at all ac
cessible to a natural being ? If the supernatural region be synonymous
with the unknowable, it cannot clearly concern us, simply because we
have no faculties with which to cognize it, and no powers capable of
penetrating into its profound depths. In this case, as far as we are
concerned, there is practically no supernatural, for none can operate on
that sphere in which man lives and moves and displays his varied and in
some respects very marvellous powers.
According to many writers, the physical is the supernatural, because
dt is not under the control of natural law. But why ? If man be
partly a spiritual being, why should not natural law extend into the
■ sphere of his spiritual nature ? Indeed, an able writer on the Christian
■ side,-whose work has been enthusiastically received by all religious
denominations—Professor Drummond—has maintained this position,
the very title of his book stating the whole case : “ Natural Law in the
Spiritual World.” The great German philosopher, Kant, calls nature
the realm of sensible phenomena, conditioned by space, and speaks of
another sphere as a world above space, depleted of sense, and free from
natural law, and therefore supersensible and supernatural. But this
is to make the supernatural spaceless and timeless—in fact, a mere
negation of everything, and therefore nothing. Now, the only light
in which we can look at this subject, with a view to obtain anything
like clear and correct views, is that of modern science. By her the
boundary of our knowledge has been greatly enlarged, and through her
discoveries we have been enabled to obtain more sound information
regarding the laws of the universe than it was possible for our fathers,
with the limited means at their disposal, to possess.
If there be a sphere where the supernatural plays a part and exer
cises any control, it must clearly be in some remote region, of which
we have, and can have, no positive knowledge; and the forces in
v operation must be other than those with which we are conversant upon
this earth. Science cannot recognize the supernatural, because she has
no instruments which she can bring to bear upon, and no means at her
disposal for, its investigation. She leaves to the theologian all useless
. speculations regarding such a region, contenting herself with reminding
him that he is. in all such discussions, travelling outside the domain of
facts into a province which should be left to poets and dreamers, and
�NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
23
which belongs solely to the imagination. All law is and must be natural
law, from a scientific standpoint, because we can have access to nature,
and to nature only. It is impossible to get beyond her domain, even
in imagination.
The supernatural, if it exist, must reveal itself through nature, for
in no other way can it reach us so as to produce any impression upon
the human mind. But, if it come through nature, then how can it be
distinguished from the phenomena of nature ? It will be quite impos.
sible to differentiate between them. We are quite precluded from
saying, Nature could not do this, and is unable to do that. No man
can fix a limit to the possibilities of power in nature. She has already
done a thousand things which our forefathers would have declared im
possible, and she will doubtless in the future, under further discoveries
and advances in science, do much more which would look impossible to
us. Whatever, therefore, comes through nature must be natural, for
the very reason that it comes to us in that way. And the business of
science is to interpret in the light of natural law. Even if she should
prove herself incompetent to the task, it would only show that some
phenomena had been witnessed which had for a time baffled explana
tions, not that anything supernatural had occurred. And the business
of science would be to at once direct itself to the new class of facts,
with a view to finding the key with which to open and disclose the
secret of the power by which they were produced.
But what is nature ? Of course every man knows what is meant by
nature, in part at all events ; and the only difference in opinion or de
finition that can arise will be as to its totality. There are a thousand
facts lying all around us, and a thousand phenomena of which we are
every day eye-witnesses, that all will agree to call nature. The ques
tion, however,, does not concern these, but others, real or imaginary,
which differ somewhat from them, and which are supposed, therefore,
to be incapable of being classed under the same head. Those who de
sire to obtain a clear and accurate idea of nature cannot do better than
read carefully Mr. John Stuart Mill’s excellent essay on the subject,
published after his death. He gives two definitions, or rather two
senses, in which we use the word in ordinary, every-day language. The
first is that in which we mean the totality of all existence, and the
other that in which we use the term as contradistinguished from art—
nature improved by man. But it must be borne in mind that this is
�24
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
still . nature. Nature improved by man is only one part of nature
modified by another; for man is as much a portion of nature as the
earth on which he treads, or the stars which glow in the midnight sky
over his head. Nature, therefore, as I understand it, and as Mill de
fines it m his first sense, is everything that exists, or that can possibly
come into existence in the hereafter—that is, all the possibilities of
existence, whether past, present, or future. If I am asked on what
ground I include in my definition that which to-day does not exist, but
may come into existence hereafter, I reply : Because that which will
be must be, potentially at least, even now. No new entity can come
into being; all that can occur is the commencement of some new form
of existence, which has ever had a being potentially anyhow. No new
force can appear, some new form of force may. But, then, that, when
it comes, will be as much a part of nature as the rest—is indeed even
now a part of nature, since it is latent somewhere in the universe.
Man’s beginnings were in nature ; his every act is natural, his
thoughts are natural, and in the end the great universe will fold him
in its embrace, close his eyes in death, and furnish in her own bosom
his last and final resting-place. Beyond her he cannot go. She was
his cradle, and will be his grave ; while between the two she furnishes
the stage on which he plays his every part. And more, she has made
him, the actor, to play the part. Nature is one and indivisible. She
had no beginning, and can have no end. She is the All-in-all. Com
bined in her are the One and the Many which so perplexed the philo
sophers of ancient times.
Charles Watts.
��DATE DUE
Z7 JU L 2012
I
Demco, Inc. 38-293
�
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
Agnosticism and Christian Theism: which is the more reasonable?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
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
[s.n.]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Theism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Agnosticism and Christian Theism: which is the more reasonable?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1651
RA1853
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
Theism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e8fbe921129141bdceb80820b1c9d5de.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=DMnFgeD%7EsqKG3nFczHXlEwB0TtGIBCcvc7oIO-8ZohNeoyZofr0-QFJHpYVSQ%7EWCVOh19SJnCMhj53PuUIPLvZT4%7EFz3jz3ZmdYti0N48hJk2dkizQM9rifsFgwmboBScKdcmx0bz-VQzJrVfrpcdw-OgY4kAU6FEXGXRAg2sBhO-inP-LJi4NMVUTazYchJ2uTOsJ%7ERd%7EHYK4gJ0OtKGgsZVj6d5dzHRBaOxkkOjluLUySKoSLzwcEtx-bPH37ydBTpcC7CLQW6voyw4xalUU-uF0dDFCYp5mOhX48qNb8xef0ZB8hcSiCoTCWlkrK%7Emhiha8CZ9BNSEEcrKsC0Qg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
13fd95793b662c29d884b1e09f6eef78
PDF Text
Text
2JbJb
ft.fi-IS'ST? ■
-
tfA/S’S'Z-
£A/£'5’3~
&AI85T ft ft [?•>(> ■
�Tl?e Teachings 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 m practice, alas 1 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/1 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 sogeneral, and when most persons are aware.that defective health isto be largely traced to a derangement of one or more of the vital
functions, such as digestion^ circulation, respiration, and that these
functwns 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 even 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 y
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 tolabour 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; ajl 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 place toplace
in the open air, it is said ;—
r
K '
“ 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.
K
*
<
Ki' '
\
II. INTELLECTUAL. .
The great John Locke well remarked that “ 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 a*nd 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 wav, 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
uf 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. Tne 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
if 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
tacle 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. 11 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
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 flowers. 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
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 knowledge 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
11 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 of
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 aftect even the rising
generation. Those who know what the tuition of the ordinary
street Arab is, who have instituted comparisons between |he 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 whom
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 to
conviction , 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
�r4
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 a moral (?) 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 scrupuloustrader 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 cah 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 only
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, and 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—z. e., by moral acts, which carry 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
�i6
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.
*7
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 mai} 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 sup
posed 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 aot.
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
again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain,
�18
SECULAR. TEACHINGS.
evil, pr 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.” Hethen
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
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
*9
■of morality is justified by a knowledge of two important principles
—namely, 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 rhe 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 arid 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 itg 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
diately 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 it's 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
fhe 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.” Hethen enlarges upon these with a view
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
21
io 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 tfie 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
vrror 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 ! our being’s end and aim.”
*
'
When we meet with persons who profess to despise this aspiration, 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 I—
“ Who can define it, say they more or less
Than this, that happiness is.happiness ? ”
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
23
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 be 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 t® 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 coil
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 of 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
io 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 par
ticular.
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 ? There 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
�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 contradictory 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 very much 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 “ ehilde Har
old ” portrays a great truth :—
“ 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 !*
�*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.
29
acquire favour and power with the gods Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva. Such a man is very religious, but he is not necessarily a
moral 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 thp
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 Englishman
possessed 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 assist
ance from orthodox Christianity, based as it is upon what is re
garded as a divine revelation from God to man. Siich 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 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 be4 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 civilized 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
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 toaim 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 .
J
notion has been incorporated into the Church. “ To it has been *
I
given all power. Its hand has wielded every sword. Every
I
cannon has stood ready charged to second its command. Every
I
crown has received, its blessing; every standing army its prayers
I
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
1
freighted with skeletons, rattle in your ear. Ask the millions of
?
ragged, starving paupers, covered with filth and vermin, on their
I
knees to the few who are covered with diamonds and royal inI
sigma, to sing its triumphs. Alas, poor wretches I blinded by
f
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
I
world with blood. Let the millions who, after toiling ten hours a
•|
day, cannot satisfy the bare necessities of life, the thousands of
!
I
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
37
white-raced 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
fly 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.
____
1
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 1?e 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 intoextreme 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 to
fear ? If he has been faithful to his convictions, acting up con
sistently to the light which his intellectual industry has acquired,,
why s&ould 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 written
before 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 m sell,
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 isro 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 unwelcome ; but these things are familiar unto us, and we suffer
them every hour, therefore we die daily. I know many wise men
�4°
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who fear 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?*
1
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 perfeot 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 givesus firm ground on which to build up physiological, psychological,,
and sociological science, and the political and social constitutions
which 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 thist
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 quali’ties 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 theory of 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 fnan 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 aboundng 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
theory 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.
�48
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, fiee 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 controversies, 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, Museunis of Arts and Secular Halls.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
49-
X. SECULARISM MORE REASONABLE THAN CHRIS
TIANITY.
Orthodox Christianity being, by its own avowal, built upon faitfi>
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 ofu
whatever 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
reductio ad absurdum of faith trampling reason under foot. 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 are’
hollow and unsound as heterodox Rationalism. It has no firm
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 manifolcE.
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 pointsnot essential, in essen
tials we all agree. But if the differences are of such small moment,:,^
why dispute so desperately about them i1 Why fine, imprison*,
banish, torture, and put to death, because of them ? Whyorganize
wholesale massacres, and engage in bloody wars, whose records
are at ociously 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:
�5o
'
f
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 every man 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 interpret 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
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.
1
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 tlye assertions proved in books which Christians
have fried 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 astension
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 ac
cept 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 hasbeen 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 Deity 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 themeaning, 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
genera] 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 doesnot 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 arealso 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 Devil; 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 healtny 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, in 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
and 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 from the maternal taint, m
accordance with the low notions of her people ; and God the Son,.
�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 die?
as God he was and is everywhere ; and if only his manhood died,
there was no divine, no sufficient atonement. The scheme of his
sacrifice 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 must 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,
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
sare 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
lis 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
<hem; 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
liuman 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
ithe 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 gnd 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
41 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. . . . They
are 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, which 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 wfio 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 or 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 real
life. A good many Christians in rare moments, a very few zealots
more commonly, may be exalted by the foretaste of Heaven ortormented 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
�€o
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 Traditionsand 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 Primitive 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 unst.nted 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.
6r
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 afi 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.
^3
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 mendacity 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
Experience, 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.
pea ce 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 j ears. In Alexandria, the great capital in which the
intellect and culture of the East met and commingled with thoseof 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 climates’
&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 have 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 vw-ions 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 grossPaganism in order to render it agreeable to the masses. Nohistorical 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 1 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 1
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 families 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 thought 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
�t>6
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
every 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 she
resisted 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 the
case 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 world. 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 to 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.
71
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 ? On 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,
virtue1 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, o.ur Hampdens, and our
Cromwells, a couple of centuries ago, hewed yyith 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 freedorq. 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
fi.nd 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 ^"ioo, 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.
z 7
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
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.”
For people who believed that the earth was the centre and chief of
the universe, the sun and moon and stars being merely little lampsmoving 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, thenoblest 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 two
feet, is several hundred times larger than the earth as seen from
the sun; ” while from the nearest of the fixed stars it would be
quite 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 lor our immortal souls I
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 medicine 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 o/i 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 ;
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 Eurqpe 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
17
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 tothe education oi 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.
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
I
LI
�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 a't 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.
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 did in the past. Hell is shut up, and the.
<ievil 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 tovigorous 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 sure
as soon as they are worthily championed.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
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. x
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. i
Although the Christians are fond of boasting that their religion has
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 those
for 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 bedestroyed, and merged into a free and fraternal harmony. We'
have to endeavour to convince our fellow creatures that the realobject of existence should be to learn how to live well; and that j
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 those
who 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
JFreethought 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
ih is end our Societies must be not only schools of instruction, but
;also resorts for innocent recreation. We need tender hearts no
Hess 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
Sup’ernaturalism ; 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 himk 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 ^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, more
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 alike must be and can be heroes,,
and, if the occasion calls, martyrs. One consideration, however„cart
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. Every
Secularist is certainly required to show more vigour and courage
than 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. This
is 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 isso 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 features
of 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
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 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 him.
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 this
theological 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 projnote present human improvement by present
human means. The existence of God, the future condition of'
man, are questions which five thousands 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 the
discoveries of science, and sharing in the benefits arising from their
application to the needs of mankind, are preferable to reposing trust
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
«7
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 theteachings 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 ? (/>) 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 deci
sive
(a) 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. (6) Those actions
only are moral which are beneficial to mankind, and which add to
the welfare of society, both individually and ufellectively. (c) The
sanctions of morality are the protection of the individual and the
�88
SECULAR TEACHINGS
debt he owes to the community for its protective service, (d) The
incentives to moral conduct are personal excellence and the general
happiness 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
Tight; 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
a 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
“ 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
G-od;” “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 qrthodox 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 fcr
;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.
�90
'
SECULAR TEACHINGS
and its extent depends upon the conditions and position of the
individual, 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 aswell 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 m<n ” 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, whether for or
against received opinion; provided it 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
meaningpwell—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 teaching 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 go on 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
��
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
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
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
[s.n.]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Teachings of Secularism Compared With Orthodox Christianity), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1848
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
Christianity
Christianity and Atheism
Secularism