1
10
5
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/80e9996980e2c27ff46dce43d319598f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=koDpNjaKdNaoky3RKtmocs147Exr1qwA9QPwjzRcfK9Mkr7vaSC7RAaJisHx%7EhkosnnxVNqL4-tZpOUUREcfZaFr3VruFS8FChsNUmvGVpjF0Pnfxfi2XbQNDrsZXpk-NhGoyayFL2lEV0F3in8tghPq75QxSFuX3UJt%7EfMzKBZMryF53XKrtvglSCtIpjNYL7%7ExaFsRJ23194u0ZQwXS8cwdfDodJcftw8vTjIuqSUcFtRNo1FCFamowBrQORygjAXHWB1jaZ0U%7E%7ENR70PsdoGrOlKfYXO4K7DChKrT9q1nKGGPV%7Epl5AY%7EhHAyizu%7EuUErX4N-1m7lsxRF25gqYg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ecebb09cca30d63e51417489e00da298
PDF Text
Text
£ -2-? 3 I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
SOCIALISM.
To the Editor -------Sir,
The efforts of the members of the “Trinitv
Church Mutual Improvement Association ” to increase
their store of useful knowledge deserve nothing but
praise. But, judging from the report you give of a
lecture on “Socialism” by the Reverend President, I
fear the members will be liable to mistakes of a serious
kind if they confine their search for truth within such a
limited area as that apparently covered by this exposition.
That Christ was a great Socialistic teacher is beyond
dispute, and that he taught and practised “self-sacrifice ”
is not by any means a full statement of the facts. He
taught rich men to “sell all that they possessed”, and
his earliest followers, we are told, did so, and had “ all
things in common”. Are we to understand that the
lecturer is prepared to direct his flock to follow this
example, in both the spirit and the letter ? If not, what
becomes of the assertion that the Christ-like form of
Socialism is the “only one” which will “ever be
possible ” ?
�I do not understand the phrase “ Compulsory Social
ism , nor to what system it can be applied. Hence I am
unable to judge of its asserted “ absolute impossibility”.
The lecturer appears to have implied that this system of
compulsory Socialism” was “experimented upon in
France , and “ caused the streets of Paris to be
drenched in blood”. It is not explained which event
was referred to—the early French Revolution, that of
1830, or the more modern Commune? In either case, the
reference was entirely misleading, and Socialism, either
compulsory” or “arbitrary”, was in no sense whatever
the cause of the events mentioned. This muddling-up
of Socialism, Atheism, and other disliked “isms” is a
very common practice, especially in addressing an audience
believed to be not too well read in history. But at the
present day such inaccuracies and loose statements are
risky and liable to be detected, even in least expected
quarters. Hardly less obscure and misleading were the
lecturer’s definitions of “ Individualism” and “ Christian
Socialism ”. The Rev. Stewart Headlam would have
demolished the lecturer’s position in a few minutes, and,
unless the reporter failed to catch the drift of the state
ments made, the result of the prescribed line of action
would certainly be “confusion worse confounded”.
If Socialism is to be described at all, it should be fairly
and candidly done, because the exhibition of a mere cari
cature of so important a movement will certainly not
“mutually improve” any persons who listen thereto.
Systems of Socialism have been and are many and various,
and a proper historical description of them must be both
interesting and instructive. Such a retrospect would
reach back to Crete and Sparta, the ancient German com
�3
munities (from one of which, the Anglo-Saxons came), the
Essenes of Judea, the Anabaptists, and many other forms
of Socialistic association. Of later years the labours of
worthy old Robert Owen, Fourierism, the theories of
Paine, Spence, Godwin, and others would require notice.
Later on still the work and writings of Karl Marx and his
school, with the views of Mill, Spencer, Bax, the leading
spirits of the Social Democratic Federation, the leaders of
the Co-operative movement, the Fabian Society, and a
host of modern writers and speakers—all these would haw1
to be carefully considered before moderate justice could
be done to the subject of Socialism. Certainly this vast
subject is not one to be disposed of by a vague, hackneyed,
and utterly misleading reference to the French Revolution
—an event no more the result of any form of Socialism
than it was the consequence of the discovery of the Coper
nican system or of the mariner’s compass.
Let me explain that I am not a Socialist, any more
than the reverend lecturer is one, except in the sense that
now-a-days we are all more or less acting under the
influence of Socialistic principles, whether we know it
or not. This great subject is one which is daily engaging
the deep attention of many of the wisest and best men
and women of the age, in this and other countries. The
absorbing problems of land and labour, and capital and
labour, are being thought out and solutions sought; and
into the possession of the ripe fruit of all this study and
investigation humanity will one day enter. I may, or I
may not, agree with Mr. Morris, Mr. Hyndman, or Mrs.
Besant, in the conclusions at which they arrive ; but that
they and a thousand others are doing useful work I am
bound to admit. Such a movement is not to be thrust
�4
aside by a Podsnapian wave of the hand, nor settled and
disposed of in a half-hour lecture.
The old laissez faire system has been tried and found
grievously wanting, and the doctrine of “ every man for
himself ” has failed to satisfy the needs of the age. This
movement towards Socialism is not the work of “Agi
tators ”, and therein lies the silly old mistake into which
so many well-meaning people have fallen. Agitators are
effects, not causes ; they are the products of the spirit
that moves in millions of human breasts, a spirit that
cannot be sneered down, nor even chained down, by any
human power. Agitators are only the outward and visible
signs of the inward and spiritual aspirations of the people.
We may few of us live to see it, but I recognise even
in this much misunderstood, and so often fatuously misrepresented Socialism, one of those hopeful and noble
onward and upward tendencies of humanity, that are
working day by day towards that golden age sung of by
the poets, and which, as Southey says,
“ Shall bless the race, redeemed of man, when wealth
And power, and all their hideous progeny,
Shall sink, annihilate, and all mankind
Live in the equal brotherhood of love I ”
January 20th, 1890.
Yours, etc.,
PAT),
[Note. — The editor of the newspaper in which the
report referred to appeared, declined to insert the above
letter.]
A. Bonneb, Printer, 34 Bouverie St., Fleet St., 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
Socialism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rad
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Letter to the editor of an unidentified newspaper, which had published a report to which the letter (unpublished) is a reply. Signed "RAD". Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Bonner, Printer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N546
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
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 (Socialism), 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
NSS
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4be1b9ebc8dfd4a9301d0e686ee10b51.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XDcTl5Q9TdvPvI4YSNXQJyZYqTH%7EyBpeEvZ3xCUjJtxF3xxIDNpfw5KCZgXBu5cD3hva1Zm12ICdvmYoqqiP9zuiG%7E5DMudNXEHS57s3miSPr6W-%7ExJmrKPAk3Zzi24qy73fypgigMQWIaey7XlRl-WfHrIyNvWZElr3UTO75YuZFxEVMOxjzThyZzkOMoIatpZhFqxN04zGIHbwCAFZw5nJ9cLwdDi18C5N14s0eMVd%7ESic%7EwDToVAoQDgcjnnVNUcTnU6lO1u%7EV1lW3ngUg4i2CZt7xlpXSlE2D1t0F%7EJvz1UByq9a8VblEQasny8Y87psI1EZSmCVIcXIVtlkEA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
896faf5fac55feafd3329a559bf428c6
PDF Text
Text
LOVE-LIFE OF AUGUSTE COMTE.
BY JENNIE JUNE CKOLY.
T is said that no man is a hero to his wife or his valet de chambre;
and so inseparable, indeed, is some touch of weakness from poor
human nature, that we are rather apt to expect from the excep
tionally great in some respects, corresponding feebleness in
others, and charitably excuse, or else hold them up to the light, as the
excuse for our own shortcomings.
The private, or emotional life of Auguste Comte is but little known
in this country, and the impressions concerning it, derived mainly from
John ^tuart Mill, is , not’of a character to encourage strict investiga
tion. Even his disciples seem to consider his domestic relations as a
subject to be avoided, and the second part of his great life-work, the
“Politique Positive,” as more the result of the weakness of his heart
than the strength of his head.
* The aim of this brief and necessarily very imperfect sketch is sim
ply to state, facts, to show what justification existed for departure from
conventional standards, and who and what the remarkable woman was
whose brief acquaintance exercised so singular an influence upon the
mind of Comte, and inspired him with those ideas which form the
basis of his ultimate system.
Whatever the weakness or strength of its founder, there is little
doubt that the “ Religion of Humanity ” will live and continue to
attract, as heretofore, the respectful attention of the wisest and best
among us, and with its growth will spring up an interest in that epi
sode of the life of August Comte which unites his. name with that of
Clotilde de Vaux, and accepting her . as the representative of the noblest
attributes of humanity, will place her, toward its religion and its be
lievers, as Laura to Petrarch, as Beatrice to Dante,-as Heloise to Abe
lard, if not, with all reverence be it spoken, as the Virgin Mary to the
Christian Church.
“To-day,” Emerson says, “is king,” but we rarely recognize its
royalty. Laura and Beatrice may have been very ordinary persons to
their intimates, and it is possible that even Joseph saw nothing more
in his wife than many a man believes of the woman he loves. Yet who
would wish to lose the spiritual significance of the Virgin-Mother by
confronting it with the common-place fact of her daily life. Clotilde
T
�186
THE
LOVE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
de Vaux may have realized to no other person the remarkable qualities
with which Comte’s imagination invested her, but the evidence she has
left of high intellectual ability, united with singular purity and devo
tion, lifts her above the common-place, while, apart from any idealiza
tion by Comte, her personal history is clothed with a strange, sad, and
most romantic interest.
Born of a respectable but obscure family, beautiful, delicate, and
surrounded always by an air of touching sadness, which seemed a
prophecy of her future destiny, Madame de Vaux became early the wife
of a man who was subsequently convicted of a capital crime, impris
oned, and finally sent to the galleys, yet, by the laws of France, still
maintained his right and authority as her husband.
It was in this position that Comte met her.
Comte himself was born, as Robinet, his biographer, informs us, of
an admirable mother, Mme. Rosalie Boyer, a strict Catholic however,
who shared the monarchical tendencies of her husband. She is de
scribed as a woman of great heart, great character, and Comte ascribes
to her all his higher qualities. He admits also that it was through
Clotilde de Vaux that he learned to fully know and appreciate his
mother. His family were in moderate circumstances—his father being
cashier in the department of the Receiver-General. He was born in a
modest house, facing the church of Saint Eulalie, Montpellier; was
sent to school at the age of nine years, and was so precocious that at
ten he criticised with severity and judgment his teachers and their
methods of instruction.
In 1825, twenty years before he met Mme. de Vaux, he contracted a
marriage of convenience, which proved, as he afterwards declared, the
one “ serious ” fault of his life. His wife was a bookseller, an active,
capable woman of business, intelligent, but worldly, as most Parisian
women of the middle classes are, and utterly without sympathy in any
new systems of philosophy or their results. She was proud in her own
way of her husband’s ability, but wished it to be acknowledged by the
world, and she could not forgive in him the unconscious egotisms of a
powerful genius, or the loss of his material opportunities, by his obsti
nate adherence to unpopular opinions and principles.
For seventeen years they lived a life which must have been almost
unendurable to both, for Comte, released as he considered himself by
the greatness of his work from ordinary duties and obligations, was
probably one of the most exigent, exacting, and intolerable of hus
bands to a busy, ambitious, and practical wife, while she became to
him every day more an object of indifference, and even of dread.
Mahomet was happy in having for his first disciple his wife:
Madame Comte realized nothing but the obstinacy which deprived her
husband of honorable positions and material resources. She was quite
willing to assist in building up an honorable home, quite capable of
forming a sound, and even wise judgment on any of the ordinary affairs
�THE
LOVE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
187
of every day; she had literary taste and talent of her own, but believed
thoroughly in putting them to practical use, in employing them to
achieve a recognized name, honor, position, money, and the good-will
of mankind, and she considered Comte’s splendid generalizations as the
chimeras of a distraught brain.
It was unfortunate for both that no children resulted from this illstarred union. The existence of these ties, and the knowledge, through
them, which they would have gained of each other, would undoubtedly
have softened their feelings, and contributed to a better mutual under
standing. But it was not to be. Day by day they drifted more and
more widely apart, until, upon April 5,1842, seventeen years after their
marriage, Mme. Comte left her husband never to return. 1
Although M. Comte had not at that time developed fully his social
theory, his natural instincts, heightened by the respect and veneration
with which his mother had always inspired him, would have compelled
him to endure to the end his self-imposed yoke, and forbidden any
sympathy with the anarchical ideas that were then becoming common
in France. The defection of his wife he accepted with the dignity
with which he had borne his matrimonial infelicity, and considered his
condition of domestic isolation as complete and final. His noble
nature, however, his truthful instincts, his affectionate disposition,
. made this severance of home ties very painful; he realized all the pos
sibilities of true marriage, all the difficulties resulting from a mistake
in this most important act of human life, and his pain was augmented
by the knowledge of the detrimental effect which his matrimonial
blunder would be likely to exert upon his public career. Believing
profoundly in the indissolubility of marriage, insisting with the whole
strength of his powerful intellect on the perfectness and perpetuity of
the marriage relation as the golden band which purifies and holds
society together, his own experience at once justified and illustrated
his theory in his own eyes, yet furnished to carping critics a choice
morsel of gossip, which they were undoubtedly willing to make the
most of.
“Behold the teacher!” “Who lives in glass houses should not
throw stones.” All this, and much more, must have made Comte feel
that a mistaken marriage was the most serious mistake of a man’s life,
and that the evils resulting from it must be borne by the individual,
not thrust upon society. Of course his situation, isolated and stigma
tized without direct act or fault of his own, enabled him more readily
to appreciate the peculiarity of the woman’s position whose name was
afterwards to be associated with his own—Madame Clotilde de Vaux.
His first meeting with this still young and gifted lady took place in
1845, three years after his wife had left him. It is admitted by all that
she possessed graces of person combined with remarkable purity, ten.derness, and dignity of character. The singular coincidence of their
position attracted them all the more powerfully toward each other,
�188
THE
L O \r E - L IFE
OF
AUGUSTE
COMTE.
and the admirable delicacy and consistency which had distinguished
her conduct in her peculiarly trying and unfortunate position, estab
lished at once a claim upon Auguste Comte’s sympathies.
Moreover, Madame de Vaux, notwithstanding that she possessed a
mind of the finest order, was as little, understood by her family circle
as Comte by the rest of the world—a fact which, united with Madame
de Vaux’s convictions in regard to the moral nature and duties of
women, so different from those of her best-known contemporaries, but
•in exact accordance with Comte’s predilections, created a new bond be
tween them. Under th^se circumstances, it is not surprising that,
Clotilde de Vaux became to Comte a revelation of the power, purity,
genius, and suffering of woman, or that, having worked out his theory
of Divine Humanity, he should recognize its highest development in
her noble, self-sacrificing life.
It is a fact worthy of particular remark that, notwithstanding the
exceptional nature of their mutual positions, no breath of suspicion,
even in France, ever attached to their relationship. Slander itself was
dumb before the purity of her character, the modesty, and dignity of
her life. Her intercourse with Comte was wholly that of master and
pupil; and although he fully acknowledges that to her he was indebted
for his entire knowledge and education of the heart, yet this was un
conscious on her part, and she hardly realized that the chivalrous and
reverential nature of his sentiments toward her, and all women, owed
their development and expression mainly to herself.
But with the real claims of Madame de Vaux to the moral and in
tellectual height to which Comte elevated her, we have little to do. To
Comte she gave the key to one half, and the diviner half, of the human
race, and became at once the motive and the inspiration to that part of
his work which had been left incomplete. His discovery of sociology,
of a new philosophy of life based upon the laws of exact science, placed
him upon a level with Aristotle and Bacon; his realization of the per
fectness of moral quality, through Clotilde de Vaux, of its high uses,
unfolded to him a new religion, a religion of Man, or Humanity, which
can only be expressed by the homage paid to the moral qualities as em
bodied in their acknowledged representative, Woman. What individ
uals, Laura, Clotilde, or Beatrice, were in themselves, matters, we re
peat it, very little. It is enough that they stand as the types of Woman,
as the ideals of Mother, Daughter, Wife, Sister, Friend, or all of these
—as the embodiment of the sentiments and qualities which men most
venerate and admire, and which act upon them as the strongest incen
tive to worthy deeds.
In the preface to his Positive Catechism, which consists bf a series
of imaginary questions and answers between himself and adopted
daughter, which relation he had intended to legalize with Madame de
Vaux, if she had lived. Comte says, in reference to her—
“Through her I have at length become for Humanity, in the strict
I
�THE LOYK-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
IS 9
est sense, a twofold organ, as may any one who has reaped the full
advantages of woman’s influence. My career had been that of Aris
totle, I should have wanted energy for that of St. Paul, but for her. I
had extracted sound philosophy from real science ;»I was enabled by
her to found on the basis of that philosophy the universal religion.”
If Clotilde de Vaux had left no other evidence than Comte’s com
memoration of her worthiness, she would still stand in the niche of the
Temple of Humanity as its first high-priestess—as the eternal mother
of that ideal Woman whose image is enshrined in all good men’s
hearts, and is dimly realized in the goodness, purity, and self-sacrific
ing love of some every-day sister, wife, or mother.
But young as Madame de Vaux was at the time of her death, un
fortunately suppressed as the most important work of her life was by
the interference of relatives, she still left enough behind to show that
she was a woman true to all a woman’s best instincts, to all a man’s
' noblest ideals of Womanhood. Like Comte, her nature remained unwarped by the sad issue of her own conjugal relations. Her little
work, “ Lucie,” written altogether from her own inspiration, and before
her acquaintance with Comte, reveals at once a charming tenderness,
allied with real strength. Individual unhappiness did not lead her, as
it would a weaker nature, to denounce marriage, or seek in license the
remedy for social ills. On the contrary, in this work she idealizes mar
riage, accepts motherhood as the natural function of the mass of
women, anticipates Comte’s theory of protection for women, and de
mands governmental institutions for the aid and guardianship of un
protected women. Moreover, her advocacy of a true home-life for
women had more force in France than in this country, because there
the doctrine of individualism in marriage had been to a certain extent
conceded, and the relationship already assumed a business aspect
almost unknown here. The women of the middle classes, it is well
known, nearly control the retail trade of Paris, and their mercantile
activity and preoccupation undoubtedly prevents the realization of the
comfort and domesticity which belongs to the English acceptation of
the word home ; and while it has developed shrewdness and business
tact, certainly detracts somewhat from the reserve and delicacy which
naturally belongs to women.
In Comte’s theory of marriage, individual rights are not allowed a
place. The institution he considered necessary to the happiness of in
dividuals and the well-being of society, but the former he subordinates
to the latter, and he exacts from all men and women who take upon
themselves the obligations of marriage, a stern fulfilment of its re
quirements. He quotes with great approval the remarks of Madame
de Vaux, that “great natures will not involve others in their own sor
rows and difficulties,” and insists that the mistake of an individual
should be confined as much as possible to him or herself, and not hung
as a load upon the back of society.
�190
THE
LOVE-LIFE
OF
AUGUSTE
COMTE.
It is for its singular truth, purity, and integrity, that Madame
Clotilde de Vaux’s contribution to the literature of her day deserves
preservation, and for this reason we reproduce it here. Her clear mind
was alike uninfluenced by custom or the sophistical ideas of anarchists
and so-called reformers. She did not give to woman all the scope that
she must claim for herself while she possesses ability, but she fully
recognized the fact that the home is the woman’s rightful domain, that
the employment of her strength, talent and energies in other directions,
and especially as a means of livelihood, should be exceptional; that
the woman cannot be the mother and also the provider, and that no
woman ever tries to fill the two positions without feeling that she is
constantly sacrificing the greater to the less.
A presentation of a theory of marriage which recognizes its full
value, its sacredness, and its indissolubility, seems particularly desir
able just now, and in this country, where individualism is making it
self strongly felt, and social evils are seeking a remedy in the easy dis
ruption of the marriage bond. The position which Comte assigns to
Woman is clearly stated in the following extract from the general View
of Positivism :
“ The social mission of Woman, in the Positive system, follows as a
natural consequence from the qualities peculiar to her nature. In
the most essential attribute of the human race, the tendency to place
social above personal feeling, she is undoubtedly superior to man.
Morally, therefore, and apart from all material considerations, she
merits always our loving veneration, as the purest and simplest im
personation of Humanity who can never be adequately represented in
any masculine form. But these qualities do not involve the possession
of political power, which is sometimes claimed for women, with or
without their own consent. In that which is the great object of life
they are superior to men, but in the various means of obtaining that
object they are undoubtedly inferior. In all kinds of force, whether
physical, intellectual, or practical, it is certain than Man surpasses
Woman in accordance with a general law which prevails throughout
the animal kingdom. Now, practical life is necessarily governed by
force rather than by affection, because it requires unremitting and
laborious activity. If there were nothing else to do but to love, as in
the Christian Utopia of a future life in which there are no material
wants, Woman would be supreme. But life is surrounded with diffi
culties, which it needs all our thoughts and energies to avoid; therefore
Man takes the command notwithstanding his inferiority in goodness.
Success in all great efforts depends more upon energy and talent than
upon moral excellence, although this condition reacts strongly upon the
others. Thus the three elements of our moral constitution do not act
in perfect harmony. Force is naturally supreme, and all that women
can do is to modify it by affection. Justly conscious of their superior
ity in strength of feeling, they endeavor to assert their influence in a
�THE
LOPE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
191
way which is often attributed by superficial observers to the mere love
of power. But experience always teaches them that in a world where
the simplest necessaries of life are scarce and difficult to procure, power
must belong to the strongest, though the latter may deserve it best.
With all their efforts, they never can do more than modify the harsh
ness with which men exercise their authority. And' men submit more
readily to this modifying influence from feeling that in the highest at
tributes of humanity women are their superiors. They see that their
own supremacy is due principally to the material necessities of life,
provision for which calls into play the self-regarding rather than the
social instincts; hence we find it the case in every phase of human so
ciety, that women’s life is essentially domestic, public life being prin
cipally confined to men. Civilization, so far from effacing this natural
distinction, tends, as I shall afterwards show, to develop it, while rem
edying its abuses.”
The following “ Complement of the Dedication ” to Mad. Clotilde
de Vaux is from the pen of Auguste Comte, and will be found in his
last great work. It is followed by her novelette of “ Lucie ” and her
poem, “ Thoughts of the Flowers,” which Comte repeated every morn
ing for the nine years preceding his death.
COMPLEMENT OF THE DEDICATION.
Paris, 12th Dante, 62.
Saturday, July 27th, 1850.
In order to complete this exceptional dedication, I think I should add to it the
only composition published by my sacred colleague. This touching novel, of which
the principal situation essentially characterizes the conjugal destiny of the unhappy
Clotilde, was inserted in the columns of the “National ” on the 20th and 21st of
June, 1845. In reproducing it here, I hope to furnish competent judges with a
direct proof of the exalted nature, intellectual and moral, of the unknown angel
who presides over my second life.
Following this characteristic production, I publish my unedited letter on the
social commemoration, which would have appeared with “ Lucie,” but for the ma
levolence of a well-known journalist, who has proved himself unworthy of confi
dence. This little composition offers a certain historical interest to all those who
understand the Religion of Humanity. They -will see in it the first direct and dis
tinct germs of an immense moral and social synthesis, spontaneously arrived at
through a pure, private effusion. My normal reaction of the heart, on the mind,
was thus manifested several years before I had constructed its definitive theory.
I end this natural complement of my dedication with an unedited canzone, that
Madame de Vaux wished to place in her “ Willelmine,” although she had composed
it in 1843. These graceful strophes, of which Petrarch could have perhaps envied
the sweetness, can indicate the facility and the versatility of a talent worthy of the
highest commendation. The poetical tendency of this exalted soul showed itself
involuntarily, in her most trifling inspirations. IKwould be, for example, suffi
ciently characterized by this melancholy inscription, secretly written at the age of
twenty-two, in an old “ Journal of a Christian,” which I preserve religiously.
“ Precious souvenir of my youth, companion and guide of the holy hours which
have lived for me, and which always recall to my heart the ceremonies, grand and
sweet, of the convent chapel.”
�192
THE
LOVE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
’‘LUCIE.”
A Novelette, by Clotilde De Vaux.
A few years since, the little town of----- was stupefied by the commission of a
crime complicated with extraordinary circumstances.
A young man, belonging to a distinguished family, had disappeared under a
terrible suspicion. He was accused of having assassinated a banker, his partner,
and stolen from him a considerable amount of valuables. This double crime was
attributed to the fatal passion for gaming. The culprit abandoned, after a few
months of marriage, a young wife endowed with great beauty and the most emi
nent qualities. An orphan, she remained, at twenty years of age, condemned to
isolation, misery, and a position without hope.
The laws granted her spontaneously the separation of person and wealth ; that
is to say, of all that which she had already lost. Her husband’s family lent her a
shelter and a pair of shoes. Rich men who admired her, added to her anguish of
heart insulting offers of protection as disgraceful as they were humiliating.
She was, happily, one of those noble women who accept misfortune more easily
than disgrace. Her clear mind fully unveiled to her the position she was in ; she
comprehended that she owed to her beauty the interest she excited in men ; she
foresaw the dangers that professions of sympathy hide, and wished to draw from
herself alone all mitigation of her fate. This courageous resolution having been
taken, the young wife thought only of executing it. Possessing a remarkable talent,
she proceeded to Paris to make use of it. After several trials, she was admitted as
a teacher into the house of the Abbaye-awe-Bois, where she found an honorable
asylum.
During this time, justice took its course ; active steps sought everywhere for
traces of the fugitive. Already the irritated creditors had divided the property of
the unhappy wife, whose clothing and jewels, even to the little treasures of her
girlhood, had been sold at auction. The interest she inspired was so great, that
strangers voluntarily redeemed these pledges and returned them to her.
One young girl purchased a medallion which contained her portrait, and wore
it like that of her patron saint, and the priest of the place bought her weddingdress to decorate the altar of the Virgin.
These details sensibly affected the unfortunate one. A noble pride became
joined in her heart to a profound sensibility: she felt herself sustained by these
proofs of interest that reached her from so many sources. Filled with terror at the
remembrance of her first love, she considered her chain as a barrier that she had
voluntarily placed between herself and men. The horror and peril of her position
thus escaped her mind, and she accepted without a complaint the unjust decree of
the laws.
An indestructible sentiment, a sweet and holy friendship of childhood, at first
saved this noble heart from the bitter griefs of solitude. Philosophy, so pitiful and
so arid in egotistical souls, developed its magnificent proportions in that of the
young woman. Poor, she found the means of doing good : if she rarely went into
the churches, where frivolity sits side by side with sanctity, she was often met in
the garrets of the poor, where, misfortune hides itself like shame.
Two years slipped by without any event transpiring to change this strange and
unhappy position. Time, which can only increase great sorrows, had impaired,
little by little, the admirable organization of the orphan. To her heroic courage,
to her persevering efforts to tread'the rough path marked out for her, there suc
ceeded a profound dejection. Thirteen letters which have fallen into my hands
paint better than I can the griefs of the weary heart. I ask permission to reproduce
them, and thus finish this history.
�TSE
L OVE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
193
FIRST LETTER.
LUCIE TO MADAM M.
I write to thee from Malzéville, where I intend to pass several months, my
beloved. My lungs had need of country air, and country milk ; and our worthy
friends have seized this pretext to invite me to share their pleasant solitude. How
much I love these excellent people ! May I not resemble them, or at least allow
my heart to share in the peace which reigns in the depths of theirs ? Meanwhile I
feel better here : nothing is so healthy as the sight of beautiful nature, and of this
laborious and uniform life which forces the mind to rule itself.
The General awaits the near arrival of his neighbor, who is reputed the bene
factor of all this little region. He is a young man of twenty-six, the possessor of a
handsome fortune, and a sincere disciple of liberal ideas. He has with him his
mother, whom he adores, and of whom they tell a great deal of good.
Thou dost advise me to cultivate flowers so as to wean me from music and
reading. Alas 1 my beloved, are not these the only pleasures that remain to me ?
When I have paid my feeble tribute to friendship, when I have read to the General
some passages in his memoirs, when we have together evoked great and sacred
recollections, or when I have shared with my friend her little domestic cares, I
resign myself to tins absorbing faculty of thinking and feeling, which has become
the resource of my existence ; and yet, no woman loves a peaceful and simple life
more than I. What brilliant pleasures would I not have sacrificed with joy to the
duties and happiness of the family circle ! What successes would not have appeared
silly compared with the caresses of my children ! 0. my friend, maternity, that is
the sentiment whose phantom rises so strong and so impetuous in my heart. This
love, which survives all others, is it not given to woman to purify and mitigate her
her sorrows ?
SECOND LETTER.
MAURICE TO
BOGER.
Roger, I have at last seen this woman, so grand, and so unhappy, of whom thou
didst speak to me with pride. Do not say that “ the die is cast,” if I avow to thee
the deep impression that I have felt at the sight of this young and beautiful martyr
to social injustice. The touching virtues of Lucie, her mind, her unconscious atti
tudes, everything about her bears forever the imprint of a profound grief. One
feels, in seeing her, that she will have need of generosity in order to love. How
ever, is she not free in all honor and reason ? By what astonishing lack of .fore
sight in the laws, may the pure and respected woman find herself chained by
society to the branded being whom it casts from its bosom ?
What do we call civil death ? Is it a phantom ? To what end does society
bind a wife to a man who can no longer give birth but to outcasts ? By what right
does it impose isolation and celibacy on one of its members ? From what motive
does it force a living death, or irregularities which it condemns ?
But I speak as if before judges. Roger, my blood is ready to boil when I see
how the apathy of men produces and seems to sanction misfortune and oppression.
I have just had a belvedere built in sight of Malzéville ; from there, with a tele
scope, I see the whole of thé General’s pretty house. Yesterday, I perceived Lucie,
who was seated on the edge of a small stream of water; her attitude was dejected.
Shall I say it to thee, her looks seemed to me to be often directed toward the south.
Alas ! in seeing her so graceful and so broken, I asked myself with disgust the
secret of certain influences over our hearts. Why do we see vulgar women fasci
nate superior intellects and become the objects of a true worship? How does it
happen that the generosity and nobleness of certain women are seen so often in the
�194
THE
LOVE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
power Ol selfishness and grossness? We must give up the explanation of this
enigma.
As thou dost wish a new description of Oneil, I shall tell you, my dear Roger,
that, I have made of it one of the prettiest places in the department. They described
to me lately a recent dispute on my account between the inhabitants of the neigh
boring corporation and an old, decayed gentleman. They excited themselves with
nothing less than a discussion as to whether they owed the title of Chateau to Oneil,
and the first piece of consecrated bread to its proprietor. I have settled the ques
tion by not going to mass, and by calling the whole country my valley.
THIRD LETTER.
MAURICE TO
ROGER.
Never, Roger, never will another woman excite in me the powerful and elevated
sentiments with which the mere sight of Lucie inspires me. Friend, thou hast
spoken truth ; it is in vain that the laws, opinion, and the world raise their triple
barrier between us ; love will reunite us, I feel it. Who knows better than thou
the needs of my heart and its insurmountable repugnance to vulgar joys ? Alas !
before meeting Lucie, I have often felt that it is dangerous to refine its sensations.
A little while ago my mother made her visit to Malzeville. I was curious, I
avow it to thee, to know the impression Lucie would produce upon her. On arriving
before the grating of the little park, we saw her grafting a rose-tree. She was
dressed in white ; a large garden-hat carelessly covered her head, a simple green
ribbon defined her small and elegant waist. One would say, on seeing her, the
sweetest ideal of Galatia.
I was surprised to perceive no emotion on my mother’s face, she. ordinarily so
kind, and who finds so much pleasure in admiring ; she was dignified and cold during
our visit; the words duty and honor found a place in all her phrases. For the first
time I had a glimpse of what is bitter and implacable in feminine rivalries. Guided
by the delicate tact, that the habit of suffering gives, Lucie withdrew before we did,
under some slight pretext. Would that I had dared to follow her, and throw my
self at her feet to protest against my mother’s words.
Roger, this moment settles my fate forever ! I comprehend that it is my duty
to snatch this sweet victim from misfortune. Perish the chimeras that rise up
between us ! I feel myself strong against the false faith of opinion and the blame
of the envious ; may I also be so against the self-abnegation and grandeur of Lucie 1
FOURTH LETTER.
MAURICE
TO ROGER
One could willingly curse civilization and enlightenment, when one sees the
small number of just minds and upright hearts that there are in the world. I could
not tell thee how many pitiful and odious insinuations I have to submit to every
day on Lucie’s account. But, what is not the least shocking, all the honor rests
with these corrupters of morality who stand proudly on their small proprieties as
on a rock of impregnable virtue. It seems, in truth, that success only accompanies
hypocrisy and deceit.
I have just had a painful conversation with my mother, which has only more
strongly confirmed my loyalty and devotion. The latter is a magnificent virtue : it
lives, however, much more willingly on enjoyments than on sacrifices. I have
lately met in the world the young Countess of -------- , whose husband is in the
galleys. She was twenty-four years of age when this fatality overtook her; she
was remarkably pretty and amiable. The worthy L-------- fell in love with her,
and they are united. Well! she told me that what she has had to suffer from her
�TH£
LOVE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
195
own family is incalculable. When I expressed to her my astonishment, seeing
their advanced ideas in everything, she answered me, “ Are you still in your cate
chism in regard to men ? They authorize me to be an atheist, but not to do with
out the sacraments.”
So it is, my worthy Roger, that this admirable humanity is not yet well rid of
its debt toward the monkeys, from whom several doctors insist that it is directly
descended.
FIFTH LETTER.
MAURICE TO LUCIE.
What have you done, Lucie ? What fatal thought have you obeyed in remov
ing yourself from me ? Alas! it is in vain that I seek to justify your silence; it
weighs on my heart like an icy burden. And meanwhile, only yesterday you made
me cherish my life. Your soul seemed to open itself to hope. When a trifling
danger menaced me on the border of the lake, you came to my assistance without
appearing to fear the presence of those around us. How beautiful you were at that
instant, and how womanly in your devotion ! Have you not read in every glance
the enthusiasm of which you were the object? 0 Lucie, when it was only neces
sary, perhaps, for you to show yourself as you are to soften my mother’s heart, by
what inconceivable misfortune do we find ourselves separated ? But perhaps you
are not the angelic woman that I thought I had discovered; perhaps a generous
love is beyond your powers ? Perhaps !—But of what use are these doubts ? You
alone can restore the peace that you have taken away ; I await a line from you, a
word that may teach me what are your future plans. Think of it! I will not
answer for myself if you continue to overwhelm me with your silence. Manuel is
going post-haste to Paris : in ten hours I may have your reply.
SIXTH LETTER.
MAURICE TO ROGER.
Must it then be so ? Roger, to have been acquainted with her, to know that
which contains this exalted heart, this delicate mind, and perhaps, in a few hours,
to have to deplore her loss! May my misery fall again on those who caused it!
Alas! when 1 accused her with what I have suffered, she was struck down with the
violence of her struggles and her love. I wander like a fool around the General’s
house, interrogating his people unceasingly, and receiving from them only vague
and unsatisfactory answers. Happily, the physician is ignorant of who I am, and
three times a day he forces the truth on my heart. I have this moment quitted
him ; he looked so sad, he seemed so overwhelmed that I conjured him not to hide
the worst from me. He assured me that she still exists ; but he expects a terrible
and inevitable crisis.
P.S.-jShe is saved! One should love as I love to comprehend the magic of
such news. I threw myself at the feet of the physician ; I asked him for his
friendship. In vain he preserved a serious manner; I felt ready to perform any
folly in his presence. He is a distinguished man ; he spoke of Lucie with an enthu
siasm almost equal to my own. But, one thing struck me: he observed me often
with thoughtfulness, and seemed ready to confide a secret to me. I have vainly
endeavored several times to make him speak his mind. He always ends our con
versations about Lucie with this phrase : Society is very culpable.
I have often remarked that prudence is the vice of men in this profession, whose
profound knowledge renders so capable of assisting the social movement. What
important modifications could be produced in the laws by the sole authority of cer
tain scientific facts which remain eternally hidden from the vulgar ! I wish that a
great physician would publish his memoirs ; it would be, in my opinion, a very
useful book to humanity.
�196
THE LOVE-LIFE OF
AUGUSTE
COMTE
SEVENTH LETTER.
MAURICE TO ROGER.
x
Friend, I have seen her again ! Alas ! one dares not think that she still belongs
to earth, so much is her beauty invested with an ideal and celestial character. She
has consented to take her first walk leaning on my arm, and I was astonished at.
the simplicity with which she described to me her sufferings. If I do not deceive
myself, a gleam of hope has crept into her heart; but I have not been able to
explain to myself the meaning of several of her words. As we rested in the shade,
of a little ruined chapel, a villager’s wedding party passed before us. There was
so much happiness and freedom from care on their open countenances, that I could
not suppress a bitter reflection in comparing our destinies. Lucie trembled as she
heard me.
“ 0, my friend I” she exclaimed, “ they are happy ; but it is because their good
fortune neither afflicts nor offends any one.”
I looked at her with surprise ; her face was slightly flushed; she placed my
hand on her heart; then she resumed in a voice serious and moved : “ Maurice, it
is in vain that our misfortune forees us to set ourselves against society ; its institu
tions are great and venerable as the work of ages ; it is unworthy of great natures
to inflict upon others the sorrows that they feel.”
I would have answered her, but she made me a sign with her hand to indicate
that she felt very feeble. It began to grow late. The worthy doctor, who was
already anxious at not seeing Lucie return, came to meet us, and he assisted me in
supporting her as far as the entrance to the park of Malzeville, where it was neces
sary for us to separate.
Roger, all the obstacles that surround me frighten me less than Lucie’s natural
greatness. It is not to false prejudices, I feel it, that such a woman has been able
thus far to immolate the sweetest desires of her heart
EIGHTH LETTER.
LUCIE TO MADAM M.
My Cherished Friend:—Hope has overtaken me on my return to health; Maurice
consents to raise his powerful voice in a protest against the terrible abuse that
separates us. His mother has pressed me to her heart; I shall never forget the
delicious sensations that were mingled at that moment with the bitterness of my
recollections.
O my beloved 1 the love of a pure and good man is a sentiment full of power.
How much do I need courage and strength to resist it! But Maurice’s interests
and honor are dearer to me than my own happiness can be ; and I am also sustained
by the pride of seeing him attempt a noble enterprise ; for it seems to me, that in
it I also shall have accomplished something for humanity.
It was only yesterday that our fate was decided. We had spent the evening
with the worthy physician, whose sentiments are at the same time so gentle and
so elevated. Hardly had we left him, when Maurice impetuously seized my hand ;
and, pressing it to his heart, he swore to protect me in spite of the world, and no
longer permit me to forsake him. I collected my strength to struggle against
these sweet yet terrible emotions. I represented to him that duty commanded him
to endeavor to free me from my bonds, in claiming a wise and just law. I employed
to affect him the arguments which have the most influence on his great heart. I
described with ardor the advantages that society would receive from this courageous
attempt. For him, it was not difficult to interest him in the fate of those beings,
young, feeble, and defenceless, whom an odious bond consigns to despair. He
agreed that the injurious effects of the laws result mainly from the apathy of men,
and that it is always honorable and useful to struggle against oppression.
�THE LOVE-LIFE
OF AUGUSTE
COMTE.
197
We considered then our position from all points of view. Maurice agreed that
a tie like that which he was advising me to contract would suffice for happiness,
and that he would renounce, without the least regret, a world which sacrifices true
happiness to prejudices arrogantly adorned with the title of propriety. I confessed
to him that I did not feel myself high enough or low enough to brave opinion, and
that it would be sweet to me to be able to surround our love with the respect of
honest families.
He gently combated my ideas ; but the thought of his mother was joined in his
heart with all the elevated sentiments that belong to him. He finished by prom
ising me to address a petition to the Chamber of Deputies, and to await patiently
the result.
I threw myself at the feet of this man so dear, shedding tears of gratitude and
love. The efforts that I had made to control myself had so exhausted my strength
that it seemed to me that life was going to abandon me. I never felt its value so
much as at that moment.
O, my friend I thou who dost live calm and happy with the man of thy choice,
thou wilt comprehend all that passes in my heart. Thou knowest if I share the
ridicule poured upon those women who wish to be deputies, or who ride on horse
back to demonstrate that they could be at need excellent colonels of dragoons. But
thou knowest that I feel sensibly oppression where it is real. It is in striking a
blow at the true and modest happiness of woman, that the laws force her out of her
sphere, and make her at times forget her sublime destiny. Henrietta, what pleas
ures can exceed those of devotion ? To surround with comfort the man whom we
love, to be good and simple in the family, worthy and self-forgetting outside of it,
is not this our sweetest office and the one which suits us best ? It seems to me
that from the family circle radiates communities and the world, and is it not woman
who is the inspiration of them ?
NINTH LETTER.
MAUBICE TO
ROGER.
. A new grief has just burst upon her ; the monster who chains her to himself
lias been arrested on the frontier and conducted to the galleys at Toulon, where he
goes to suffer his penalty.
This event, which gives such great force to our demands, seems meanwhile to
have weakened Lucie’s courage. This heart so tender has fainted with terror
before the horrible denotement with which the laws associate her. The name that
she still bears echoes within her, loaded with infamy, and re-awakens all her
gloomy recollections. Her imperishable goodness has just added compassion to all
her wrongs. May her strength not be exhausted in this cruel struggle I No, I feel
it, laws cannot be voluntarily immoral and absurd. Evidence strikes men ; they
will break this odious bond which chains the purest being to a galley-slave.
Lucie will still suffer much ; but various circumstances have enlightened me on
all her sentiments, and I shall not sacrifice one of them to love. This noble woman
shall be a proud wife and mother, pure, true, and loving friend. The sacrifices that
she would valiantly accept for herself, she cannot bear the thought of bequeathing
to her children. May she find at last the reward of these sweet virtues ! I shall
rally my strength and my courage to subdue my impatience. 0 Roger! life has
hard trials. I send thee a copy of my petition to the Chamber.
“ Gentlemen Deputies :—There exists in the bosom of the. laws an abuse of
which the extent is frightful; permit me to signalize it by a striking example.
"A woman of twenty-two years, whose heart is pure and full of honor, finds
herself chained by marriage to a galley-slave. Fifteen years of imprisonment,
infamy, scorn, all that which separates virtue from vice, materially annuls this
odious bond.
�198
th/:
L(> rn-i.rPK
o f
augusth
comte.
" The man is civilly (lead; the woman, declared free by the tribunals, regains
possession of his fortune, which she already manages. All her rights are evident;
yet she must renounce the most precious of them, that of using the liberty of her
heart. By an inconceivable lack of foresight in the laws, this woman finds herself
" expelled from their protection, and placed by them between two abysses, misfor
tune and immorality. Which choice dare we assign her ? To adorn herself with
a barren heroism, shall she renounce love and motherhood, those beautiful and
noble rights of the wife ?
“ If isolation weighs like a sentence of death on her heart, and forces her to
contract a tie hostile to society, who will protect her against the evil testimony of
opinion, and against all the dangers attached to a false position ?
“ Between these two, there is a third, into which falls many oppressed and fee
ble natures—it is baseness.
“ Gentlemen deputies, I call your attention to this question of high morals, and
I solicit a law which establishes divorce for a single act of an infamous and criminal
character.”
TENTH LETTER.
MAURICE TO
ROGER.
Our hearts are calmer. Lucie seems happy in seeing me submissive to the laws
which govern society. May she reap the fruit of my patience !
Perhaps I have truly performed a duty. I have suffered so much for some time,
that I can no longer be a very good’judge on matters of wisdom. Abuses shock
me, and oppression inspires me with such horror that I would willingly flee before
it instead of contending with it. It may be that Lucie, in her heroism, is much
nearer than I to simple justice and morality. Few women unite as she does pene
tration and sensibility ; she is eminently loyal and spiritual. The better I under
stand this heart so tender, the more I feel that I could not too well repay her love.
How slowly each day brings the moment that unites us ! I love to surprise her
in the midst of the occupations which she invents for herself, while expecting me,,
she tells me. Yesterday I found her very busy copying a large boo’k of insignifi
cant music designed for schools. As I evinced my astonishment with much per
sistency, she ended by confessing that this work was one of her means of living. I
could not tell thee, Roger, the painful impression that this discovery made upon
me. The true duty of woman, is it not to surround man with the joys and affections
of the domestic hearth, and receive from him in exchange all the means of exist
ence that labor procures ? I would rather see the mother of a poor family washing
hei children s CiOthes, than see her earning a livelihood by her talents away from
home. I except, let it be understood, the eminent woman whose genius forces her
out of the family sphere. Such an one should find in society her free develop
ment ; for other minds are kindled by the exhibition of their powers.
I would not only that women might find in their fathers, their brothers, and
their husbands natural support; but that these supports failing them, they should
be sustained by governments. Institutions should be founded in which to unite
them and make use ot their various talents. There are many kinds of work that
can only be done by women. These labors could be performed in these establish
ments, where feeble and desolate women would at least be assured of a resource
against the wrongs which menace them in a struggle with the world without.
Our- towns would then have vast bazars where wealthy women would go to
choose their attire. We should no longer see poor girls attenuated by forced labor,
often obliged to walk all day to dispose of their work. These means, or others
analogous, would establish a slight proportion between the strength and the duties
of women, which are often so little in harmony.
�ELEVENTH LETTER.
MAURICE
TO ROGER.
Where to find a remnant of zeal in this weary, money-loving society ? Money !
that is the key to their dictionary, the word which we must absolutely grasp to
comprehend them.
I had confided to Count J--------our present position and my proceeding with
the Chamber. He thought he would benefit me by introducing me to several of the
men whom they call wise, no doubt because they have sacrificed the heart for the
good of the head. I did not believe that bluntness could go so far. The conversa
tion of these men resembled a veritable operation in stocks. It was a curious thing
to see their efforts to convert an unworldly person.
The obliging manner in which Count J----- — had introduced me to his circle
made me, in spite of myself, give my evidence. Forced to speak of my sentiments
and my opinions, I became at once the target for the whole assembly. They
defeated me in philosophy and morals. They were going to declare me sublime in
order to get rid of me, when one of the most influential men of the period took
me aside.
“ You resemble,” said he to me, “ a crow which pulls down walnuts. Do not
err thus. You have just offended men who were able and willing to serve you.
Arrange your affairs quickly ; and believe that a hero with fifteen thousand livres
rental is not strong enough to walk alone.”
This language astonished me so much that I remained silent.
“ You come,” he continued, “ to demand divorce; you are authorized by an
example striking enough. Truly, justice and reason are with you. A law restricted
like that which you demand, would pass without the least difficulty, and would be
a real benefit. Very well ! nevertheless, this law, it is a hundred to one, that you
will not obtain it.”
“ It is my conviction,” added he, while I repressed with difficulty a painful im
patience, “ the fault is yours, entirely yours. Wishing to play giant, foolishly
despising the hierarchy, refusing it deference, and exploring for all support the
arsenal of old words, is it not voluntarily taking the role of a dupe, and running,
dagger in hand, into the midst of a pigeon match ? Listen,” said he, “ if you were
not so young, you would be a fool. But that infirmity excuses everything. I offer
you, then, my influence with the ambassador of-------- . You have some position,
a noble figure ; you can advance yourself with him. You love a remarkable
woman, you will give her a station worthy of her; and believe me, love does very
well without marriage.”
Finishing his period, my worthy mentor threw me a significant glance and left,
me. I went to shake hands with Count J—
, so superior to the men by whom
he is surrounded, and I returned to Oneil with rage in my heart.
Roger, I shall promptly investigate what this man has said to me, and see if
there is no longer any trace of justice and honor in humanity. Lucie is too grand
and too pure to stoop before it.
TWELFTH LETTER.
LUCIE TO
MAURICE.
Maurice, you are noble and good. What heart can be more capable than yours
of comprehending justice and reason? 0 best and most generous of men, you to
whom I could have sacrificed with joy the peace of my whole life, could you but
know to what extent yours has been dear and sacred to me ! My beloved, it is in
vain that we attempt to struggle any longer against destiny. My soul is completely
broken under its blows. Alas ! when I gave myself up to the happiness of loving
�200
THE
LOVE-LIFE
OF
AUGUSTE
COMTE.
you, I thought to be able, in my turn, to add a charm to your life. Let me collect
my last powers in one consoling thought, hoping you will restore again to society
and your mother that which they have lost by your devotion to me. How often
have I seen your great soul incensed at the sight of the afflictions that fill the
world ! 0 Maurice! it is delicious to experience all generous emotions. What
destiny is at the same time greater and sweeter than that of the useful man ! Do
you not remember having often envied poor artisans the glory of a trifling dis
covery ? You who can do so much more than they, would you remain inactive ?
Dear, very dear friend, live to imprint on the earth your noble steps. When a man
like you appears in the midst of society, he should either bring to it his tribute of
light and virtue, or condemn himself to the silence and coldness of selfishness. I
know your soul; it is rich, and glowing as the clouds in a beautiful sky; never
would you have found happiness in isolation. Do not renounce family joys ; chil
dren will create great interests in your existence. You will find pleasure in devel
oping in them the noble germs that they will inherit from you. You will make
of their young hearts so many hearths in which the flame of yours will be diffused.
They will surround you with respect and love. O Maurice 1 are not all the felici
ties of life summed up in this single word ?
.
LAST LETTER.
DR.
L--------
TO
DR.
B--------.
My old friend, I approve the means you take in caring for yourself in turn. For
us. who believe in good, it is a painful spectacle that of society in disorder, where
nothing that is noble and great can succeed any longer. I have just witnessed
again one of those sacrifices which shock the heart and the reason. The unfortu
nate young woman whose history I have written to you, expired yesterday in my
arms, broken by sorrows that I refrain from describing to you. The man whom
she loved survived her but a few moments ; it seems as if he could comprehend
only his despair. In vain I tried to lead him to reason and calmness ; he blew out
his brains beside the death-bed. before I was able to prevent his fatal design.
Those who have known the interesting and unhappy woman whose loss I deplore, .
will comprehend the fatal passion that she inspired. She had one of those rare
organizations in which the heart and mind are equally balanced. No woman felt
more than she the possibilities of her position. She might have been an accom
plished mother and wife. Alas ! in seeing her die in my arms at the age when one
should live, I have painfully appreciated how little power is given to man to
repair the evil that he causes.
�
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
Love-life of Auguste Comte
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Croly, Jennie June [1829-1901]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: New York
Collation: [185]-201 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Modern Thinker, no. 1, 1870. Printed in red on pale yellow paper. The pseudonym of Jane Cunningham Croly, an English-born American journalist and clubwoman whose popular writings and socially conscious advocacy reflected her belief that equal rights and economic independence for women would allow them to become fully responsible, productive citizens. Includes a letter from Auguste Comte to Clothilde de Vaux, 'Lucie' a novelette by Vaux and her poem 'The Thoughts of a Flower'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5423
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Love-life of Auguste Comte), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philosophy
Auguste Comte
Clothilde de Vaux
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9a6614aa4e32e506592f6e8ac0ce5348.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mS5wyH7wSgTWulzNsvkAUZ2BzivX9KSrk-pfIrO%7Eb5nWHDppvpX7lcRuCVkT7HILOQEEg%7E70FrVU7X0-bA6nHTOVjUHJhIIkPDU7Exz1wWSQCjNJ-b-q5RC9Q%7E2glH8NTQIUtyUUPSCkihHP6XDZ2YPTYXA-3ArlnwYCWR3YofKoqpQ%7EqQFPA1qmQ0DPhnKj7OHAe5Q1CCx6Pl%7ErSMvTgUfdoyqg1SUMvAVX-YZIw3HEfKcklXU7K4qXjLGJ-9CKKdBsoW%7EkEzji995BCS67-WGc-iASelvR8spGTsEIhcC2HBjfgyR4mYvxJGMg804EQTs%7E4AmSbGLxznhVSi%7EIMA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
808ec0848457e086da0b0464311c6f8d
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
BY
SAMUEL LAING,
Author of “Modern Science and Modern ThoughtilA Modern
Zoroastrian,” “Problems of the Future,” etc.
ISSUED FOR THE
Jress OmmifteL
London :
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St.
Price One Penny.
�OUR PROPAGANDIST PRESS COMMITTEE.
This Committee has been formed for the purpose of assisting in
the production and circulation of liberal publications.
The members of the Committee are Mr. G. J. Holyoake, Dr.
Bithell, Mr. F. J. Gould, Mr. Frederick Millar, and Mr. Charles
A. Watts.
It is thought that the most efficient means of spreading the
principles of Rationalism is that of books and pamphlets. Many
will read a pamphlet who would never dream of visiting a lecture
hall. At the quiet fireside arguments strike home which might
be dissipated by the excitement of a public debate. The lecturer
wins his thousands, the penman his tens of thousands.
The aim of the various writers will be to obtain converts by
persuasiveness rather than undue hostility towards the popular
creeds.
All who are in sympathy with the movement are earnestly re
quested to contribute towards the expenses as liberally as their
means will allow. The names of donors will not be published
without their consent.
On the ist of January of each year a report and balance-sheet
will be forwarded to subscribers. The books of the Committee are
always accessible to donors.
Contributions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles A. Watts,
17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Cheques should
be crossed “Central Bank of London, Blackfriars Branch.”
PUBLICATIONS ISSUED FOR THE COMMITTEE BY
MESSRS. WATTS & CO.
Agnostic Problems. Being an Examination of Some Questions
■of the Deepest Interest, as Viewed from the Agnostic Standpoint.
By R. Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. Cheap Popular Edition, cloth, 2s. 6d.
post free.
Agnosticism and Immortality. By S. Laing, author of “ Modern
Science and Modern Thought,” etc. id., by post ij^d. Special
terms for quantities.
Humanity and Dogma. By Amos Waters, id., by post i%d.
.Special terms for quantities.
LIBERTY OF BEQUESTS COMMITTEE.
'This Committee has been formed for procuring the passing of a
law legalising bequests for Secular and Free Thought purposes.
As the law now stands, all legacies left for the diffusion and main
tenance of Secular or Free Thought principles can be confiscated.
Subscriptions in furtherance of the object of this Committee may
,be sent to Mr. Charles A. Watts, 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street,
London, E.C., or to the care of the Hon. Secretary, Mr. H. L.
Braekstad, 138, Loughborough Park, London, S.W.
�AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
a To be, or not to be, that is the question ”—a question
which has been asked before and after Hamlet, in all
ages and countries where mankind has risen from blank
savagery to thought and intelligence. The love of life,
the horror of annihilation, are instincts common to men
and to the whole animal creation. In civilised man
this instinct rises beyond the vague terror of death and
fear of the unknown. He “ looks before and after
his sense of justice longs for a future life to redress the
wrongs and sufferings of the present one; his affections
crave for a sight of faces which he has loved and lost;
all the feelings of his complex nature cry out for some
assurance of a continued existence. On the other hand,
all positive knowledge and experience fail to give him
this assurance, and rather tell him that, as his individual
existence began with birth, so it will terminate with
death.
How stands this most momentous of all problems in
the light of modern science, and of that development of
it which is fast invading modern thought under the
compendious term of “ Agnosticism ” ?
To attack a problem we must begin by clearly defining
its conditions. What do we mean when we talk of a
“ future life ” and of “ immortality ” ? Clearly, for all
practical purposes, we mean a life in which we retain
our personal identity and individual consciousness. To
be absorbed in some metaphysical essence, or soul of
the universe, as some tiny rivulet is in the pathless
ocean, is tantamount to annihilation. Extremes meet,
and the Nirvana, which is the ultimate goal of the most
�2
AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
purely metaphysical religion, that of Buddhism, lands us
practically in the same conclusion as that of the Mate
rialist, to whom life and consciousness are but functions
of particular modes of cell-motions.
It is important to keep this distinction well in mind,
for it bears upon the next stage of the inquiry—viz.,
what are the historical facts of the problem ? What are
the views of it which have been entertained by different
nations and in different ages ? Do they show such a
general consensus of opinion as may establish at any
rate a frima facie case for any definite conclusion, and
show it to be a necessary product of the evolution of
the human mind ? Or are they so conflicting as to
neutralise one another, and show that no common con
clusion holds the field, which remains open for inquiries
conducted with all the latest resources of modern know
ledge ? The answer must be that the latter is undoubt
edly the true state of the case.
If we take immortality to mean the preservation of
conscious personal identity after death, the majority of
mankind have had no such belief. The countless
millions of Brahmins and Buddhists do not get nearer
to it than to assume some vague absorption into the
soul of the universe, after more or less transmigration
through other forms of life. Plato and his followers had
much the same idea, in a more refined and philoso
phical form, of an unconscious pre-existence in the
universal- spirit before birth, and return to it after death
—a speculation which we find in the creeds of almost
all our modern poets, and which is stated with much
force and precision by Wordsworth in his ode on
“Immortality.” Other nations, such as the Chinese
and Japanese, have no distinct ideas on the subject
beyond a vague veneration for departed ancestors, and
their educated classes accept either the Agnosticism,
pure and simple, of Confucius, or some vague concep
tion of Buddhistic philosophy. The lower classes, and
savage and semi-civilised races generally, have a sort of
rude faith in ghosts, which are scarcely distinguishable
from the evil spirits in which unknown or injurious
forces of Nature are personified.
The first dawn of a belief in a continued personal
�AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
3
existence after death is found in the interments of the
neolithic period, in which weapons and food were de
posited for the use of a departed chief in the happier
hunting-ground of another world, and slaves were sacri
ficed so as to give him an appropriate retinue.
From this germ arose the Egyptian creed, which was
for so many centuries by far the most powerful and
practical exemplification of a belief in a future existence
by a great civilised nation. They looked, as Herodotus
tells us, on their tombs as their permanent abodes, and
the homes in which they lived as mere temporary occu
pations. Their idea was that every existence, animate
or inanimate, consisted of two parts, the material body
and the seol, or incorporeal spirit, which could wander
about in dreams, and, after death, continue a shadowy
existence, living on shadowy food, and taking pleasure
in shadowy geese and kine and other belongings. But
this seol must have a corporeal body, or semblance of its
old material self, as a basis for its existence, and hence
the care and expense which were lavished on mummies
and on paintings on the walls of tombs.
It is remarkable that, wherever the faith in a personal
immortality of the soul has been at all strong, it has
been associated with an equally strong faith in the
resurrection of the body. The old Egyptians and the
early Christians equally shared this belief; and even in
the more shadowy mythology of the Greek and Roman
world due funeral rites to the body were considered
necessary to save the departed soul from wandering, as
a shivering, bodiless ghost, on the banks of the melan
choly Styx.
Another remarkable nation, the Jews, entirely ignored
the idea of a future existence—a most singular circum-,
stance, considering that they were so long in contact
with the Egyptians, with whom it was the pervading
fact of their daily life, and that the Jews were supposed
to be a chosen people, specially instructed by Jehovah.
And yet nothing can be clearer than that, from the time
of Moses down to that of Ecclesiastes—and even later,
as held by the Sadducees, the conservative aristocracy,
who clung most tenaciously by the old law—the pure
Jewish faith was that death was annihilation, and rewards
�4
AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
and punishments were dispensed either to the individual
in this life or to his posterity.
Nothing can be more explicit than the words of
Ecclesiastes which are put in the mouth of the great
preacher, King Solomon, as the result of his long expe
rience and deep wisdom : “ A living dog is better than
a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die,
but the dead know not anything, neither have they any
more a reward.” And again : “ There is no work, nor
device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither
thou goest.”
It is not a little surprising that a religion like Chris
tianity, in which eternal life and future rewards and
punishments are such essential elements, should have
originated from the matter-of-fact and almost Materialistic
creed of Mosaic Judaism. Orthodox theologians will,,
of course, say that it was because it pleased God to con
ceal these things from former generations, and to teach
them for the first time by a new revelation. The retort
is obvious : if Jehovah were a just and benevolent Deity,,
why should he mislead his own chosen people by allowing
Moses, Abraham, and other pious patriarchs after his
own heart, to believe and teach the direct opposite of
these essential truths ? But the retort, however obvious,
is effective only against the idolaters of the Bible; for
its sincere students it is more to the purpose to observe
that the assumption that these Christian dogmas are
taught by Divine inspiration is met at the very outset by
this staggering objection. What Jesus, St. Paul, and
the Apostles taught respecting the immortality of the
soul was this: that our personal identity after death
would be preserved by a resurrection of the body, which
was to take place in the lifetime of some of the existing
generation. This is stated over and over again in the
most distinct and positive terms, and, if the prophecy
failed, there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament
to teach us anything certain as to any future life. The
last judgment is, in like manner, inextricably mixed up
with the advent of Jesus in a cloud, with a trumpet and
angels, within the prescribed time.
Now, it is historically certain that the prophecy was a
mistake; 1800 years have elapsed, and the end of the
�AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
5
world, the bodily resurrection, and the Day of Judgment,
as described by Jesus and St. Paul, have not come. It
is equally certain that, scientifically, no resurrection of
the material body is possible. Death resolves the atoms
and energies of which it was composed into new and
simpler forms, which enter into totally different combi
nations. What becomes, then, of the superstructure
of a personal identity after death, when it is based on
two pillars which have crumbled into dust? It is.as
though it had never been made, and the fact remains
that in no religion of ancient or modern times can we
find any reliable information, or general consensus of
opinion, as to that greatest of all mysteries—what may
be “ behind the veil.” If from Theology we fall back
on Science, we have real and accurate information up to
a certain point; but the final step escapes us. We know
in the most precise and accurate manner that all we call
soul, spirit, thought, memory, will, perception, and con
sciousness are indissolubly connected with definite
motions of minute cells in the cortex or grey enveloping
matter of the brain. Given the motions of given cells,
and the corresponding effects will follow with the same
certainty as if we were nothing but an electric battery,
with nerves for conducting wires. And, conversely,
without the proper inducing motions of nerve-cells the
effects will not follow. This has been proved by such
innumerable experiments that I shall confine myself to
noticing a few which have the most direct bearing on
the question of soul or personal identity.
Memory is clearly at the bottom of this feeling of
personality. It links together past perceptions, and
makes us feel that they are not isolated phenomena, but
have an unity and connection, as having happened to
one and the same person—viz., ourselves. Now, it is
quite possible to obliterate portions of the memory by
destroying portions of the grey matter of the brain appro
priated for remembering that particular class of impres
sions. For instance, there is in the back part of the
brain a tract of grey matter, connected by a collection
of fine conducting wires, called the optic nerve, with the
retina, which enables us to see. Surrounding this is
another tract of grey matter, connected with the former,
�6
AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
which serves as a sort of register office for messages sent
from the eye to the central telegraph office—or, in other
words, which is appropriated to the memory of visual
perceptions. Destroy the first or central office, and we
can no longer see. Leave it untouched, but destroy
the second or register office, and we can see, but no
longer remember what is seen.
In like manner with the sense of hearing: there is a
central office by which we hear, and a connected register
office by which we remember what we have heard.
Destroy the latter, and all memory of all we have ever
heard passes away from us. Memory, therefore, is
clearly proved to be not merely a general function of the
brain en masse, but a special function of special portions
of the brain, told off for the purpose of converting
mechanical impressions received from the outer world,
through the senses, into registered messages, which form
the raw material of what we call memory, which is
itself the substratum of consciousness.
The will is another faculty which is commonly attri
buted to personal identity, and yet it also is indissolubly
associated with brain motion. Nothing can well be
more mechanical than straining the eye to look at a
black wafer stuck on a white wall. And yet, by this
purely mechanical process, a state called hypnotism can
be frequently induced, in which the will is apparently
lost, and the will of another personality—that of the
operator—is substituted for it. Thus, in the well-known
experiment of Dr. Braid, a puritanical old lady, to whom
dancing was an invention of Satan, was sent capering
about the room to a reel tune, when told to do so by
the Doctor. Nay, further, it is shown, by the careful
experiments scientifically conducted at the Salpetriere
by eminent French physicians, that a suggestion to an
hypnotised patient may affect his or her brain move
ments in such a way as to give rise to the corresponding
actions of nerves and muscles weeks after the suggestion
was made and the hypnotic state had passed away.
Thus a moral person may be irresistibly impelled to
commit an atrocious crime on a specified person at a
specified date, which would have been utterly repugnant
to the patient’s normal nature.
�AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
7
In like manner, visible things may be rendered invis
ible, and invisible things visible, by this hypnotic sug
gestion. And, what is even more extraordinary and
more directly materialistic, these suggested emotions and
perceptions may be transferred into one another by the
action of a magnet. A case is recorded in Binet and
Fere’s volume on the Salpetriere experiments in which a
patient told to hate one of the doctors endeavoured to
strike him; but, on a magnet being held near the back
of her head, hate was changed into love, and she tried
to embrace him. Another case is interesting as bearing
on the question of personal identity. A female patient,
-On being told that she was one of the doctors, imme
diately assumed his gait and manner, and stroked an
imaginary moustache; and, being asked if she knew her
real self, replied : “ Oh, yes, there is an hysterical patient
of that name who is not over-wise.”
The same phenomenon of a dual personality is fre-quently found in persons who have received some injury
to the brain, and are subject to trances. They have two
personalities—one of a real, the other of a trance life,
which are quite distinct and each unconscious of the
•other; so that Smith may be alternately Jones or Smith,
.as he falls into or awakes from a succession of trances.
In other words, the brain is like a barrel organ, which
plays one tune in its normal state and a different one
when the stops have been altered by some abnormal
influence.
In short, the last word of physiological
science is that all which we call soul, mind, conscious
ness, or personality, are functions of matter and motion.
Observe, however, that, when we ticket the facts with
the word function, we explain nothing, but simply sum
up the results by affirming that, as far as human experi
ence goes, the two phenomena go necessarily and inevit
ably together.
There is another class of experiments recorded by the
eminent French physician, M. Binet, in the columns
of the Open Court, which bears very directly on this
.question of a conscious personality. It is not uncommon
with hysterical patients to find portions of the body or
particular limbs which are subject to what is called
.ansesthesia. That is, they are insensible to pain, as in
�8
AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
the case of chloroform, and cut off from all connection
with the conscious self, as completely as if they were
external pieces of matter. But, if certain motions are
suggested to the paralysed limb, the same results will
follow as if they had been dictated by will and accom
panied by consciousness. Thus, if a pen be put in the
ansesthetic hand between the thumb and the index
finger, without the subject seeing or being in any way
conscious of it, he will seize it, and his other fingers and
arm assume the attitude necessary for writing. Suppose,
next, we make the pen write a familiar word, such as the
subject’s name ; after a short interval, the unconscious
and paralysed hand will write the word over again, some
times five or six times. And, what is still more extra
ordinary, if we purposely write the word with a wrong or
superfluous letter, when the subject repeats the word
the anaesthetic hand will hesitate when it comes to the
mistake, and, after several attempts, frequently end by
correcting it.
Now, in this experiment we have clearly proved, as
Binet says, an unconscious perception, an unconscious
reasoning and memory, and an unconscious volition. It
is clear, therefore, that, in such a case, the essential
elements, not merely of unconscious reflex movements
of nerve and muscle, but of all that we are accustomed
to consider as mind or spirit, have been reduced to un
conscious or mechanical conditions. As Huxley puts
it, you may suppress consciousness, and yet all physiolo
gical phenomena will continue to be performed auto
matically just as before; objects will continue to be
perceived, unconscious reasonings will develop, followed
by acts of adaptation. This is not “ Agnosticism,” but
science and hard fact, with which the orthodox believers
in soul or spirit have to reckon, just as much as those
who fail to discover in the problem anything that can be
solved by human faculty. In fact, no one can state this
more explicitly than one of the ablest of modern theo
logians, Principal Caird, in his sermon preached before
the British Medical Association in 1888, in which he
says : “ Of the thoughts, emotions, volitions, which in
endless multiplicity and variety constitute our conscious
life, there is not one which is not correlated to some
�AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
9
physical change or motion in the brain-matter of the
thinker; and, as far as we know, the growth, develop
ment, decline, the healthy or morbid action of the human
mind, is invariably connected with corresponding changes
of nervous or brain tissue.” But Dr. Caird, who is not
a mere commonplace theologian, but candid, sincere,
and. thoroughly acquainted with the latest discoveries of
science, falls back on two arguments to refute the con
clusions of Materialism—the first scientific, the second
metaphysical. The first invokes the principle of the
“ Conservation of Energy.” Dr. Caird argues that the
soul, as distinct from the body, is an energy, and, there
fore, indestructible. In the first place, if it were true,
it would point rather to the Brahminical and Buddhistic
doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and ultimate
merger in the one universal and eternal energy. But
the premise involves the fallacy so common in all theo
logical arguments, that known to theologians as the
petitio principn. It assumes a soul which is at one and
the same time immaterial and material. That is, imma
terial as being subject to none of the ordinary laws of
matter, such as gravity, form, and extension; material
as being subject to the law of indestructibility, which is
known to us only as another attribute of ordinary matter
and energy. If there be a soul or spirit, how do we
know that this law applies to it; or, if it did, that it is not
transformed into some sort of dead or potential energy
after the active energy comes to an end with the disso
lution of the material frame, in association with which
we alone have any knowledge of it ? For there is no
fact more certain than that we have absolutely no know
ledge of any soul apart from this association. No man
of sane mind will assert that he has any recollection of
anything that occurred before he was born, or that he
has received any authentic message from any world of
spirits inhabited by the dead. The last word of science
is—“ Behind the veil.”
The second or metaphysical argument is that the very
existence of matter implies thought. We know nothing
of matter and motion in themselves, but only as they
appear to us, which is after they have been transfigured,
by something antecedent to and independent of them,
�IO
AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
which we call thought or consciousness. It is argued,
therefore, that all phenomena require us to assume the
existence of an universal mind in which they are con
ceived, and that, to constitute the reality of the outward
world, the presence and the comparing, discriminating
and unifying activity of thought is pre-supposed. There
fore, there is an universal, eternal thought or soul of the
universe, which, expressed in anthropomorphic language,
is called God, of whom we may say, with St. Paul: “ Of
Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things.”
This seems a stupendous superstructure of assertion
to raise on the slender foundation that, as a matter of
fact, according to the experience of the inhabitants of
our tiny planet, thought or consciousness, and brain or
nerve motion, do commonly, though, as we have seen,
not invariably, go together. It is not by any means
clear, even in man’s limited sphere of knowledge, which
of the two is the post hoc and which the propter hoc;
and no real assurance can result from the double guess
- first, that our own mind is the propter hoc, or originat
ing fact of our own existence; and, secondly, that, if
so, the same is true of all existence in the universe.
The fact is that these metaphysical solutions of the
mysteries of the universe never give any certain assur
ance even to the acutest philosopher, and to the great
mass of mankind they are not even intelligible. More
over, it is to be remarked that, even if philosophers
could establish the truth of their proposition as to mind
and thought, it would not take us one step further towards
proving what is the real object of our hopes and fears
—the continuance of our personal identity after death.
On the contrary, Dr. Caird’s whole argument tends to
the conclusion of Brahmins, Buddhists, and Platonists
that individual existences come from, and return to,
the great universal soul or energy of the universe, like
the waves which rise and fall, rippling for an instant the
surface of the pathless ocean. To carry this one step
further and arrive at a personal God, with intelligence
and feelings like those of a magnified man, even such
an acute reasoner as Dr. Caird has to fall back on wishes
rather than reasons. He finds that “ a God outside of
knowledge, the dark, impenetrable background of the
�AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
II
phenomenal world,” is not 11 the boon he wants,” and he
accordingly postulates something nearer to him and more
in accordance with his personal aspirations and feelings.
But wishes are not proofs, and there are many things
which, although we desire them ever so ardently, do not
come to pass. What can be more intense or more legi
timate than the longing of a mother to receive some
message from a lost child ?—and yet it has never been
gratified. How many lovers have been parted, how many
minds extinguished, in the full maturity of powers which
might have benefitted mankind, and where are their
hopes and fears, their ardent affections, their far-reaching
plans ? Buried in the grave, where there is “ no work,
nor device, nor knowledge ” beyond that “ undiscovered
bourne from which no traveller returns.”
And it is to be noticed that, even if we were to admit as
proved the arguments for a personal God and an inspired
revelation, we should not be one step advanced towards
any certain assurance of a personal immortality. For
what this personal God is assumed to teach us by His
inspired record in the Bible is this : Firstly, by the Old
Testament, that there is no future life; secondly, by the
New Testament, that there is a future life, but coupled
with the condition of a resurrection of the body within
the lifetime of a generation who have all been dead for
1800 years. Clearly there is nothing in this which
approaches within a hundred miles of anything like
certain and definite knowledge.
What, then, is the attitude of Agnosticism towards
this great question of personal immortality ? All gnostic
forms of religions and philosophies—that is, all systems
which teach that the question is knowable, and within
the range of human faculties, either with or without the
aid of revelation—break down under critical and candid
investigation. If I were placed in the position of a
conscientious juryman, who was told that the court is
competent and the case closed, and that I was bound to
deliver a verdict “Aye” or “No” upon the evidence as
it stands, I should feel constrained, however reluctantly,
to say “ No.” But this would not be my true deliver
ance. I should much prefer to return a verdict of “Not
proven,” or rather I should say the court has no jurisdic-
�12
AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY.
tion, and should walk out without giving any verdict at
all. This an Agnostic may do with perfect good faith.
He believes that our little knowable world is encircled
by a great Unknowable, in which all things are possible.
He stands, like the Ulysses of the poet, on the margin
of that great ocean beyond the setting sun, on which so
many millions of millions have embarked, and not one
has returned. He, too, like the rest, must soon follow,
and turn his prow westwards. What fate is in store for
him ? Shall the gulfs wash him down and merge forever
his frail bark of hopes in the fathomless depths of a
sleep where there are no dreams; or shall he perchance
arrive at some fortunate islands of the West where' he
may survive in some newer and better life,
“ See the great Achilles whom we knew,”
and, dearer than the great Achilles, once more behold
the faces of those whom he has loved and lost ? He
knows not: no voice on earth, no message from thq
dead, ever reaches him, and one thing only remains—
to possess his soul with patience, and to oppose “ one
equal temper of heroic hearts ” to the decrees of destiny
and of the irrevocable future. But in the meantime he
may dream his dreams and indulge in his visions without
fear of contradiction, and without vitiating his manhood
by pretending to believe as certain where there is no
certainty. Surely this is better than to pin his faith on
assurances of certainty which break down under the
first touch of the Ithuriel spear of candid and critical
investigation, and leave him either shivering in the cold
creed of “ dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return,”
or wrapped in an unhealthy mantle of prejudices and
prepossessions, impervious to the invigorating breezes of
truth, of candour, and of sincerity.
�WATTS & CO.’S LIST.
A Lay Sermon. By S.
Laing (Author of “ Modern Science and Modern Thought
and “A Modern Zoroastrian ”). This booklet is an impartial
and vigorous statement of the attitude of Agnosticism towards
Christianity, and sets forth the moral advantages likely to accrue
from the acceptance of Agnosticism. Single copies 6d, by post
7d; 13, 5s post free ; 50, 18s carriage paid.
Agnosticism and Christianity.
Thoughtful, lucid, practical, liberal in sentiment, and high in moral tone.
It is a delightful little book, which does the spirit and the temper good to read,
for it is large in charity, never offensive, and most welcome in counsel.........
full of thought most lucidly expressed.—Secular Review.
Agnostic Morality. By R. Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. Single copies
6d, by post 7d ; 13, 5s post free ; 50s, 18s carriage paid.
“ Agnostic Morality ” is excellent....... Dr. Bithell has a fair grasp of the subject, and much perspicacity.—Progress.
By B. Russell. A Concise
and Popular Exposition, in Language Understanded of the
People. 4d, by post 5d.
The Case for Agnosticism.
The Popular Faith Exposed. By Julian. This is a critical
and scholarly examination of Orthodox Christianity, and is
strongly recommended. Single copies 6d, by post 7^5 13, 5s
post free ; 50, 18s carriage paid.
Bible Words: Human, not Divine. By Julian. This is
a pamphlet setting forth, in common-sense language, and free
from exaggeration and vituperation, the most glaring absurdities
and contradictions of the Bible. Price 3d, by post 3%d ; 13,
2s 6d post free ; 50, 9s carriage paid.
The Future of Morality, as Affected by the Decay of Prevalent
Religious Beliefs. By M. S. Gilliland, Single copies 4d, by
post 4%d; 13, 3s 6d post free ; 50, 12s carriage paid.
The Confession of Agnosticism. By G. M. McC. Chapter
I. Introductory. Chapter II. Misconceptions. Chapter III.
Fundamentals. Chapter IV. The Perfect Life. Chapter V.
The Other Side of Agnosticism. Chapter VI. Faith and
Manners. Single copies 6d, by post 7d ; 13, 5s post free ; 50,
18s carriage paid.
The Excellent Religion. An Essay on the Relations be
tween Agnosticism, the Polar Theory of Being, and the Higher
Theism. By G. C. Griffith-Jones (Lara). Single copies 6d,
by post 7d ; 13, 5s post free 5'50, 18s carriage paid.
A Friendly Correspondence with Mr. Gladstone about
Creeds. By S. Laing. This pamphlet contains the Articles
of the Agnostic Creed drawn up at the request of Mr. Gladstone.
6d, by post 7d.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�Demy 8vo, handsomely bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d. post free,
CHEAP POPULAR EDITION
OF
AGNOSTIC PROBLEMS.
BEING AN EXAMINATION OF SOME QUESTIONS OF
THE:
DEEPEST INTEREST, AS VIEWED FROM THE AGNOSTIC
STANDPOINT.
By RICHARD BITHELL, B.Sc., Ph.D.
The volume is fascinatingly interesting, remarkably complete, and sothoroughly explains the Agnostic position that the merest tyro in metaphysics
may grasp its contents....... “Agnostic Problems” has filled a gap that had
remained too long open ; and, without any desire to flatter Dr. Bithell, it may
be truthfully said that it has filled it with such solid material that it will re
quire more than all the united strength of the opponents of Agnosticism to
shatter one single stone of the substantial edifice thus put together. The work
is one that ought to be read by every thinking man, be he Christian, Jew,
Agnostic, or Atheist.—Secular Review.
Handsomely bound in cloth, price is. 6d., by post is. 8d.,
Stepping-Stones to Agnosticism.
By F. J. GOULD.
With Introduction by G. J. Holyoake.
Contents.—I. Ecce Deus; or, A New God. II. Miracles
Weighed in the Balances. III. Our Brother Christ. IV. The
Immortal Bible. V. The Noble Path. VI. Agnosticism Writ
Plain.
Bound in cloth, price 2s., by post 2s. 3d.,
AGNOSTIC FIRST PRINCIPLES.
Being a Critical Exposition of the Spencerian System of Thought.
By ALBERT SIMMONS (Ignotus).
With Preface
by
Richard Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Agnosticism and immortality
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laing, Samuel [1812-1897]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Issued for the Propagandist Press Committee. Publisher's list inside and on back cover. Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (RPA, 2003), Appx. 1.
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
[1890]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N428
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Immortality
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 immortality), 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
Agnosticism
Immortality
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bfc2d0adea1377e29071531f3536bd7a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TliiGpUjsiKs6nFfoV1fCfPYs%7E%7ETORHqgBNHBDdk4arXrzabt4hTmZjRgL-Zc2G2n5oDCXQk6zKZ5VikN7zbdbCUfgAmzBmmv0vwjGJIAD8mzBVQN48dzLsgiVnG1El66b1PukwljPfimvDWhJB2%7Ekz0zms6wooBqy8US439iMM-qZ6JehG34xsFAsF8Dojn3wLUevSgNf2ccZ3OOR4VE3gYjHMmZID7hwMFqse0LZJ3zheanyWpZbaxglxccpG7tUz%7EPSKvxBcrLq%7ENDcTGGXpz8UbjFtf0NZ59R4wNM9PNXkMyqaWWKunjCgs-mBPX1sRcHj3cdBkXLll3tqAyQA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
67677de598a438f6d8053e9ede309360
PDF Text
Text
of Secularism
Tl?e
COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought
CONTENTS.
Physical Teachings
Intellectual Teachings
Present Condition of Society
Morality
Ethics add Religion
Secularism and the Supernatural
Secularism at the hour of Death
Secularism in Theory
Secularism in Practice
Secularism more Reasonable than Christi
anity
Secularism more Noble than Christi
anity
Secularism more Beneficial than Christi
anity
Secularism Progressive
Secularism, its Triumphs
Secularism, its Service to Mankind
Secularism, its Struggles in the Past
Secularism, in the Future
Secularism, Summing up
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
��Tfye Teacfyin^s of Secularism
COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought
CONTENTS
Physical Teachings
Intellectual Teachings
Present Condition of Society
Morality
Ethics and Religion
Secularism and the Supernatural
Secularism at the hour of Death
Secularism in Theory
Secularism in Practice
Secularism more Reasonable than Christi
anity
Secularism more Noble than Christi
anity
Secularism more Beneficial than Christi
anity
Secularism Progressive
Secularism, its Triumphs
Secularism, its Service to Mankind
Secularism, its Struggles in the Past
Secularism, in the Future
Secularism, Summing up
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
��SECULAR TEACHINGS.
I. PHYSICAL.
♦
As Secularism has been so thoroughly misrepresented of late in
the press and pulpits of Toronto, we purpose in the following pages
to explain to our readers what true Secular principles really are.
We commence at the very foundation of our philosophy. The first
subject of importance to man is his physical health. His bodily
organization, from any point of view, demands special concern.
With an abnormal condition of body a normal state of mind is
hardly possible ; and certain it is that there must be an entire ab.sence of comfort and pleasure where the physical frame is subject
to the ailments of disease. Of all the branches of knowledge that
civilized man has engaged in that which relates to his own health
is of supreme importance.
Man is related to everything that surrounds him. The sun influ
ences his daily life, and the moon and stars light him to his couch
■of repose. The earth furnishes him with the ten thousand needs of
his bodily frame, and the very winds are his servants. Electricity,
and the other mighty forces of nature, he makes subservient to his
will, while the lower animals and plants he employs for his daily
food. Wherever he looks, and with whatever object he comes into
^contact, he finds materials ready made to his hands, to be moulded
into new forms for new uses all subservient to his life and happi
ness. It is of the highest importance, however, how he uses those
agents. For while they are all adapted to supply health and com
fort, they are also calculated to spread abroad disease and death.
The most beneficial object with which he is called upon to deal
frequently becomes the vehicle of some fatal malady. Great care,
�2
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
therefore, is requisite in dealing with these. That which is, under
ordinary circumstances, the most productive of good, may become
the deadliest of poisons. The water we drink may contain the
seeds of death, and the very atmosphere become the means of dis
seminating contagion. What is called physical education is. there
fore, deemed by Secularism of paramount importance.
It has been said that self-preservation is the first law of nature,
yet in respect to health it is frequently most terribly neglected. In
this age, when enlightenment has become so wide-spread, and edu
cation so general, it is lamentable to see how coldly indifferent
many persons are with regard to the laws upon which their health
depends. A sound mind in a sound body every person extols in
theory, but in practice, alas ! how rarely do we come across either
the one or the other ? Health all agree to be the chief good of
life, the principal aim of man ; and yet how few pursue it as though
they considered it worth the seeking for. Money, fame, the
“ bubble-reputation,” ambition, men struggle to obtain, overcoming
what appear to be insurmountable difficulties in the contest; but
health, which is of a thousand times more importance than all the
others put together, they scarcely bestow a thought upon, until it
is irretrievably ruined and incapable of being restored. Then
physicians are asked in vain to do that which was once so easy,
but has now become impossible. It was Voltaire, I think, who de
fined a physician as a man who was asked every day to perform a
miracle—viz., to reconcile health with intemperance. But it is not
simply intemperance, in the sense in which that word is usually
employed, that destroys health, but a thousand apparently harmless
acts which are every day performed, which eat into and destroy
the most vigorous frame and strongest constitution. The neglect
of the important laws of life is one of the deplorable evils of the
present age, and it is to be found, not simply amongst the illiterate,
but it reigns supreme in the midst of the halls of intellect, the
temples of genius, and even the places where Science should hold
her sway. In this age, when knowledge of natural law is so
general, and when most persons are aware that defective health is
to be largely traced to a derangement of one or more of the vital
functions, such as digestion, circulation, respiration, and that these
functions are to a large extent mutually dependent in the economy
of the human frame, we should expect them all to be most assidu
ously attended to and cultivated. Unfortunately, this is not so, for
it too often happens that if one of these functions receive any at-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
3
tention, the rest will be completely neglected, and eyen the utter
neglect of them all is far from being uncommon. Sir Philip Sidney
has well said that :—
“ The ingredients of health and long life are,
Great temperance, open air, light labour, little care.*
All these are most terribly neglected in these modern times. Our
business pursuits, as a rule, shut out the whole of these ingredients,
and hence the prevalent disease and premature deaths that abound
amongst us.
The relations of the human body to the aliment which sustains
it is a point of the greatest moment. As is the food of a people, so
will the people be. Gross diet makes gross men and women ; an
extravagant and luxurious regimen will result in indolence and
apathy on the part of those who indulge in it, and pure, healthy,
and unstimulating food will give rise to (other things being equal)
a pure, virtuous, and healthy population. There can be no doubt
that the downfall of the great Roman Empire, so long the mistress
of the world, was largely due to the extravagant and luxurious
living of the Emperors. From this came indolence, effeminacy,
and finally the overthrow of the whole Empire. There is one fact
in connection with food which may be mentioned here ; it is that
nature has placed within us certain sensations, which point out to
us, in an infallible manner, when we require afresh supply. These,
of course, we do not fail to attend to in some way or other, since to
neglect them is painful. But we violate great and important laws
bearing on the question notwithstanding. We eat too rapidly, we
do not allow the requisite time for digestion, and, above all, we are
not careful as to the kind of food we take. We study our appetites
rather than our health. The consequence of all this may be easily
foreseen. As we have to go in search of our food, we require to
labour to procure it, and hence some sort of forethought and judg
ment is essential to the obtaining it, which fact of itself no doubt
causes us to devote a larger share of attention to the subject than
we otherwise should do ; but still with all this the neglect is terrible
to contemplate.
With the air we breathe the case is very different from the food.
Except under circumstances attending its entire exclusion, we ex
perience no sensations as to the need of it at all corresponding to
the appetite for food. Neither does any sense analogous to taste
enable us to detect its impurities. True, this is done to a certain
�4
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
texent with the nose, but only in a very partial degree. The at
mosphere of a room may be deteriorated to an extent highly preju
dicial to health, and we may remain in entire ignorance of the fact.
The consequence is that our negligence here is a thousand times
greater than in regard to food, and hence the innumerable train of
diseases that flow from the inhaling of impure air, with which
every student of sanitary science is familiar.
Impure air is one of the chief causes of disease at the present
time, and it is also a source of enfeebled intellect and deteriorated
morals. For virtue and health are more nearly allied than many
persons imagine. And the intellect cannot be clear in an atmos
phere that is not fit to breathe. The great thinkers of the past
spent most of their time in the open air. Sir Isaac Newton made
his greatest discovery in a garden where he was accustomed to
carry on his studies. To go farther back, the Peripatetics, the
most enlightened philosophers, perhaps, of their age, used to walk
up and down in the porches of the Lyceum at Athens. And of old
Homer, who spent most of his life in wandering from placetoplace
in the open air, it is said ;—
“ Seven cities contend for Homer dead,
Through which the living Homer begged his bread.”
This is not the place to enlarge in detail upon the advantages of
pure air or sound food ; but to point out the great importance of
attending to the laws of health is the duty of every Secular teacher,
for what is true Secularism but to make the very best use of the
world in which we live ? Hence the health of the body should
claim the foremost attention amongst Secular duties.
II. INTELLECTUAL.
The great John Locke well remarked that 11 In the sciences every
one has as much as he really knows and comprehends. What he
believes only, and takes upon trust, are but shreds which, however
Well in the whole piece, make no considerable addition to his stock
who gathers them. Such borrowed wealth, like fairy money, though
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
5
it were gold in the hand from which he received it, will be but leaves
and dust when it comes to use.” Knowledge is to-day diffused over
a larger surface in society than it ever was before. Yet, unfortu
nately, through indolence or inability, or some other cause, the
great mass of mankind are content to skim lightly over its surface,
leaving the sweets of its inner mysteries untasted. Such persons
are like tourists who content themselves with congregating upon
the frontiers of a country, but do not care to penetrate into the
interior. It is to be regretted that most men’s information upon
the great questions of science and philosophy is extremely super
ficial. As a rule, men are not thinkers ; thinking is a process, which,
being laborious, becomes tiresome and fatiguing to all but a few
who have cultivated their intellectual powers to such a degree as
to render it easy and agreeable. The consequence is, that for every
one who possesses anything like profound information upon any '
particular topic there are ten thousand who simply repeat other
men’s opinions, having none of their own, nor any real material
stored in their minds out of which such could be manufactured.
The bright side of this state of things is that it has greatly tended
to the multiplication of elementary books on the various branches
of science. These books, elementary as they are, usually show a
considerable improvement upon the knowledge of former days, and
prove, therefore, conclusively the direction in which humanity is
moving. That mankind are advancing intellectually there can be
no doubt. Looking back to the infancy of our race, at least as
near to that time as history will allow us to approach, and contrast
ing the state of things then existing with what we experience to
day, we cannot but be struck with surprise at the enormous changes
that have occurred. Yet in science more real progress has been
made in the last half century than in all the previous ages. The
present is, therefore, essentially a scientific age. And although the
general knowledge, of mankind is on the surface, still it is a great
improvement on the past, which argues well for the future. Our
task—the task of to-day—is rather to help on the movement than
to complain that it has not gone further on, or struck its roots deeper
into the soil of human nature.
Civilization, says Guizot, embraces two elements—the improve
ment of society and the improvement of the man ; and the ques
tion which he says is put to all events is, What have they done for
the one or the other ? I stop not here to enter upon a discussion
fraught with difficulty, and yet full of interest, as to which of these
�6
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
is the cause and which the effect, or whether they may not each be
cause and effect in turn. Guizot himself seems to think—and he
quotes Collard on that side—that the individual is made to advance
society. But much might be said on the other side. Our real busi
ness as Secularists, however, is to see that some kind of advance
does take place, and to help it on to the utmost extent of our power.
No doubt, mental progress is a law of the race, and as such will
force its way on at any risk or cost. As the poet has said:—
“ Go bid the ocean cease to heave,
The river cease to flow,
Bid smiling Spring retrace her steps,
And flowrets cease to blow.
Go drive the wild winds to their home,
The lightning to its nest,
Then bid the car of progress stay,
Whose courses never rest.”
In this matter we should resolve to aid in pushing on the great
car of progress ; and he who does not, but stands in its way, is very
likely to get crushed after the fashion of the victims of Juggernaut,
beneath its wheels. All progress is intellectual, all improvement
refers to the mind ; hence, the importance of intellectual discipline.
There can be no doubt that the publication of so large a number
of books at the present time tends greatly to the spread of know
ledge and the deepening of the intellectual character of the age.
The printing press has been the instrument employed for furthering
education and increasing mental culture. “ In these late ages,”
says old Vicesimus Knox, “ there is scarcely a subject which can
reasonably excite human curiosity on which satisfactory informa
tion may not be acquired by the perusal of books ; and books, too,
from their multitude and cheapness, obvious to all who are disposed
to give them their attention. Poetry, history, eloquence, and phil
osophy, in all their ramifications, are. constantly at hand, and ready
to gratify the mental appetite with every variety of intellectual sub
stance. The imagination can at all times call up, by the medium
of books, the most vivid representations of every object which the
physical and moral world have been known in any age or country
to produce. Exempt from the inconvenience of foreign travel, from
the dangers of a military life, from the narrow escapes of the voy
ager, from the tumult of political engagements, the student can
enjoy, in the comfortable retreat of his library, all that has em-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
7
ployed the active faculties of man in every department of life.”
Books are brilliant stars in the intellectual hemisphere, and their
value must not be underrated nor their advantages neglected. Mind
receives its necessary pabulum by communing with mind, and this
it can do more easily and more perfectly in books than perhaps any
where else. Hence books are the greatest and most powerful agents
in mental development. Some one has curiously described a book
as a brain preserved in ink—not a bad description, remembering
that the mightiest thoughts of the mightiest brains are there pre
served.
In almost every department of knowledge has the genius of im
provement and invention been at work, and the results may be seen
scattered abundantly around us whichever way we look. The en
tire earth has been converted into a huge observatory or laboratory
for man, in almost every part of which he is found daily working in.
comparing results and communicating knowledge. Could the great
men of the past, who devoted themselves to physical science—fore
most amongst whom was Aristotle—rise from their graves, and catch
a glimpse of the present state of things, how, after the first feeling
of surprise was ovar, would‘their hearts be gladdened by the spec• taele they would then behold ! Astronomical, geological, physio
logical, and chemical discoveries, throwing all the science of the
past into the shade, form the heritage of the poorest and most in
significant of mankind. True, the great problem of life is yet un
solved, and a score of metaphysical questions still remain unan
swered ; but in physical science the discoveries that have been made,
and the improvements that have taken place, are startling even to
contemplate. In all that concerns the practical, in all that has to
do with the subjugation of natural forces and the direction of the
laws of the Universe to new issues conducing to the happiness of
man, modern progress has been rapid almost beyond conception.
The simplicity of the processes by which some of the mightiest and
grandest of the discoveries of the age have been made, and the
elementary character of the laws concerned in their production, are
exceedingly pleasing to the man of intellect. “ Almost all the great
■combinations of modern mechanism,” remarks Sir John Herschel,
“ and many of its refinements and nicest Improvements, are creations
of pure intellect grounding its exertions upon a moderate number
of very elementary propositions in theoretical mechanics and geo
metry.” The truth of these remarks will be apparent to every scien
tific student.
�8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
In what position do we as Secularists stand intellectually towards
the present age ? This is a question that each and all of us should
carefully consider. Every Secularist should make it his especial
business to practise mental culture, and to induce others to do the
same. A man who. neglects the discipline of his intellectual powers
is a stranger to the highest enjoyments of existence ; he is no re- x
cipient of that lofty influence which emanates from the pure foun
tain of intellectual treasures. Secularists profess not to waste their
time in attempting to solve problems that defy solution, nor to search
for discoveries in the field of metaphysics as impossible as the object
of alchemy. We are taught by our principles to have to do with
the real side of human life, and to care only for the speculative in
so far as it has a direct influence on practical things. Intellectual
culture is a reality. We know what it means, and we prefer to deal
with it from a practical standpoint, and on its useful side. The
moment we stop to discuss the question, What is the intellect in its
nature and essence? we bid fair to leave the well-beaten track of the
real, to wander in fields of speculative ether, where there are no'
highways and no places to which they could lead. What do we
know of the exact nature of what is termed the human mind after
thousands of years of theorising on the part of philosophers ? We
simply employ the word “ mind ” as having reference to the intel
lectual part of our organisation. But as to what constitutes its
essence little or no progress has been made towards that discovery,
since the days of the great Stagyrite, and, perhaps, earlier. Such
is not the case with experimental science. Our obvious duty, there
fore, is to cultivate our intellectual powers, and no Secularist ought
to neglect it. As I have said, the age is superficial in its knowledge.
Let it be our business to remedy this state of things as far as pos
sible, and to render it deep and profound ; at any rate, we can do
this in the case of ourselves. Good books exist around us ; let us
read them with care and profit. Much of the literature of the age
I know is worthless and even worse ; but there is, after all, a great
deal that will pay for more serious reading and thinking over. Es
pecially is it a Secular duty to discriminate between the two, and,
having done so, to reject the weeds, and devote our time and ability
to the cultivation of the flotvers. We, of all people, should prize
good books, and turn them to good account, and at the same time
emphatically denounce bad ones, that are likely, not only to mislead
human thought, but also to corrupt and deprave, rather than to ele
vate, the intellect of man.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
9
III. THE PRESENT CONDITION OF SOCIETY.
“ Physician, heal thyself,” is most excellent advice, especially de
serving of application in these days of “ Mind-other-people’s-business-instead-of-your-own. ” Morally, the theological opinions of
neighbours are too. frequently considered before personal ethical
culture; politically, public attention is often directed to foreign
affairs rather than to home questions ; socially, the condition of the
heathen is regarded with the greatest solicitude, while the disgrace
ful state of our own poor is sadly neglected ; religiously, the soul's
salvation of the semi-savage abroad is deemed of far greater impor
tance than the moral regeneration of people at home. What has
been the result of such policy ? The present condition of society,
morally diseased to its very core, supplies the answer. After eight
een hundred years of the active reign of Christian theology, what
do we discover in our very midst ? A deplorable lack of real
physical comfort among the masses of the people ; a thoroughly
s unhealthy moral tone, no less in the religious than in the political
and commercial world ; and an air of artificiality permeating most
phases of society., Both in public and private life the real is dis
carded for the imaginary, and the shadow is accepted in lieu of the
substance. Principle is sacrificed to selfish interest, and fidelity to
conviction is made subordinate to popular favour. Theological
professions we have in abundance ; but a marked inconsistency
robs them of true ethical potency. The blessings of peace are
preached, while the humane observer stands aghast at the world’s
record of the blood and carnage of a brutal warfare. Love is ex
alted to a pinnacle of sublime admiration by the same people who
dim its transcendent lustre with dense clouds of theological hatred
and spite. Liberty, with its golden blossoms, is adored in name,
while many of its most sacred rights are ruthlessly trampled under
the feet of a self-appointed authority. The brotherhood of man is
loudly proclaimed at the same time that its fraternal bonds are being
divided by the monopoly of wealth and the false ideas associated
with class distinctions. The poor are blessed by the teachings of
theology and cursed by the laws and customs fostered and defended
by the Church and its priests. Might takes the place of right, false-
�IO
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
hood is substituted for truth, and law stands for justice. Society
may not be, sick unto death ; but its health is sadly impaired, and
a skilful physician is indeed required. Where is this Saviour of the
race to be found ? Not in the domain of theology, for from its
school have come so many moral quacks that its genuine reputation
cannot be maintained. Evidently these theological physicians do
not understand the nature of the disease they profess to cure, and
consequently they apply a false remedy. Regarding all moral dis
eases as being alike, they have only one remedy for each and all,
and that remedy is theology. Thus we have the introduction of
the “ kill or cure ” principle, and there can be no doubt that the
moral deaths far outnumber the patients cured through the adoption
of this alleged panacea. The lesson of history clearly demonstrates
that theology is impotent to rid society of those moral evils which
now so extensively mar the happiness of the human race; the true
requirement, therefore, is a correct knewledge and application of
ethical science.
The human race is in reality governed by the two great princi
ples of good and evil, right and wrong. Upon one of these princi
ples must the construction of society, and the character of those
beings who compose it, be based. The old religion of the Persians
appears to have sprung from the recognition of this fact, and mod
ern legislation has proceeded upon a similar acknowledgment. By
the term good, when applied to man’s activity, we mean that line
of conduct based upon truth, leading to unity and general happiness.
By evil we understand those actions founded on falsehood and de
ceit, ending in disunion, vice, and wretchedness.
Taking society as it is, there are few persons who will contend
that it is constituted as firmly as it should - be upon the principles
of goodness, union, and mutual love. Theoretically—from the
Christian standpoint—this certainly should be the character of so
ciety, for so many years have gone by since, according to the
orthodox belief, the angels of an omnipotent God came down through
the blue vault, of the firmament with the welcome message of
“ Peace on earth, goodwill towards men.” Instead, however, of
such a peace and goodwill having been inaugurated, the centuries
that have flown by since those words were supposed to have been
uttered, have been notorious for their falsehood, disunion, and
misery ; and up to the present time little or no fundamental im
provement has taken place. Many of our institutions, having em-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
II
anated from laws based upon ignorance of the real requirements
■of human nature, have been the means of keeping the people im
becile in mind and wretchedly poor in body. These institutions
and laws still keep many in idleness who would gladly be employed
in adding to the general wealth ; they allow others to be a dead
weight upon industry; they perpetuate pauperism, foster bad hab
its, and encourage crime. The great ethical science is ignored,
and while the primary causes of physical diseases are lost sight of
or neglected, millions of money and much valuable time are wasted
in every generation in futile endeavours to effect a partial cure cf
the diseases thus engendered. Throughout Europe we find a bitter
feud existing between the aristocracy and the democracy, leading
to conspiracies, ostracisms, and the maintenance of huge standing
armies. In short, the present state of society is something worse
than artificial: it is opposed to the welfare of mankind, it causes
■degradation, injustice and. cruelty; hence it is that in so many
'countries there are conspiracies—men banding together, and pledged
to effect, at any risks, immediate social revolution.
The same evil conditions existing around us affect even the rising
generation. Those who know what the tuition of the ordinary
street Arab is, who have instituted comparisons between the gutter
child with his fluttering rags, his unkempt hair, dirty face, obscene
■and ribald language, habits of theft, lying, etc., and the well-clad,
neat, dainty, and “ respectable ” scion of the aristocrat or plutocrat,
can well appreciate the necessity for radical reformation. In the
image of God, says the theologian, are they all made; but shame
to the hypocrisy which, Pharisee-like, suffers this neglected gutter
urchin to give the lie direct to its own loud professions of love to
God and man. To-day, under the shadow of our proud cathedrals
and lofty domes, under which incense burns and gaudily-vested
priests and choristers chant praises to God for having done all
things well; to day, be it remembered, beneath the shadows of the
towers and pinnacles of the many churches and chapels, staring'
with gaunt countenance, hollow cheek,"and hungry eye, rustling the
gay dresses of fine ladies as they pass, dying ever and anon on door
steps, or being carted away enclosed in a parish coffin, are thou
sands of those “images ” for whom apparently God has done no
thing, and society, if possible, even less.
That improvement of a very fundamental character is considered
necessary is evident from the fact that in all civilised countries the
�12
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
major portion of the population are urgently demanding reform.
The question is, what is the remedy for existing evils, and to whoni
shall we look to obtain it ? To my mind, the true remedy is to be
found in the highest moral, physical, and intellectual development
of human nature, the acquirement and application of genuine edu
cation, and the destruction of all priestly and imperial power which
seeks to fetter human thought and despotically control individual
action. The highest outcome of ancient civilisation in Greece and
Rome was at a time when true freedom adorned their history. In
Athens and Republican Rome we have glorious illustrations of this
fact. Potent in arms, able at one period to defend and preserve
their liberties against every aggressor, these States were mighty in
other and nobler fields. In philosophy, science, literature, art, and
all that enriches and elevates mankind, these grand democracies
were unequalled. Even to-day they are to us as luminaries—they
“ being dead yet speak ” to all posterity.
The great object that Secularists should keep in view is to pro
mulgate principles capable of re-moulding society in such a man
ner that the greatest possible liberty and happiness may be secured
to the individual and to the general community. To obtain this
thoroughly, a knowledge of the causes of good and evil to man must
be acquired. Ignorance is admitted to be an evil which directly
impedes human progress and stands in the way of human happi
ness. This ignorance many of us regard as being possible to re
move, and to substitute in its place a knowledge of the pathway
leading to goodness, truth and virtue.
It must distinctly be understood that no sudden revolution, in
recklessly overturning the social equilibrium, by fire and sword, is
recommended by Secularism. All such attempts would be cruelly
disastrous ; besides, the misery and bloodshed thereby engendered
and caused would in all probability “ put back the hands of the
clock,” and hand society over to the tender mercies of some other
unprincipled tyrants and oppressors. Having established a sound
system of education; having secured a knowledge of the power and
duty of man ; of the value of truth ; of the necessity of fidelity toconviction ; of the recognition of the rights of others ; of the impo
tence of all theologies as reforming agencies ; of the service of
science ; of the nobility of self-reliance ; of the necessity of intellec
tual discipline and moral purity, our attention should then be di
rected to the best means of extending the usefulness of these re-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
13
quirements, and of applying them to the practical duties of daily
life.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the panacea for the wrongs
and woes of the time is not to be found in Church doctrines or
•dogmas. Old creeds have had their day, and before the power of
modern thought the superstition that those creeds bolstered up is
rapidly tottering to its basis. Society, as now constituted, with its
strongly-marked distinctions between rich and poor, its blatant
hypocrisy, its wicked extravagance and abject penury, has been
too long supported by the theories of so-called Divine predestina
tion and ordination. These theories are, fortunately, becoming
more and more discredited by the intelligence of the nineteenth
century. The world of man is waiting and struggling for some
signs of its redemption by human agencies. The priest, with his
incantations and conjurings, will, we hope, shortly be known only
as an evil of the past, and then will be inaugurated a new era,
wherein we shall all be true kings and priests—kings in our own
free individuality, and priests in the grand temple of nature, offer
ing up daily and hourly an uninterrupted and unselfish sacrifice of
duty and devotion for the benefit of an enlightened and a progres
sive humanity.
IV. MORALITY.
Secularism accepts as its moral code the system of ethics known
as Utilitarian. There are hundreds of acts which we agree with
all believers in an alleged supernatural religion in considering
vicious, as there are hundreds of others that all men, whatever may
be the particular system of ethics that they accept, admit to be vir
tuous. About these there is no dispute. The reasoning by which
the conclusion is arrived at, that one set of actions are moral, and
another set immoral, can in no sense affect the question as to our
duty in relation to them, when their moral or immoral character
has been once made out. This world is the scene of our deeds, be
they good or bad. The most enthusiastic advocate of a future life
admits that his duties lie in this world whilst he remains in this
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
world. Herein, therefore, we are agreed. To him there may be—
and no doubt are—many duties which we, as Secularists, should
not recognize as such ; our business is not with them, but with the
large class of acts about which we are agreed, and in reference to
which, therefore, there is no dispute.
As soon as a human being comprehends the relation in which he
- stands to other human beings, there must arise between them a
' system of morals. This is based upon the fact that the one ought
to exercise certain dispositions, and display certain feelings towards,
the other. At the same time he expects similar conduct from the
rest towards himself. “ It is manifest to everyone,” says Wayland,
“ that we all stand in various and dissimilar relations to all the
sentient beings created and uncreated with which we are acquaint
ed. Among our relations to created beings are those of man to
man, or of that of substantial equality, of parent and child, of
benefactor and recipient, of husband and wife, of brother and sister,
citizen and magistrate, and a thousand others.” These relation
ships involve certain duties, which we call moral acts, and the best
state of society is that in which they are the most perfectly
practised.
Now, that morality to-day is terribly defective no one can doubt..
There are fearful vices amongst us, which are eating into the
heart’s core of society. Drunkenness, debauchery, and hypocrisy
prevail to an extent that is alarming, and things apparently are
growing worse and worse. In trade, morality is at a very low ebb.
The commercial world seems to have amoral (?) code of its own,
to which it strictly adheres, but this code is not one of which a
moralist can approve. In self-defence a civilised man has often to
become a semi-savage ; so it frequently happens that a scrupulous,
trader is driven to become unscrupulous, in order to compete with
men less honest than himself. Mr. Darwin somewhere says that
the law of the animal kingdom is “ eat and be eaten
in the trad
ing community there is a sort of parallel in “ cheat and be cheated.”
This state of things is much to be deplored, and it is our business,
as Secularists, to do what we can to remedy it. What is needed
is a purified public feeling, and this can only be accomplished by
the individuals of which society is composed doing their duty.
The business of the Secularist in these cases is to set an example
to his religious neighbours. We pride ourselves on having out
grown old and obsolete superstitions; we must, therefore, show
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
15
that with us morality is of paramount importance. It is often
urged that even if religion be not true, yet it exercises certain re
straints over men that would render it extremely dangerous to
society to remove its influence, and thus turn the quondam devotee
adrift without a guide. Perhaps there is some truth in this when
applied to ignorant and uncultivated men ; let Secularists show by
their superior morals that the remark does not apply to them.
Our business is to do the best that we can to promote the welfare
of society. Of all people in the world, therefore, we must not
neglect the sphere in which our whole duty lies. The Secularis.
who does not look properly after the affairs of this life is an anomaly
and a paradox. To him this life is the only life—at least, the onljr
one that he knows anything of—and, therefore, his every energy
should be devoted to making the best of his present state. The
Science of Morals it becomes the Secularist essentially to study,
and not only to study theoretically, but to put into practice. The
eyes of all men are upon us, watching for an opportunity of tri
umphing over our failings. It behoves us, therefore, to be exceed
ingly careful how we act. People who are content to run in the
old grooves will be excused should they stumble ; but those who
chalk out a new path for themselves must keep erect, not even
allowing a foot to slide, or heavy penalties will be visited upon their
heads.
There is great room for improvement in this respect amongst
mere Sceptics, arid hence the necessity of obedience to the moral
law being enforced as a Secular duty. Many persons are too much
inclined to run into an opposite extreme from that which prevails
in the religious world. While some rely entirely on faith as their
rule of life, others seem to attach too much importance to the want
of faith. The latter cry out loudly that belief cannot save man
kind, but they appear to forget that neither can unbelief. The
world wants deeds—great, noble, and consistent deeds. Society
can only be reformed by works—i. e., by moral acts, which carr^ in
their train all the real blessings of peace, gentleness, kindness, jus
tice, truth, and love. To perform work that will bring about these
desirable results is the highest morality.
Among the systems of moral philosophy that have been promul
gated as guides for human conduct, Utilitarianism occupies the
foremost place. It appears to Secularists as more definite and sat
isfactory than any other, and certainly at the present time it is more
�16
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
generally accepted by thinkers and that class of men whose views
mould the intellectual opinions of the age. The principle of Utili
tarianism has a regard solely to the uses of things ; hence all actions
by it are to be judged of by their use to society, and the morality of
an action will consequently depend upon its utility. An important
question here suggests itself: What is Utility, and how is it to be
judged of and tested ? What, it is urged, may appear useful to one
man, another may regard as altogether useless ; who, therefore, is
to decide respecting the utility of an act ? The answer will be found
in the greatest-happiness principle, which is of itself a modern de
velopment of the doctrine, and somewhat in opposition to the first
form of Utilitarianism. “ Usefulness,” observes David Hume, “is
agreeable, and engages our approbation. This is a matter of fact,
confirmed by daily observation. But useful ? For what ? For
somebody’s interest, surely. Whose interest, then? Not our own
only, for our approbation frequently extends farther. It must,
therefore, be the interest of those who are served by the characters
or action approved of ; and these we may conclude, however re
mote, are not totally indifferent to us. But, opening up this
principle, we shall discover one great source of moral distinction.”
Here it is clear that with Hume the doctrine of utility was intim
ately associated with approbation—in fact, the two were insepar
ably connected. The greatest-happiness principle, as will be seen,
grew very naturally out of this, but is a much more recent devel
opment. '
The utility of acts and objects have doubtless had much to do
with the estimation in which these are held in society, whether the
fact be recognised or not. Hume says : “It seems so natural a
thought to ascribe to their utility the praise which we bestow on
the social virtues that one would expect to meet with this principle
everywhere in moral writers, as the chief foundation of their
reasoning and enquiry. In common life we may observe that the
circumstances of utility is always appealed to; nor is it supposed
that a greater eulogy can be given to any man than to display his
usefulness to the public, and enumerate the services which he has
performed to mankind and to society.” That this is so there can
not be the slightest doubt. Nor is this principle a purely selfish
one, as some have contended, since the use of arts refers not
simply to their operation upon ourselves individually, but upon
society at large. Self-love is no doubt involved here, as, in
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
-
k
fact, it is in everything we do. But self-love is not the ruling
principle any further than that it is identical with the love of hu
manity. The great fact of mutual sympathy here comes in. The
reciprocal feeling of joy or sorrow has been experienced probably
by every person. The pleasures and pains of our fellows affect us
largely, whether we will or no. There is no man so selfish but he
finds his joys increased when they are shared by others, and his
griefs lessened when he sorrows in company. This fact Hume has
worked out at great length, with a view to show why it is that
utility pleases. Viewing Utilitarianism, therefore, as simply a
question of utility in the lowest sense of that word, it is yet a most
potent agent in society, and has much more to do with' forming our
conclusions as to the morality of certain acts than is usually im
agined. The man of use is the man whom society delights to
honour; and very properly, for he is the real benefactor of his
species. To say that a thing is useful is to bestow upon it a high
degree of praise, while no greater condemnation can be passed upon
any piece of work than to say that it is useless. Even the supposed Gods have been estimated by their utility ; for Cicero charges
the Deities of the Epicureans with being useless and inactive, and
declares that the Egyptians never consecrated any animal except
for its utility.
The principle of Utilitarianism as a moral system cannot be said
to have received a definite shape until it was advocated by Jeremy
Bentham. Even with him it did not appear in that clear and
explicit form which John Stuart Mill has since imparted to it. In
his writings we have for the first time something like philosophic
precision. Pleasure and pain are shown to form the basis of utility,
and to furnish us with the means of judging of what is useful and
what is oot.
To speak of pain and pleasure to ordinary persons conveys no ,
idea as to the welfare or otherwise of society, but leads the mind
to revert to its own individual good or evil, and then to impart a.
selfish basis to the whole thing. This was not what was meant by
Bentham, as the following passage from his work will show : “ By
utility is meant that property in any object whereby it tends to
produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this,
in the present case, comes to the same thing), or (what comes
kgain to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain,
•
.
* <
�i8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if
that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the
•community; if a particular individual, then the happiness of that
individual.” Bentham takes great pains to show that the com
munity is a “ fictitious body composed of the individual persons
who are considered as constituting, as it were, its members,” and
that, therefore, the interest of the community is simply “ the sum
•of the interests of the several members who compose it.” He then
goes on to affirm that “ an action may be said to be conformable to
the principle of utility, or, for shortness' sake, to utility (meaning
with respect to the community at large), when the tendency it has
to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has
to diminish it,” which is really another way of saying the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, or, to use a far more preferable
phrase, the greatest amount of happiness for all. “The words
ought and right and wrong, and others of that stamp,” take their
meaning from this principle. This philosophy was full of the prac
tical spirit of the age which gave it birth, and it exhibited an utter
■disregard for the unproductive theories of the past. The idea of
happiness very largely took the place of the old idea of duty,
■wherein was seen a powerful reaction against the sentimental ethics
that had prevailed so long. Its attempt was to base virtue on moral
legislation, rather than on feeling, and to construct an ethical code
out of the most matter-of-fact materials. Thus self sacrifice, which,
of course, is one of the highest and noblest duties of man, is in no
way incompatible with Utilitarianism and the pursuit of happiness;
since, whatever pleasures he who practises self-denial may volun
tarily forego, it is always with a view of procuring, if not for him
self, yet for his fellows, some greater good. The martyr at the
stake, the patriot in the field of battle, the physician penetrating
into the midst of the death-breathing miasma with a view to allevi
ate pain, each feels a sense of satisfaction in the act, which is really
the intensest kind of happiness to himself, and, what is more im.
portant, he is procuring happiness on a large scale for his fellow
creatures. It is not individual, but general, happiness that the
Utilitarian has to keep before his eye as the motive of all his
actions.
Secularism submits that acts are moral which produce the
greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number. This view
i
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
x9
of morality is justified by a knowledge of two important principles
—namely,1 the doctrine of circumstances, and the doctrine that
general utility should be the object of all our endeavours. Secu
larism urges that it is. the duty of society to acknowledge these
principles, to study their operation, and to develop their influence.
The doctrine of circumstances teaches us the mutual relations of
man and society, indicating how they affect and are affected by
each other. The doctrine of utility shows that those relations may
'be improved by the proper encouragement of beneficial influences.
The scientific definition of any particular object of our contempla
tion is, that it is the sum of all the causes which produced it. If
one of the causes which tended to produce that particular pheno
menon had been deducted, or if additional influence had been
added, the result then produced would have differed from the re
sult as it now stands, in precise proportion to the efficacy of the
cause which had been added or withdrawn. Now, Secularism
views human nature in this harmonious light. Man is as much the
consequence of all the causes and circumstances which have affect
ed him and his development previous to and since his birth as any
•one tree or mountain.
The influence of circumstances on human conduct is forcibly
illustrated by a reference to the science of botany. In England
the myrtle is a small shrub or plant, but in the north of Africa it is
an immense tree.
The English lily is remarkably fine and
delicate, but within a few miles of Madrid it is a huge tree of some
ten or fifteen feet in its dimensions. Botanists inform us that this
difference is in consequence of the different circumstances by which
each shrub or plant is surrounded. The influences in Africa and
Spain are more favourable to the extensive development of those
plants than they are in England. The same principle is shown,
■in the various productions of the soil. We take a wild flower
from the woods for the purpose of improving its appearance and
value. It has grown up under what is named natural circum
stances ; we transplant it to a garden, and endeavour to modify its
condition. According to the end we have in .view, so are, to use
technical language, the “ artificial causes” we bring to act upon its
particular condition. We begin with an examination into its con
stitution and character. If it has faults and blemishes, we imme<liately remove those chemical causes, or protect it from those
�20
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
climatic influences which produced such faults. If it be its half
developed beauties which we wish to foster into full maturity, wemultiply and stimulate those conditions which we have discovered
by experience to have a positive influence on the better part
of its nature. The change in its condition and appearance
has been produced by the modification and encouragement
here, discouragement there, depression in one quarter, elevation
in another of causes, all of which were in existence and operation as
much when the flower grew in its wild state as now when it adorns
the house garden with its breadth of foliage. Now to apply this
to the argument under consideration. Secularism may be here
designated as the science of human cultivation. The problem that
it sets to itself with reference to man in his moral relations to so- ✓
ciety is, to bring him from the condition of the wild flower to
that of the garden flower. And as with the uncultivated flower, so
it is in many respects with the wild, uneducated man. The flower
is what it is, and the wild, undisciplined man is what he is, in con
sequence of the aggregate of causes which have made them both
what they are. Secularism recognizes these influences of circum
stances. It cannot, therefore, regard man as naturally bad; onthe contrary, it believes in the goodness of human nature, remem
bering that man frequently lacks improvement as the result of
being surrounded by imperfect conditions, through the neglect of
correct discipline, and a want of proper understanding of his moral
and intellectual faculties.
In any moral system it is essential that not only should the code
laid down be clear, but the motive to obey it should also be made
apparent.
In other words, what is termed the sanction of the
principle must be pointed out. It would be of little value to have
a perfect method in morals unless the sanctions were such as were
likely to influence mankind. Now, Mr. Mill has not overlooked,
this fact in connection with Utilitarianism, but has devoted con
siderable space to its consideration. He seems to think, however,
that no new sanctions are needed for Utilitarianism, since in time
—and in an improved state of society—it will have at command
all the old ones. He says : “ The principle of utility either has,,
or there is no reason why it might not have, all the sanctions which
belong to any other system of morals. These sanctions are either
external or internal.” He then enlarges upon these with a view
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
21
to show that the greater number of them belong as much to Utili
tarianism as to any other ethical code. The sanction of duty, upon
which so much stress is laid by the opponents of Utilitarianism,
becomes as clear and as powerful under the new system as under
■the old. Whatever may be the standard of duty, and whatever
the process by which the idea has been attained, the feeling will
in all cases be very much the same.
The pam occasioned by a
violation of what is called the moral law, constituting what is
usually termed conscience, will be felt quite as keenly when the
law has been arrived at by a Utilitarian process of reasoning, and
when the moral nature has been built up upon Utilitarian princi
ples, as in any other case. The ultimate sanction of all morality
is very much the same—a subjective feeling in our own minds, re
sulting from physical conditions, country, and education.
This, then, is briefly the Utilitarianism which we hold to consti
tute a sufficient guide in morals, and to be worthy to supplant the
■old and erroneous systems that now prevail. As Secularists, we
are content to be judged by this standard. This system we accept
as the ethical code by which we profess to regulate our conduct.
There can hardly be conceived a higher aim than happiness,
-especially the happiness of the race. That perfect happiness is
not attainable we, of course, admit ; but neither is anything else
in perfection. Nothing, however, can be more certain than the
fact that very many of the present causes of unhappiness could be
removed by well-directed effort on the part of society, and the
result be a state of things of which, at the present time, we can
hardly form any conception. The duty of each of us is to do as
much as possible towards bringing this about.
In Mr. Mill’s work upon “ Utilitarianism ” the following passage
•occurs : “ The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals
■utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness ; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure and the absence of pain ; by unhappiness, pain
and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by this theory, much more requires to be said; in
particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and plea
sure ; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these
supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life upon
�22
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
which this theory of morality is grounded—namely, that pleasure and
freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, and that all
desirable things (which are as numerous in the Utilitarian as in any
other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in them
selves, or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the preven
tion of pain.” It must be understood that the word pleasure here
is used in its very highest sense, and includes, consequently, such
enjoyments as arise from the culture of the intellect, the develop
ment of the sentiments, the use of the imagination, and the action
of the emotions. One of the errors into which the opponents of
Utilitarian happiness frequently fall is that of confounding pleasure
with the mere gratification of the animal propensities. If this were
so, the whole system would be a most despicable one, and unworthy
the attention of men of intelligence and moral worth. But it is
not; and he who brings this as a charge against it does so either
in gross ignorance, or with a view to pervert the truth. Perhaps it
was not wise to use the words pleasure and happiness as being syn
onymous, seeing that they are usually employed to mean two very
different things; but the explanation having been given that they
are so used, no one can plead this use as an excuse for falling into
orror on the subject.
Secular morality is based upon the principle that happiness is the
chief end and aim of mankind. And although there are, doubtless,
persons who would warmly dispute this fundamental principle, it is
very questionable whether their objection is not more verbal than
anything else. That all men desire happiness is certain. The
doctrine enunciated in the well-known line of Pope is frequently
quoted, and generally with approval :
“ Oh, happiness I our being’s end and aim.”
When we meet with persons who profess to despise this aspira
tion, it will be generally found that it is only some popular con
ception of happiness of which they are careless, while they really
pursue a happiness of their own, in their own way, with no less
ardour than other people. A definition of happiness itself is not
easy to give. Each person would, were he asked to define it, in all
probability furnish a somewhat different explanation ; but the true
meaning of all would be very much the same. To refer again to
Pope, what truth there is in the following couplet !—
“ Who can define it, say they more or less
Than this, that happiness is.happiness ? ”
�SECULAR' TEACHINGS.
2?
With one it is the culture of the intellect ; with another, the ex
ercise of the emotions ; with a third, the practice of deeds of phil
anthropy and charity ; and with yet another—we regret to say—
the gratification of the lower propensities. In each case it is the
following of the pursuit which most accords with the disposition of
the individual. And wherever this course does not interfere with
the happiness of others, and is not more than counterbalanced by
any results that may arise from it afterwards, it is not only legiti
mate, but moral. Broadly, then, Secular efforts for the attainment
of. happiness may be said to consist in endeavouring to perform
those actions which entail no ill effects upon general society, and
leave no injurious effects upon the actors. Such conduct as is here
intimated involves the practice of truth, self-discipline, fidelity to
conviction, and the avoidance of knowingly acting unjustly to
others.
Mr. Mill points out—and herein he differs from Bentham—that
not only must the quantity of the pleasure of happiness be taken into
consideration, but the quality likewise. He remarks : “ It would
be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is con
sidered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be
disposed to depend on quantity alone.” True, it may not always
be easy to estimate the exact respective value of the different quali
ties of pleasure ; but this is not necessary. An approximation to
it can he obtained without difficulty. In all those who have had
experience both of the higher and lower kinds of pleasure—that
is, of the culture of the intellect and the gratification of the pas
sions—a preference is generally shown, at least in theory, for the
higher. And the rest are in no position to fairly judge. It may be
urged that many a man who possesses the rare wealth of a cultured
mind will be found sometimes grovelling in the mire of sensuality,
thereby showing a preference for a time for the lowest kind of plea
sure. To this it may be replied that the fact is only temporary, and
cannot, therefore, be set against the experience of months and
years—perhaps of the greatest portion of a life ; and, secondly, he
does not in his own opinion, even while descending to indulge in
the lower pleasure, give up his interest in the higher ; so that the
defection cannot be looked upon in the light of an exchange. He
feels that he will be able to go back again to his intellectual pur
suits, and enjoy them as before. Ask him to make, a permanent
exchange—to give up for ever the higher pleasures, on the condition
�24
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
that he shall have a continuance of the lower to his heart’s content,
and probably he will treat the offer with scorn. “ Few human
beings,” observes Mr. Mill, “ would consent to be changed into
any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of
a beast’s pleasure ; no intelligent human being would consent to be
a fool; no instructed person would be an ignoramus ; no person of
feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they
should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better
satisfied with his lot than they with theirs. They would not resign
what they possess more than he for the most- complete satisfaction
of all the desires which they have in common with him.” Those
who neglect their capacities for enjoying the higher pleasures may
probably imagine that their happiness is greatest; but their opinion
on the subject is worthless, because they only know one side. On
this question, therefore, we find a unanimity—at least with all who
are competent to judge of the question.
The most important point to be considered in connection with
this question of Secular happiness is that it is not the pleasure of
the individual that is considered paramount, but of the community
of which he forms a part. The principle of the greatest happiness
is often treated in a discussion of this subject as though it meant
the greatest possible pleasure that the individual can procure for
himself by his acts, regardless of the welfare of his fellow creatures,
which would be selfishness in the extreme. Nothing can be more
unselfish than Secular morality, since the sole object it has in view
is the happiness of the community at large. And every act of the
individual must be performed with this in view, and will be consid
ered moral or not in the proportion in which this is done. In cor
roboration of this view, Mr. Mill truly remarks : “ According to
the greatest-happiness principle, as above explained, the ultimate
end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are
desira-ble (whether we are considering our own good or that of other
people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as
rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality;
the test of quality and the rule for measuring it against quantity
being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of ex
perience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness
and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of compari
son. This being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of
human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
25
may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human con
duct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been
described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all
mankind ; and not to them only, but to the whole sentient creation.”
Two facts of great importance are to be noticed in this extract;
first, that happiness is the end of existence, and that all human
■effort should be bent as far as possible to the attainment of this
•object; and, secondly, that here, and here only, can the true stan
dard of morality be found. The second principle flows as a neces
sary consequence from the first. All human action must, therefore,
be brought to the test of how far it is conducive to the promotion
of the greatest happiness of society at large. The consistent per
formance df such action will tend to promote the Secular idea of
human happiness and the welfare of mankind.
The question is asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adher
ents as being superior to theological and other speculative theories
•of the day ? The answer is (1) because we believe its moral basis
to be more definite and practical than other existing ethical codes ;
and (2) because Secular teachings appear to us to be more reason
able and of greater advantage to general society than the various
theologies of the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in particular.
First, compare Secular views of morality with the numerous and
■conflicting theories that have been put forward at various times on
the important topic of moral philosophy. From most of those
theories it is not easy to reply satisfactorily to the question, Why
is one act wrong and another right ? The.re is no difficulty, gen
erally speaking, in pointing out what acts are vicious and what
others virtuous ; but to say why one is immoral and another moral
is a very different matter. Ask for a definition of virtue, and you
receive in reply an illustration. You will be told that it is wrong
to lie, to steal, to murder, etc.—about which there is no dispute ;
but why it is wrong to indulge in these acts, and right to perform
others, is the business of ethical science to discover. But here
again the method that will be resorted to, with a view to reply to(
this query, will depend upon the moral code believed in by the per
son to whom the question is put. This method it is, in point of
fact, which constitutes what is called ethical science. On looking
over the history of moral philosophy, apart from Secularism, we
find such diversified and conflicting theories advanced on this sub-
' J
/
>
�26
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ject that it is frequently difficult to arrive at the conclusion that
there can be any certainty in the matter whatever. Some hold,
with Dr. Samuel Clarke, that virtue consists in the fitness of things;
others, with Adam Smith, discover its basis in Sympathy ; others,
with Dr. Reed, Dr. Thomas Brown, and Dugald Stewart, contend
for a moral sense ; another class, with Miss Cobbe, maintain, that
there is such a thing as intuitive morality ; others, with Paley, as
sert that virtue consists in doing good to mankind in obedience to
the will of God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness ; others,
with Dr. Johnson, are content with the will of God as a basis, with
out adding the motive introduced by Paley; and yet others, with
George Combe, fancy they have a key to the whole thing in phren
ology. Now, all these theories are resolvable broadly into three
great classes—first, those who regard the “ will of God ” as the
basis of moral action ; secondly, those who contend that the true
guide of man in morality is something internal to himself—call it
conscience, moral sense, intuition, or any other name that you
please to give it; and, thirdly, those who urge that moral science
is, like other science, to be discovered by the study of certain ex
ternal facts. To the latter of these the Utilitarian or Secular sys
tem belongs.
A small section of professing Christians have now given up the
will of God as the groundwork of their morality. This, however,
seems to us inconsistent with their faith, for the following reasons .i. If the Bible God be the father of all, surely to act in accordance
with his will should be the best guide in life. 2. Christian morality
is supposed to consist of the teachings of the Bible, the alleged
record of the will of God. 3. If God’s will is not the basis of Chris
tian ethics,.what is, from the Christian standpoint ? As Secular
ists, we cannot regulate our conduct by the Bible records of God’s,
will, inasmuch as " that book is so thoroughly contradictor}' in its
interpretation of the said will. In one passage the killing of human
beings is forbidden by God, and in another passage special instruc
tions are given by the same being to commit the prohibited crime.
The same conflicting injunctions are to be found in the “ inspired
word ” in reference to adultery, lying, retaliation, love, obedience to
parents, forgiveness, individual and general salvation, and many
other acts which form part of the conduct of human life.
As to the internal guide to morality, nothing can be more clear
than the fact that, even if man possesses a moral sense with which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
*7
he is born into this world, and which is inherent in his nature, its
teachings are not very distinct, and the code of law based upon it
is by no means definite. For not only do the inhabitants of differ
ent countries vary considerably in regard to the dictates of con
science, according to the nature of their education, but the people
of the same country will be found to be by no means agreed as to
what is right and what wrong, except in a few well-marked deeds.
One man feels a conscientious objection to doing that which an
other man will positively believe to be a praiseworthy act. In this,
as in other matters, education is all-potent over the mental char
acter. It would indeed be difficult to reconcile these facts with the
existence of any intuitive moral power.
Recognizing the difficulties and drawbacks pertaining to the
above theories, Secularists seek for a solution of this moral-philo
sophy problem elsewhere—that is to say, in the eternal results of
the acts themselves upon society, and in the effects that invariably
spring from them whenever they are performed. , It must be dis
tinctly understood that we do not claim perfection for our mor?l
code ; but we do believe that it is the best known at the present
time, and that it is free from many of the objectionable features,
which belong to those theories which we, as Secularists, cannot ac
cept. It may be urged, as an objection to the external test of the
result of action, that it tends to make morality shifting and depen
dent verymuch upon the circumstances existing at the time. This
is doubtless true ; but it is of no value as an argument against the
doctrine of utility. For is not all that we have to do with subject
to the same law of variation? Fashions change, customs alter,
and even religions become considerably modified by external cir
cumstances. The following stanza in Lord Byron’s “ ^hilde Har
old ” portrays a great truth :—
. 1
“ Son of the morning, rise, approach you here ;
Come, but molest not yon defenceless urn.
Look on this spot, a nation’s sepulchre :
Abode of gods, whose shrines no longer burn.
Even gods must yield, religions take their turn ;
’Twas Jove’s, ’tis Mahomet’s ; and other creeds
Will rise with other years, till man shall learn
Vainly his incense soars, his victim bleeds ;
Poor child of doubt and death, whose hope is built on reeds 1”
�*8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
V.—ETHICS AND RELIGION.
Throughout the history of mankind morality and religion have
been two potent factors in influencing the formation of human
character. By the term morality is understood the principle which
rules and regulates the customs and habits of society; and the
word religion is employed to represent Theistic beliefs or aspira
tions which are said to be possessed by a majority of the human
race. In connection with these two factors the arts of sacerdotal
ism and priestcraft have associated the error that religion and
morality are really identical; that the two are mutually interde- *
pendent, and to sever them would be absolutely fatal to both.
The fact is that morality was distinct from religion in its origin,
and the two have, in many important instances, remained so up to
the present in their development. The origin of the first forms of
religion of which we have any record was fear and the prostration
of reason; while that of morality was the outcome of intellectual
culture and thoughtful experience. This fact has been clearly
shown in a very able work entitled “ The Morals of Evolution,” by
Minot J. Savage. On page thirty-one he observes : Religion
and morality were totally distinct in their origin. At first they had
nothing to do with each other. Religion was simply an arrange
ment between man and his gods, by which he was to gain their
favour or ward off their wrath. Morality, on the other hand, is a
matter of behaviour between man and man.” On pages twentyfour and twenty-five Mr. Savage says : “ Go far enough back into
antiquity to come to the time when large numbers of men were
fetish worshippers; when the object of their adoration, their
reverence, or fear, is a stick, or a stone, or a reptile. Of course,
you will understand in a moment that the worship of an object like
this cannot be associated in the mind of a worshipper with any
necessity for telling the truth, with any necessity for being pure,
with any necessity for being charitable and kind towards his fel
lows.” The same principle is enforced in the case of the Indian
devotee, who fasts and torments himself, not that he may benefit
mankind morally by his sufferings, but solely in order that he may
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
2g
acquire favour and power with the gods Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva. Such a man is very religious, but he is not necessarily a
mbral man, for, if his fellow men were to emulate his example, the
human race would be enervated, if not become extinct.
A similar proof as to the ancient differentiation between religion
and morality can be found in the Old Mexican religion, and also in
the Old Testament record of the dealings of Jehovah with the
Hebrew people. Jacob was religious, but certainly not very re
markable for morality; as indeed were Samson, David, Jephthah,
and other characters in the Hebrew records. It was not morality
which induced Joshua to command the unmerciful slaughter of
the Canaanitish men, women and children. It was not morality
which led Samuel, God’s high-priest, to murder Agag, whom even
Saul would have spared ; nor that prompted David to kill the
Philistines, while he himself was the honoured recipient of Philis
tine hospitality. Such actions cannot be defended morally ; but
religiously they can ; and they have been vindicated and excused
by Christian teachers and preachers.
Not only have religion and morality been dissociated in the past,
but we know that they have been kept far from each other in the
immediate present. Need reference be made to those most iniquit
ous, immoral wars, not many years since, in Zululand and Afghan
istan ? Did not Christian bishops from their seats in the English
Parliament openly express their approval of the cold-blooded and
sanguinary policy which brought down upon the nation the
opprobrium due to the cowardly and uncalled-for assailer and
despoiler of the weak, the unprotected, and the semi-savage; a
policy which directly led to national suffering, national poverty,'
national degradation and humiliation, and which caused the blush
of shame to mantle the cheek of every true-hearted Englishmanpossessed of a virtuous zeal for the reputation of his native land ?
Mr. Gladstone publicly declared his sorrow at finding so many of
his co-religionists going woefully, fatally wrong in matters of
national morality. His words were : “ To my great pain and dis
appointment, I have found during the last three years that thou
sands of Churchmen supplied the great mass of those who have
gone lamentably wrong upon questions involving deeply the in
terests of truth, justice and humanity. I should hear with much
comfort any satisfactory explanation of this very painful circum-
�30
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
stance.” It is not here contended that morality is never associated
with religion, but rather that the two are not necessarily allied,
and that there is no lack of instances where the one is to be found
professed and acted upon without the other.
The highest forms of religion to-day bear upon them the impress
•of that morality which has gradually grown with our growth and
strengthened with our strength ; it is morality that has modified
religion, not religion that has modified morality. This will explain
in some measure why it is that men to-day are not worshippers of
fetiches ; that they have not deities of the wood, the mountain, and
the cave; that the Christianity of to-day is more humane than it
was in the time of the Inquisition ; that it now reprobates offences
which but four centuries ago it was wont to excuse and condone.
The morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their kindly
charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—all these spring
directly from their long-acquired and developed experience.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives no assistanceTrom orthodox Christianity, based as it is upon what is re
garded as a divine revelation from God to man. Such a system is
incapable of promoting the moral development of humanity. This
can only be effectually done by the action of those social, political,
and intellectual forces to which we a¥e indebted, as it were, for the
building up of man from the very first institution of society. These
have been, are, and ever must be, the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is by
them that we are what we are. It is (i) the social activities that
have led to the formation, maintenance, and improvement of human
society; (2) the political activities that have led to the formation,
maintenance, and improvement of the general government, to the ’
establishment of States or nations, and to the recognition of the
mutual rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
activities that have led to the interchange of human thoughts, to
the formation of literature, to the pursuits of science and art, to
the banishment of ignorance and the decay of superstition ; to the
diffusion of knowledge, and, finally, to all that mental progress
which so widely removes the ci.vilized man from the savage.
The manner in which society has been built up has been clearly
shown by Mr. Spencer in his “ Data of Ethics ; ” but we need no
learned disquisition or treatise to convince us of what is a self-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
31
evident fact. By experience we learn all things ; as the homely
proverb has it, “ the burnt child dreads the fire.” So, in the early
ages of society, men had to learn from experience what was good
and what was bad for society. In the early stages of national
governments nations had to discover what was conducive to the
welfare, and what detrimental to the well-being, of a State. The
exercise of man’s intellectual activities has also been purely empiri
cal, or experimental. In literature, science, and art, the records of
the past ages have been records of continually growing experiences.
We are wiser to-day than our fathers were, because we possess all
their experiences plus our own. Upon the same principle, subse
quent generations will be superior to us, inasmuch as they will
have additional experience to guide them to what we possess. Our
morality is the resultant, the outcome of experiences, and wise
action based thereon. Intelligent men no longer slay hundreds of
thousands of sheep and oxen in sacrifice ; desolate other regions •
massacre myriads of their fellow men ; burn heretics at the stake ;
or condemn a race to perdition because of their unbelief. Society
would no longer tolerate the infliction of the tortures of the Inqui
sition, or the intolerant decrees of the Star Chamber ; and
why ? simply because our social, political, and intellectual experi
ences have shown us how utterly absurd, cruel, and ridiculous all
those past follies have been. What has altered all this ? It can
not be said that Christianity, the Bible, and the Church have pro
duced the change. All these orthodox agencies existed amid the
human weaknesses and wrongs referred to ; but the present im
proved moral sense did not then obtain, hence the immoral acts.
This, then, constitutes the practical ethics of time—namely, our
social, political, and intellectual status, and we are proportionately
more moral in the present era as we are socially, politically, and
intellectually superior to what our forefathers were. The orthodox
revelation has really had nothing whatever to do with this improve
ment, because revelation from a God to man cannot logically
change or modify itself; it must be, like the laws of the Medes
and Persians, wholly unalterable, “ the same yesterday, to-day^
and forever.” This, indeed, is what orthodox religionists claim for
what they call their morality—that it never changes. But such a
contention is fatal to their claim to possess a truly humanitarian
system of morality. The very essence of such a system is its
�32 '
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
adaptability to the ever-varying necessities and circumstances of
mankind. It is not here contended that prudence, honesty, benevo
lence, must ever change their inherent nature. On the contrary,,
they will ever be binding upon man ; but for what reason ? Merely
because he cannot exist justly and happily without them. He must
be prudent or he loses his all, and thus becomes a burden on
others ; he must be honest, or he will be a criminal to society, and
will not be able to have any guarantee for his own rights and for
the safety of his own possessions ; he must be benevolent, or else
he will neglect his duty to others, and the old age of iron will return,
with its law of might making right, and the despotic rule of the
strong over the weak.
This is what is meant when we affirm that we can have no fixed
rule of morality. It is said, however, that without such a fixed
rule for conduct, all guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not
so ; Secularism recognizes a safe and never-erring basis for moral
action, which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman,
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad general
maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the supreme law.”
This may be taken as a fundamental principle for all time and all
nations. The kind of action which will produce such well-being
depends, of course, upon individual and national circumstances,
varied in their character and diversified in their influence. Rulesof life, “ revealed ” eighteen hundred years ago, do not meet the
requirement and satisfy the genius of to-day. This progressive
morality is the principle of the Utilitarian ethics which now govern
the civilized world. It is not merely the individual, but society at
large, that is considered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual bee
labours only for individual necessities. No ; but that all is sub
ordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the drones increase,
they are expelled or restricted, and well would it be for our human
society if all drones who resisted improvement were banished from
among us. In the moral world, as in religious societies, there are
too many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the good
conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing to contribute
to the store of the ethical hive.
It has been intimated that a higher and still further improved
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
33
condition of society is before us. The true ethical standard of the
future will doubtless be based upon the recognition of the primal
truth that it must always be right to act for the welfare of society.
One consequence of this will be that it will be our duty to promote
our individual interests. No man can do this without indirectly
benefiting his neighbour, so that from the increased good of the one
springs the increased good of the many.
The welfare of humanity does not necessarily depend upon the (
belief in a Deity or a future state. “ The proper study of mankind
is man.” The wisest of the Romans, the great statesman and phil
osopher, Cicero, taught his son that man’s morality was the neces
sary result of reasoning built upon human necessities. Robert
Owen gave practical meaning and force to this teaching, by incul
cating principles the adoption of which would assuredly end in the
establishment of a new moral world. Such a world, we believe,
lies before us—a world wherein every human character shall be
formed upon principles based upon right-knowing and right-doing,
upon the enforced expulsion of ignorance and the removal of the
causes of evil. If religion is to be retained in the future, the only
religion which will be worthy of the name as a binding system will
'be one in which the good of all faiths shall be retained, and from
which their errors shall be eliminated ; a religion based, not upon
supernatural figments and allegories, but upon the eternal laws of
nature and the laws of that great kingdom of human nature whose
only monarch and subject is man. He it is who must be regarded
as the foremost actor in the great drama of life. Down through the
ages we trace his footsteps, from the time when he appears totter,
ing as the infant, to the present age wherein he is learning to stand
erect. How gradual, indeed, has his progress been, with what
slow and faltering steps has he gone on from generation to genera
tion, from century to century. Truly, it has been a long and a toil- <
some journey that he has trodden ; a journey over rough rocks,
through brambles, briers, and thickets of ignorance; but, happily,
the race has contrived always to keep the true light somewhere be
fore it, although many a false light has been held up to mislead it»
“ Through the shadow of the globe we sweep into the perfect day.1
�34
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
VI. SECULARISM AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
It is very desirable that the teaching of Secularism in reference to
the supernatural should be clearly understood. What does this
term really mean ? Etymologically it signifies, super (“ above ”) and
natura (“ nature ”)—that is, something above, greater than, or dis
tinctly higher than, nature, or things natural, as these phrases are
ordinarily, employed. This word nature mankind has used in a
duplicate manner. Thus we talk of nature when we refer to what
philosophers term the cosmos, or the whole of the things percep
tible to the senses, from the rose and its delicate fragrance to the
planets, comets, suns, stars, and their motions. The other appli
cation of this term is to the constitution, mental and physical, of
man regarded as a living animal and as a rational being. When
used in the latter sense, the word is generally conjoined to another,
thus making the compound, “ human nature.”
The word superhuman would probably be more appropriate than
supernatural. Still, if the latter phrase is intended only to con
vey the idea of something beyond general human experience, then
it is not difficult to understand the meaning of its use. For ex
ample, take the old illustration ; we can readily imagine a creature
formed like the idol Dagon, of the Philistines, which was repre
sented as being half fish, half woman. We can also create other
mental visions which would, in their extreme grotesqueness, put to
shame the ogres and chimeras of romance, but these would be
supernatural in the above signification of the word, inasmuch as
their archetypes were never known to man in any stage of his pro
gress through the ages. Hence it may be possible to conceive
a thing supernatural so far as human nature is concerned; but
.how, it may be asked, are we to determine with respect to the
cosmos, to that universal nature of which the human nature forms,
after all, but a part ?
This question goes to the very root of the matter, and much
more, both in philosophy, science, and religion, depends upon our
answer than might, at first sight, be supposed. “ How are we to
determine as to what is supernatural with regard to the universe ?”
Man is, it will be urged, confessedly a finite being. His faculties
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
35
•of perception, his powers of seeing, hearing, etc., are limited. How,
then, it may be asked, is it possible for man to determine what
realities may exist either “ in the earth beneath” or in the heavens
above ? The reply to this is, that human nature is the key of uni
versal nature ; that the non-apparent is to man the non-existent;
and that those things must be considered by man as things above
nature of which no perception or demonstration can be possible.
If by the term supernatural is meant a personal being above and
apart from nature, then Secularism says: Such a problem it leaves
for each mind to decide, if it can, for itself. Being unable to in' form, the Secularist should refuse to dogmatize upon a subject
upon which he can impart no information. In the opinion of the
present writer Secularism has no necessary connection with any
form of Theism. If it be asked whether or not a Theist can be
a Secularist, the answer is, It depends upon the nature of his
Theism. A consistent believer in the Bible God cannot be a
genuine Secularist. On the other hand, if a Theist believes that
he can best serve and love and honour his God by serving, loving,
and honouring his fellow-men, and by making the most of this
life, then he may be an admirable Secularist.
The lesson of history is that the mystic and dogmatic teachings
in reference to the existence of a Supernatural Being have ever
been fraught with wrong to man. The records of the past are
ample proof of this. Whether it be Pagans with their deities,
Jews with their Jehovah, or Christians with their Trinity, all such
theologisms have brought forth cruelty, oppression, and intolerance.
Truth, virtue and love are the three elements which should go to
wards the foundation of human conduct. They formed its basis
in the case of Buddhism, in the humanitarianism of Auguste
Comte, and in the great science of man’s true education and en
lightened benevolence, as promulgated by that great philanthropist
and philosopher, Robert Owen.
From the historical development of the churches’ idea of the
Supernatural it will be seen that it has never been a necessary
factor in human elevation. We should, therefore, apart from all
such vague speculation, learn how to perform aright the duties and
requirements of life. The true way to effect this is to work for the
improvement of Humanity, and this can be done by the forma
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
�36
r
r
It
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
correct conduct, which enriches it, and by securing the triumph of
the better part of our natures, which dignifies it.
Ethical unity is the proper basis of true benevolence. This
great human instinct is not dependent upon any form of Super
naturalism for its manifestation ; its activity is evoked by a
desire to alleviate the sufferings of the afflicted, and to enhance
the happiness of the unfortunate. To aid in securing a fair oppor
tunity for the exercise of this benevolence prompts Secularists to
aim at correcting every cherished error by the substitution of a true
knowledge of the natural for the old doubtful speculations as to the
alleged Supernatural.
The Church proclaims that love to God is the basis of religion ;
Secularism, on the other hand, teaches that the principle that
fosters the development of virtue, happiness and nobility of char
acter is service to man. This is practical morality, and experience
demonstrates that it is superior as a reforming agency to Super
natural beliefs. For eighteen hundred years the Supernatural
notion has been incorporated into the Church. “ To it has been,
given all power. Its hand has wielded every sword. Every
cannon has stood ready charged to second its command. Every
crown has received its blessing; every standing army its prayers
and the training of its priests. But what has it done to establish
justice and truth in the earth ? Let the dungeons of the Inqui
sition make answer. Let the gibbets, whose chains hang heavily
freighted with skeletons, rattle in your ear. Ask the millions of
ragged, starving paupers, covered with filth and vermin, on their
knees to the few who are covered with diamonds and royal in
signia, to sing its triumphs. Alas, poor wretches ! blinded by
ignorance, they do; but their song breathes no hope for this
world. Let the millions, upon whom it rivets its fetters of slavery,
tell how it brought them glad tidings. Let the prisons, glutted
with men and women, their hearts filled with savage hate produced
by the cruelty and vengeance of our criminal laws, illustrate its
beauty. Let the thousands of brothers, sustained by the degrada
tion and ignorance it has cursed the bodies of men and women
with, in order to save their souls, establish its power to cleanse the
world with blood. Let the millions who, after toiling ten hours a
day, cannot satisfy the bare necessities of life, the thousands of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
37
■white-faced and sad-hearted children toiling’ in the factories, wit
ness to its power to make men just and kind. In the name of rea
son and humanity, is this morality ? Are these things right ? Is
this the ought-to-be, to which all must yield in the spirit of faith ?
Must we continue to say that man is born to misery, as the sparks
Uy upward, and that all this is but just punishment for our sins ?
Are we always to have the poor with us, because even the revised ,
New Testament says so ? Are the powers that be ordained of
•God ? Is there in reality a Devil, an almost infinite fiend, who is
permitted to go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may
devour ?”
These are the errors and delusions and impotent views taught by
believers in the Supernatural, and is it not time that such evils and
weaknesses were removed, and a course of action adopted to avoid
their repetition ? To perform this task effectually, we must incul
cate the truth that right and wrong have their foundation in the
mind of man, and not in Supernatural ideas. A cultivated reason
and a well-trained judgment are the surest guarantees for noble
actions and benevolent and just consideration for others. This
may not be religion, but it is the teaching of Secularism ; and in
proportion as it is adopted by mankind, so shall we advance to the
physical, moral and intellectual regeneration of our race.
VII. SECULARISM AT THE HOUR OF DEATH.
It is ,a favourite, and, as they seem to think, an effec
tive argument of the Christians, that, although Secularism
may do very well in healthy life, it fails in sickness
and at the -hour of death.
Were this supposition true, it
would be but a poor compliment to Christianity. If its chief
use is for the sick or dying, it is a mere drug or anodyne, things
which are abominable to the strong and healthy, instead of being
wholesome food and drink. A dose of opium would be just as
good. The only religion or philosophy which should command our
allegiance is one that supplies a sound rule of life, a principle by'
which we may live well, not by which we may die easily. Very
few instances of Christian resignation equal the calmness and
indifference with which any ordinary Eastern submits to death
when death can no longer be avoided. The stories still current
�38
„
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
among the more ignorant of orthodox Christians of the terrible. death of eminent Freethinkers have again and again proved to be
but pious frauds. Even were they true, they are counterbalanced
by the accounts given themselves of the deaths of very religious
persons, haunted and agitated almost to their last moments by
dreadful fears of perdition. But, in fact, as those who have had a.
large death-bed experience, can testify, nearly all men die serenely,,
without reference to their faith or want of faith. Fallen into,
extreme weakness, they cannot feel strongly on any subject; the
past, the present, and the future are but as dim dreams, in which
their languor takes but the faintest interest; life slips very
easily from the relaxed grasp; exhausted with the long struggle,,
they are not only willing, but rather anxious to sleep.
But, apart from these considerations, let us take the case of a
consistent Secularist lying for weeks upon a sick-bed, regarding
with lucid mind the certain approach of death. What has he tofear ? If he has been faithful to his convictions, acting up con
sistently to the light which his intellectual industry has acquired,,
why should the honest Secularist have any dread as to any here
after? His life has been glad and he has made the most of it; he
has drained the cup of its wine to the lees, and can retire satisfied
to slumber after the banquet. Or his life has been stern, and still
he has made the most of it; he has fought its battle to the bitter
end; and wounded, worn out, and broken down, must rejoice when
he can sink to rest. There surely should be no forebodings in the
forethought that the sleep maybe eternal. As John Stuart Mill
finely says in concluding his posthumous Essay on the “ Utility of
Religion,” which, unlike the following Essay on Theism,was writtenbefore his mind was shaken by the loss of his idolized wife : “I
cannot but think that as the condition of mankind becomes im
proved, as they grow happier in their lives, and more capable of
deriving happiness from unselfish sources, they will care less and
less for this flattering expectation (of a future life). It is not,,
naturally or generally, the happy who are the most anxious either
. for a prolongation of the present life, or for a life hereafter; it
is those who never have been happy. They who have had their
happiness can bear to part with existence ; but it is hard to die
without ever having lived. When mankind cease to need a
future existence as a consolation for the sufferings of the present,,
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
39
it will have lost its chief value to them, for themselves. I am now
speaking of the unselfish. Those who are so wrapped up in self,
that they are unable to identify their feelings with anything which
will survive them, or to feel their life prolonged in their younger
contemporaries, and all who help to carry on the progressive move
ment of human affairs, require the notion of another selfish life
beyond the grave, to ■ enable them to keep up any interest in exist
ence..............But if the Religion of Humanity were as sedulously
cultivated as the supernatural religions are (and there is no difficulty
in conceiving that it might be much more so), all who had received
the customary amount of moral cultivation would up to the
hour of death live ideally in the life of those who are to follow
them; and though, doubtless, they would often willingly survive as
individuals for a much longer period than the present duration of
life, it appears to me probable that after a length of time, different
in different persons, they would have had enough of existence, and
would gladly lie down and take their eternal rest.........................The
mere cessation of existence is no evil to any one ; the idea is only
formidable through the illusion of imagination which makes one
conceive oneself as if one were alive and feeling oneself dead.
What is odious in death is not death itself, but the act of
dying and its lugubrious accompaniments, all of which
must be equally undergone by the believer in immortality.”
And in the final sentence: “It seems to me not only pos
sible but probable, that in a higher, and, above all, a
happier condition of human life, not annihilation but immor
tality, may be the burdensome idea ; and that human nature,
though pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to
quit it, would find comfort and not sadness in the thought that
it is not chained through eternity to a conscious existence, which
it cannot be assured it will always wish to preserve.” In this
thought Mr. Mill was anticipated by Lord Bacon in his fine frag
ment on Death : “I have often thought upon death, and I find it
the least of all evils. All that which is past is a dream ; and he
that hopes or depends upon time coming, dreams waking.........
Physicians in the name of death include all sorrow, anguish,
disease, calamity, or whatsoever can fall in the life of man, grievous
or unwelcomebut these things are familiar unto us, and we suffer
them every hour, therefore we die daily. I know many wise men
�40
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who tear to die ; for the change is bitter, and flesh would refuse to
prove it; besides, the expectation brings terror, and that exceeds
the evil. But I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but
only the stroke of death.” If there be an eternal sleep, it promises
the positive gain of release from all suffering and sorrow, while the
seeming loss of pleasure is cancelled by unconsciousness. If we
are not to see our loved ones more we shall have no wish to see
them, and soon also they will have no wish to see us. And so with
every other apparent privation. The dreamless slumberer desires
nothing, regrets nothing. “ There the wicked cease from troubling;
and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together ;
they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great
are there ; and the servant is free from his master.”
The orthodox believers assure us that Christianity is necessary
to enable a person to die happily. Is not this the height of folly,
and a reflection upon the alleged goodness of God ? Are all the
other religions in the world impotent in this particular ? If, as I
have shown in my pamphlet, “ Secularism, Destructive and Con
structive,” we estimate the various religions of the world which
conflict with each other, more or less, at one hundred-a very
moderate calculation—there can only be one that is true, so that
the Christian has only one chance out of a hundred, while there
are ninety-nine chances against him. What, then, is the difference
between the Christian and the Secularist ? The one rejects ninetynine, and the other goes “ one better ” and rejects the whole hun
dred. But the Secular position does not rest even upon this. If
God be just, he can never punish a man for not believing that
which his reason and judgment tell him is wrong. If we have to
appear before a heavenly tribunal, is it to be supposed that such
questions will be asked as, “ To what church did you belong ?
What creed or dogma did you accept ? ” Is it not more rational to
believe that if any inquiries are made they will be, “ Were you true
to yourselves and just to others ? ” “ Did you strive to make the
best of existence in doing all the good you could ? ” “ Were you
true, morally and intellectually ? ” If the answers are given
honestly in the affirmative, then no one need fear the result. It is
degrading to the character of any God even to think that he would
punish one to whom, on earth, he did not think fit to vouchsafe the
faculty of discerning his existence, for honestly avowing that he
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
41
■did not discern it, for not professing to see clearly when the eyes
he thought fit to give saw nothing. Would he not be apt, if at all,
to punish those (and they are very numerous) who, not seeing,
confidently assert distinct vision ? If we act honestly and man
fully according to the best light we can obtain ; if we love our
fellow-men whom we know, and try to be just in all our dealings,
surely we are making the best preparation for any future life ; the
best preparation for the higher knowledge, the clearer vision, the
heavenly beatitudes. Though we are execrated and condemned
by the tender mercies of human bigots, we may, if we have lived
as true Secularists, commit ourselves without dread to an infinitely
good and wise God, if he is the loving father of all his children.
We can die without fear, as we have lived without hypocrisy.
“ What if there be a God above,
A God of truth, of light and love;
Will he condemn us ? It was he
Who gave the light that failed to see.
If he be just who reigns on high,
Why should the Secularist fear to die?**
VIII, SECULARISM IN THEORY.
The theory of Secularism is simply that this life and this world
in which we live demand and will reward our utmost cultivation;
that the instruments of this cultivation are reason and social effort;
that the harvest to be reaped from it is happiness, general and
individual.
Looking at the world/we are convinced by what human reason
has already discovered in it, and by the experience which has veri
fied the discoveries, that it is perfect order, in the sense that its
operations follow unvarying laws, that the like antecedents have
always the like consequents. This immutable constancy of what
are termed the Laws of Nature, gives us a stable foundation on
which to build up physical science and all the arts which are the
applications of such science. The laws we know we cannot change;
but the more we learn of them the better we can adapt ourselves
�42
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
and the conditions of our life to them, the better we can avoid such
of their workings as would be otherwise harmful to us, the better
we can avail ourselves of all in their workings which is profitable
to us. Thus Secularism regards science as the true Providence;
and affirms that by persistent careful study of Nature, and per
sistent application of the results of that study, this Providence
can be made to yield ever richer and richer benefits to our race.
Looking at mankind, we are convinced in the same manner, that
human nature, no less than nature in general, is the subject of
unvarying laws, that in it also the like antecedents have always
the like consequents; and the stability of law in this domain gives
us firm ground on which to build up physiological, psychological,
and sociological science, and the political and social constitutionswhich are the applications of such science. These laws also we
know we cannot change; but in their case also the more we learn
of them the better we can adapt ourselves and the conditions of
our life to them, the better we can avoid their injurious and avail
ourselves of their beneficial workings. So that here also Secular
ism regards science as the true Providence ; and affirms that by
the study of Man, and the application of the results of that study,
this Providence can be wrought to confer ever richer and richer
boons on our race.
As for the controversy between virtue and happiness, which is in
a great measure a mere contest as to words, we know how the
great name of Epicurus was almost from the first degraded by his
opponents into a great synonym for the pursuit of coarse sensuous
pleasure, in the term Epicureanism. But why should this happi
ness, which Utilitarianism teaches us to seek in common, be spoken
of as something mean ? The great object of Christian life is to gain
eternal happiness in heaven, and we do not find that such happi
ness is supposed to be concerned only with sensual joys; on the
contrary, it is assumed to involve all the most sacred emotions and
aspirations, to include all the beatitudes. It is such happiness, in
so far as it shall prove to be attainable, that Secularism seeks to
realise, not in heaven but on earth, not in eternity but in time>
not for elect individuals here and there, but for all mankind. This
happiness implies, firstly, material well-being, sufficiency of food,,
clothing and houseroom, with good air, good water, and good
sanitary conditions : for these things are necessary to bodily health’
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
43
and this is essential to the health of the mind, and only in health
is real happiness possible. Again, it implies mental well-being,
sufficiency of instruction and education for every one, so that his
intellect may be nourished and developed to the full extent of its
capabilities. Given the sound mind in the sound body, it further
implies free exercise of these, absolutely free in every respect so
long as it does not trench on the equal rights of others, or impede
the common good. In this full development of mind as well as
body, it need scarcely be said that true happiness brings into its
service all the noblest and most beautiful arts of life. Some per
sons seem to fancy that Secularists have nothing to do with music,
painting, sculpture, care nothing for the glories and grandeurs of
the world, have no part in the treasures of the imagination ; as if
there were no utility in any of these. But we recognize in them
the very high utility of touching to rapture some of the finest
chords in our nature ; we know and feel just as well as others, and
perhaps better than most, since we give ourselves more to the scien
tific study of man, that there are different kinds and degrees of
enjoyment, and that some kinds are far superior to others, and we
know how to value the superior as compared with the inferior.
But yet more, this social happiness implies all the great virtues
in those who can attain and keep it. Wisdom, for without this,
transitory and selfish pleasures will be continually mistaken for
happiness; and even with a desire for the common good, this good
will be misconceived, and the wrong means taken to secure it.
Fortitude, to bear when necessary, and the necessity in the present
state of the world is as frequent as it is stern, deprivation of per
sonal comfort rather than stifle our aspirations and relax our efforts
for the general interest. Temperance, for with excess no per
manent happiness is possible. Magnanimity, for only by aid of
this virtue can we keep steadily in view, as the sole aim of all our
striving, the sole aim worthy of true men and women, the greatest
good of the greatest number ; all littlemindedness ever turns to
selfishness. Truth, for without it the stability of society could not
be maintained. Justice, and above all else Justice, for it is the
profound and unchangeable conviction of the equal rights of all
which alone can inspire and impel us to seek the freedom and
happiness of all, oppressions since the world began having been
based on injustice, the oppressors exaggerating their own rights at
�44
SECULAR teachings
the expense of those of the oppressed. And to these great virtues
of the mind, we must add, as essential to this true happiness, what
are commonly called the virtues of the heart, the fervour of Zeal
or Enthusiasm, and the finer fervour of Benevolence, Sympathy,
or, to use the best name, Love. For if Wisdom gives the requisite
light, Love alone can give the requisite vital heat; Wisdom climb
ing the arduous mountain solitudes, must often let the lamp slip
from her benumbed fingers, must often be near perishing in fatal
lethargy amidst ice and snow-drifts, if love be not there to cheer
and revive her with the glow and the flames of the heart’s quench
less fires.
Seeing thus what qualities and energies are required in those
who would win this happiness for themselves and their fellows, or
would even advance but a little the great day of its advent, we
are surely entitled to ask, What virtue can be more noble than
this ? What more lofty and unselfish object can be proposed for
human effort than this of destroying ignorance, oppression, and
suffering, of instituting enlightenment, freedom and • happiness ?
We believe that the final test of any so-called virtue, as of any
action, is the question, Does it tend to the common good ? If it
does, we hold it in esteem, and in some cases in reverence; if it
does not, however fine the name it bears, we look upon it as an
error, and in some cases as a vice or crime.
IX. SECULARISM IN PRACTICE.
Secularism is clearly a theory of action, to be realized in conduct;
not a theory of speculation, which may be held without influencing
our every-day life. The theory of Secularism is a theoryof War
against theological pretensions; and the warfare to which it applies
is continual, without intermission of treaty or truce, for every brave
and loyal man, being warfare against all that is noxious and may
be vincible, in nature and human nature. So that if any one makes
profession of Secular principles, without putting them or striving
to put them into practice, we must declare that he is really not a
Secularist; just as we should declare him no soldier who should
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
45
pore over military books, and dream about strategy and tactics,
without ever taking part with head or hand in the fight to which
his duty called him. With head or hand, because it is clear that the solitary thinker, carrying on his profound investigations into
the elements and processes and evolution of the world, or into the
subtle nature and obscure history of man, and communicating the
results of these for the enlightenment and advantage of his fellows,
is not less but rather more essentially active on our side in the
battle of life, than he who is called the man of action himself; just
as the statesman who prepares for the war, the administrator who
organizes the army, and the general who plans and directs the
campaign, have far more to do with the result—though they strike
no blow and fire no shot—than any of the banded subordinates who
use sabre, lance, or rifle.
We are in constant struggle with Nature,—to make its barren
regions fertile, its unhealthy regions wholesome; to soften its
rigours, and guard against its perils; to breach its barriers, and
bridge its abysses, between nation and nation; to bend its powers
to our service, and fashion its productions to our commodity; to
trace out its hidden treasures, and penetrate its secrets, availing
ourselves to the utmost of every discovery. Wherefore the Secu
larist, to the full extent of his faculties and opportunities, assists, .
encourages, and welcomes each advance in any of the sciences or
useful arts. Nothing which gives or promises new knowledge of
nature can be indifferent to him, however remote it may seem from
the concerns of ordinary life ; for in wrestling for such knowledge
the intellect is braced, and in conquering it is expanded ; while it
is always possible, and has frequently been the case, that the
most abtruse researches have led to priceless, practical benefits.
We are also in constant struggle with Human Nature, as hitherto
developed in ourselves and others, and with the political and social
institutions which have sprung from it; to cure its manifold dis
eases of body and mind, amend its manifold defects, establish it in
vigorous health to diminish, and, if possible, destroy, its abound'ng gross ignorance, want, oppression, bigotry, disunion, hatred,
envy, selfishness ; to increase, and, if possible, make universal, the
contraries of all these. And with regard to the question of possi
bility, as we who look forward with hope and trust to vast and
indefinite improvements in the state of mankind, are often mocked
as impracticable dreamers, there is one word to say: Until all
�46
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who love their fellows and regard posterity, find themselves, having
done their utmost, without spark of hope or sinew of strength for
further effort, until our whole race crouches in impotence and
despair, no one can say, Here is the extreme boundary of improve
ment ; and until such boundary is reached, indefinite advance is
possible. For this is a contest in which hope itself is puissant
toward victory, and in very truth a sure pledge of victory; for hope
means endeavour, and endeavour precludes defeat; seeing that our
object is to vanquish Nature, not by resisting her laws, but by
taking advantage of them, and that we are ever living successful
lives, and fighting a winning battle, while we can endeavour with
hope.
Therefore, the true Secularist is, and always will be, in the van
of all efforts to improve the condition of the great bulk of the
people, physically, mentally, morally, socially, politically. As he
regards all men as really his brothers (not his “ dear brethren,” as
clergymen say on Sunday from the secure height of their pulpits,
to poor creatures whom they consider mere serfs, hewers of wood,
and drawers of water, on week days) and believes that all have
equal rights to full development and free exercise of their faculties,
his politics will naturally be of a most liberal tendency; he will
constantly work towards the government of the people by the
people, towards making the Executive the servant and not the
Master of the nation. It does not follow that in all cases he'will
desire the immediate establishment of a Republic ; he may be con
vinced that the mass of his countrymen are not yet fit for such a
form of government. But if so, he will not be content that they
should remain thus unfit; he will do his best and urge all whom
he can influence to do their best likewise, to decrease and ulti
mately to destroy this unfitness ; preparing the way for a govern
ment based upon the will of the nation. To this end he will do
all in his power to diffuse Secular instruction, particularly among
those of the rising generation, whose minds are fresh and eager for
new knowledge, whose characters are plastic to training, who are
not yet hide-bound in prejudice and hardened by old habits. Feel
ing himself essentially a “rational social animal,” he will endeavour
always to act in company with as many of his fellows as possible,
and will frankly support co-operation in every department of
activity. Thus for the political education of the people, both in
Xheory and practice, nothing can be more valuable than well organ-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
47
ized Clubs and Societies. Lectures, debates, and readings inform
and brighten the intelligence; the various functions of the
members, and the mutual forbearance requisite to amicable work
ing, furnish excellent civic training; and the “ rational social”
being thus provided for, there, is every opportunity to cultivate the
“social’ in its most familiar sense by amusements in common;
for the reflection of joy from one to another, where many friends
are gathered, indefinitely multiplies the enjoyment of each.
The Secularist cannot but strive for the abolition of all privi
leges of Class or Sect in the body politic; while he will seek to
make all change with as little violence as possible and with as
much consideration for those who must be dispossessed of what
■does not belong to them, as they themselves and the circum
stances would allow. For doubtless all the reforms demanded by
our principles can be brought about by legal means ; by patient,
orderly, persistent, and combined constitutional efforts on the part
of the people. We do not wish to stir up Class or Sectarian
animosities, though we are continually accused of doing so we
are well aware that the privileged persons have become what they
are by long habit and training, or, generally speaking, by the force
-of circumstances ; and that we ourselves, if brought up in the same
conditions, would probably cling as stubbornly as they do to these
inequitable distinctions ; but we cannot cease or remit our endea
vours to redress wrongs or cancel injustice, in the interest of the
whole nation, out of tenderness for certain misguided and selfish
sections.
In our relation with other countries, the ruling desire of the
Secularist, who regards not only his own people but all mankind
as brothers, will necessarily be for peace and amity, for mutual
profiting instead of mutual destroying. There have been, and
probably will be often again until nations in general have grown
much better and wiser than they are, wars certainly justifiable,
because necessary, on the one part. But no reader of history can
fail to see that the majority of wars have been justifiable neither
■on the one part nor on the other; that they have been brought
about by the pride, greed, passion and folly of rulers, and the
imbecile ignorance of subjects, who allowed themselves to be first
inflamed, then impoverished and slaughtered, for objects in which
they had no real interest, which indeed very often were such that
their real interests were far better served by defeat than by victory.
�4^
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
Secularism in practice does not seek to destroy any one truth
that is associated with Christianity. Its practical force is employed
in building up Secular principles, and in combatting orthodox doc
trines and actions which are so many obstacles to the development
of positive Secular principles. For though the influence of ortho
doxy is much less than it used to be, both in depth and expanse,
and is decreasing year by year, it still floods wide tracts, making
barren fens and swamps of what should be, and will be, when it is
drained off, among our most fruitful fields. If it has now little of
whatever power for good it once had over the thoughts and actions
of men, it has still much power for evil. If it no longer makes
saints and martyrs, it makes serfs and bigots. We want real
Secular education for all our children, such as shall endow them
with some useful knowledge and the instruments for acquiring
much more, such as shall, prepare them for their work in the world,
and make them intelligent citizens; and -we cannot get this because
of sectarian squabbles, because of the arrogant greed of the Church.
Primer, copy-book, and arithmetic shall be withheld, unless the
Bible may be everywhere thrust in amongst them; the Bible, with
its beautiful stories of Noah, Lot, Dinah, Tamar, and the rest, to
inform the intellect and purify the heart of the young; the Bible,
with its lucid dogmas, as to which all the sects are at loggerheads
among themselves. Hard at work all the week, we want to enjoy
ourselves on Sunday; but orthodoxy, so far as it can, shuts us out
from all means of rational amusement; closing museums and art
galleries, stopping innocent entertainments, leaving the general
masses of the people no alternative but the stupefying influence of
most stupefying sermons. Politically, again, the mass of the
Church has been for long generations, and is henceforth pretty
sure to be always obstructive to every movement for the benefit of
the mass of the people.
Orthodox Christianity is opposed to civic freedom, free thought,
free speech, free action ; it is opposed to Science, at the heels of
whose noblest philosophers its curs are always yelping now they
dare not bite; it is opposed to Utilitarianism, withdrawing fine
intellects from useful studies into barren controversieSj and gener.
ous hearts from social labours into cloistered asceticism. There
fore, Secularism in practice must be at war with it continually,
until its cathedrals, churches, and chapels are ennobled into
Schools of Science, Museums of Arts and Secular Halls.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
4?’
X. SECULARISM MORE REASONABLE THAN CHRISz_
TIANITY.
Orthodox Christianity being, by its own avowal, built upon faith.,
which is the abnegation of reason, while Secularism is built upon
reason and experience, it may be thought superfluous to enter upon
an argument to prove that the latter is more reasonable than the
former. But Christians in general, although in the interest of their
mysteries they vilify reason, are very glad to avail themselves ofwhatever help, or apparent help, they can derive from it.
This is especially true of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism,more consistent and thorough, gallantly offering to us in itself the
reductlo ad absurdum of faith trampling reason underfoot. Protes
tantism is an illogical compromise between reason and faith, expe
diency and religion, common sense and uncommon nonsense. It
upholds the right of private judgment, and condemns all who
exercise this right beyond its own strait limits. It appeals to
reason against the absolute claims of Rome, and to faith against
the unanswerable arguments of science. [It worships an alleged
infallible book, and rejects an infallible interpreter of the book. It
tries to buttress its sinking and sloping walls with laborious “ evi
dences,” and brands the inspection which shows that these arehollow and unsound as heterodox Rationalism. It has no firrm
ground to stand upon ; nor can there be any between the orthodox
faith without reason of the Ultramontane and the reason without
the orthodox faith of the Secularist.
Christianity boasts an infallible book, and no two of its manifold,
sects can agree in its interpretation. Ah, they reply, in a momen
tary truce with each other, that all their arms may be turned against
the unbeliever, our differences are on points not essential, in essen
tials we all agree.. But if the differences are of such small moment.,why dispute so desperately about them i' Why fine, imprison,
banish, torture, and put to death, because of them ? Why organize
wholesale massacres, and engage in bloody wars, whose records
are atrociously cruel even for the annals of ,warfare, on account of
these insignificant, differences ? Lollards and Puritans, Waldenses,
Albigenses, and Huguenots, Guelphs and Ghibellines, Lutherans
and Roman Catholics, none of these were Atheists or Sceptics,
they were all alike ardent Christians, and their murderers were.
�5°
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ardent Christians too. But such things can be no more ! Probably
not, but no thanks to orthodoxy; they have receded before the
growing spirit of Secularism. The spirit of the sects is just as
loving as of old ; but we, whom they slander, have bound them
over to keep the peace ; they dare not smite, they can only rail at
each other. Romanism cries : “ Let everyman who trusts in his
reason be accursed,” while Protestants exclaim : “ The Romish
Church is the masterpiece of Sataji.” Christianity professes to
have an infallible book, which it worships. Yet all Christians
•competent to judge admit that there are doubtful and interpolated
passages in the original, and many errors in the translation. Hence
■a. body of learned but fallible divines have been engaged in revising
■our version, so as to settle its infallibility. All intelligent Christians,
also, while affirming that it is the very Word of God, adding to or
taking from which is to be followed by certain penalties, under
stand it in various senses : some parts in the literal, some as alle
gorical, some as poetical, some as spiritual. But what right have
they to do so ? Where can such a process end ? Who has the
■infallible authority to draw the lines, saying, This you shall inter
pret thus, that you shall interpret otherwise, and so on ? An infal
lible book must be taken as a whole, if taken at all, though reason
be entirely ignored in the taking; you are not at liberty to say, I
will accept this bit, I will reject that; who are you to set up for a
judge, citing the very Word of the living God before your tribunal,
making it justify and explain itself, ruling this verse to be admis
sible and that not, deciding that God said just what he meant in
■one place, but did not in another ? The first exercise of private x
judgment, in explaining or explaining away the meaning of any
.single verse, leads logically and inevitably to the criticism of the
whole Bible as if it were any other book ; tamper with a word, and
you lose the infallibility ; the Bible is handed over by faith to reason,
that merciless inquisitor for inspired writings.
This infallible book includes a story of the Creation of the World,
-of a universal Deluge, of the confusion of tongues ; long historical
narratives; positive statements affecting chronology, astronomy,
.and other sciences; all of them demonstrably wrong in certain
particulars, many of them self-contradictory. It is not necessary
here to go into details on these matters, for they have been abund
antly analyzed and tiye assertions proved in books which Christians
have tried in vain to refute ; nay, in many instances, the wiser or
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
'
-
51
lowing his example ; they tell us his precepts are divine, and utterly
ignore them in daily‘life.
more astute Christians, after defending to the utmost their unten
able positions, have evacuated them altogether, with the consolatory
remark that they were really worth nothing, that the Bible teaches
moral and spiritual and theological truths, not history and science.
Thus no one of any intelligence, however orthodox, would, I sup
pose, venture now in England to assert that the sun and the moon
stood still at the command of Joshua, or that the sun went back
ten degrees as a sign to Hezekiah that his life should be prolonged.
It is urged, however, that the infallible book is only infallible in
its moral, spiritual, and theological teachings ; and, of course, in
its narratives of the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascensiom
of the Divine Man, Christ Jesus. But the narratives differ so
among themselves that no amount of ingenious sophistry, and
assuredly abundance of this has been brought to bear, can reconcile
them. No one has hitherto, even proved it probable that they were
written by the men whose names they bear, or within a century
and a half of the time to which they refer ; no one has given valid
reason why they should be preferred to a multitude of similar con
temporary narratives which the Christians call Apocryphal. No
Christian can give a reason for accepting the miracles recorded in
the Gospels, which would not, were he consistent, make him accept the miracles recorded of Brahma, Buddha, Mohammed, and
the innumerable miracles of the Romish hagiology, stretching with
out interruption from the Acts of the Apostles to the acts of our
Lady of Lourdes, from the wounds of the risen Christ to the stig
mata of Louise Latour. No Christian can prove that all the prin
cipal, superhuman features in the career of his Christ were not
copied from the much older myths of the Hindoo Chrishna, these
themselves pointing to physical myths far more ancient.
And then, supposing the Gospels authentic as to the moral teach
ings of this God-man, and as to the life he led upon earth. Are
not many of his precepts injurious, many quite impracticable ? and
all affected by the illusion possessing him that the end of the world
was at hand ? Was not his mode of life such that if any one in
this un Christian Christendom of the nineteenth century dared to
imitate it, he would be certainly imprisoned as a vagabond, pro
bably confined as an incurable lunatic. The Christians hold him
.(Christ) up as the Great Exemplar, and carefully refrain from fol-
, '
�52
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
As to the theological teachings of this infallible Book. It has
been super-abundantly demonstrated in Freethought literature,
that its cardinal doctrines, the Triune God, the Creation, the Origin
of Sin, Fall of Man, Original Sin, Incarnation, Atonement, Resur
rection, Ascension, eternal Heaven and Hell, are absurd and self
contradictory ; that they make the Dejty at once a remorseless and
unjust tyrant, and a vacillating ruler. No Christian really believes
them, for no Christian, nor any other man, can understand them ;
and we cannot believe propositions of which we cannot catch the
meaning, which cannot be put into plain words without manifest,
self-contradiction. The Christian can only suppress his intellect
with regard to them ; resolutely shut his eyes and mutter, I believe
that anything may be there for aught I can see to the contrary; he
can only act with reference to these astounding mysteries, as he
knows it would be ruinous to act in any other business of life.
So much for the reasonableness of Christianity. Over against,
this inextricable entanglement of reason and faith, freedom and
servility, candour and sophistry, these absurd and degrading im
possibilities, self-contradictions, self-stultifications, Secularism
offers the plain, straight, spacious pathway of reason and experi
ence. It has no science, no history, no books, no persons, that it
wants to hide or shield from free human criticism. It has no
theories which it is not ready and eager to abandon, directly facts,
shall have declared against them ; no rule of conduct which it will
not at once modify if change seems necessary in the interest of the.
general happiness. Mysteries it acknowledges, and confesses that
they are truly mysterious, without proceeding to exhibit them in.
dogmas as if it had turned them inside out. It is not weighted
with the impossible tasks of reconciling the existence of evil with
that of an Omnipotent and All-good Creator ; and of proving and
worshipping the Infallibility of a book crowded with evident errors.
It does not threaten the vast majority with never-ending torments,,
and promise an elect few never-ending bliss, both alike preposter
ously disproportioned to any possible merits or demerits of human
life ; it simply seeks by the best approved means to make this life
as happy as possible for all, assured that if there be another it
could not be better prepared for than thus.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
XI.
53
SECULARISM MORE NOBLE THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
Not only are the cardinal doctrines of Christianity intellectually ab
surd and self-contradictory, but many of them are ajso morally degrad
ing. Not only do they soften and confuse the brain which tries to
believe them ; they also harden and pervert the heart which tries
-to justify them. Thus in the endeavour to reconcile the sub
sistence of an All-good, All-wise, All-powerful God, Infinite and
Eternal, Creator of all things and beings, with the existence of
Evil and the Devii; with the dogmas of the Fall, the Atonement,
•and the everlasting Hell for unbelievers; a man’s conscience must
be sophisticated as injuriously as his reason. They are as revolt
ing to the healthy moral sense as to the healthy common sense.
They could only have arisen among a barbarous people, who
looked upon God as an irresponsible tyrant, like the human tyrants
they were accustomed to crouch under abjectly, but fiercer and
more powerful, able to extend his vengeance over all regions and
prolong it through all times ; they only survive now among persons
who are otherwise comparatively free and intelligent, by the force
of early training and habit, by the influence of venerable associ
ations, which benumb the moral sense, emasculate the reason,
and baffle honest inquiry with their prodigious prestige. If a
thousand average children were brought up without hearing of
Christianity, subject simply to the Secular education and moral
discipline now generally recognized in England and on the Ameri
can continent, as needful to prepare them for the ordinary work of
the world and make them good citizens (and assuredly this is no
high standard of instruction and training); and if, as they
approached manhood and womanhood, the Bible were placed in
their hands, and its leading doctrines calmly explained to them, as
held by the leading Christian Churches, it may be safe to assert
that every one of these youths and maidens would reject large
portions of the Book, not merely with contempt, but with abhor
rence, and reject the. whole of the doctrines, not merely as
irrational, but as immoral, essentially wicked and vile. 'And
surely the priests are one with us in this forecast; else why do
they so desperately insist on thrusting their Bible into our public
�54
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
schools, even though they have ample opportunities for instilling:
its teachings into the young in private, in the family, m the church ?'
The more nakedly and coldly one states the chief doctrines of
this Bible, and the chief acts it records of its Deity, the more false
^.nd ignominious do they show themselves. The perfect God
makes a perfect man, having previously made a wicked Tempter;,
and the perfect man succumbs to the very first temptation. For
this lapse the Merciful God curses, not only him, but likewise all
his posterity, and the very earth on which they live.
In the
course of time this Immutable God repents him of having made
man, and destroys with a flood, not only all mankind, but all living
things, save the few of each in the Ark. The destruction works
no good, for men are as wicked after the deluge as before. This God,
who is no respector of persons, has his chosen people, whom he leads
into a promised land, ordering them to murder ruthlessly all its
inhabitants,but not finding power in his Omnipotence to enable them
to do so. This is the only thing in which the chosen people heartily’
try to fulfil his commandments ; in all else they are constantly re
belling against him and falling away from his worship, despite the
countless miracles it is said he works amongst them. This good
God rends the kingdom from Saul for not utterly destroying the
Amalekites, as divinely ordered, “ man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This loving God slays
seventy thousand of his chosen people because David, at God’s
instigation, has caused a census to be taken. Having left all man
kind, except the Jews, in the perdition of idolatry for about two
thousand years ; having also destroyed or dispersed ten-twelfths of
the chosen people, so that no sure trace of them is left, and re
duced those remaining to servitude, soon to be followed by disper
sion ; this tender God resolves to redeem the world, that as in
Adam all died, so in Christ may all be made alive. This
one God has by this time .become three Gods, while ever
remaining one, having begotten on himself a Son, and from
the Father and Son a Holy Ghost having proceeded, the
three co-eternal, co-equal, and each almighty. Nothing less
than the sacrifice of a God can atone for the sins of men;
so.God the Holy Ghost begets God the Son from a human
virgin, who remains a virgin after conception and child-bearing,
though she purifies her untainted self Bom the maternal taint, in.
accordance with the low notions of her people ; and God the Son,
�“•TV-4'
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
55’
who is innocent, must suffer death to appease the wrath of himself
and the other two persons of the sole God against man. God the
Son is crucified, and dies and descends into Hell, and rises from
the dead and ascends into Heaven ; yet as God he could not dier
as God he was and is everywhere ; and if only his manhood died,
there was no divine, no sufficient atonement. The scheme of hissacrifice involved inexpiable and unpardonable guilt in his betrayer
and murderers ; God could only assure the atonement by securing;
the necessary crime in men who are in his hands as clay in the
hands of the potter. All who believe in this God-man shall be
saved, all who disbelieve shall be damned or “ condemned ” ; and.
as the vast majority who have since lived never heard of him, and
a continually-increasing minority of those who hear of him can’t
believe in him, while the bulk of those who profess to do so
don’t keep his commandments, this Gospel of Salvation,
is in truth a Gospel of Damnation; as he said himself, “ Many
are called, but few are chosen.” The chosen people, of whom
he, was one on the mother’s side, among whom he lived, and who
had the opportunity of knowing and judging him, rejected him, and
their descendants reject him still. Jesus, good as a man, is de
cidedly objectionable as a God ; for in this character he could have
revealed himself indisputably and immediately, to the redemption
of all.
Orthodox Christianity is ignoble in that it makes our salvation
depend upon blind faith instead of upon reason and love and good
works. It is ignoble in that its votaries must more and more so
phisticate the moral sense in seeking—and seeking how vainly !—
to reconcile ever-growing natural truths with stark old super
stitions. It is ignoble in that, by demanding absolute faith
from men who mzist doubt and disbelieve much of its teach
ings, it manufactures dissemblers and hypocrites. It is in
tensely ignoble in its “sublimated selfishness” of making the
chief end of life the salvation of one’s ' own precious soul.
It is horribly ignoble in making the eternal bliss of the few
elect, compatible with the- eternal torment of the majority pre
destined to damnation : a man must be fiendishly callous and sel
fish who can rejoice in looking forward to such a Heaven counter
poised by such a Hell. It is ignoble in what it deems its noblest
emotions, its love and reverence and adoration of the Deity, its
ecstacies of Divine influx and communion. For these emotions
�56
SECULAR TEACHINGS
are irrational, the object of the love is a dream and a delusion, the
-God revered and worshipped is pourtrayed in its own Bible as
•capricious, unjust, vindictive, merciless ; and these orgies of reli
gious excitement, which overstrain, rend, and often ruin the moral
.fibre, are as harmful as any other drunken revels.
Secularism, on the other hand, is quite free from all these moral
•degradations which are of the essence of orthodoxy. Secularism
is not called upon to reconcile irreconcilable antinomies; has no
meed to palter with the standard of right and wrong, truth and
falsehood; does not ask for pretence of belief where there is no as
surance ; does not fetter the reason and mutilate the conscience.
It recognises abundant evil and misery in the world, and endea
vours by hard work to decrease and as far as possible destroy
them; it recognises much good .and happiness, and endeavours by
wise work to increase and extend them ; untrammelled in either
case by obsolete myths or incredible dogmas. The true Secularist
loves and reveres his fellow men whom he knows, not the Bible
God of whom he does not know. Upright, as an honest man who
respects himself and his fellows, he dees not abase himself, and
•crouch down crying that he is a miserable sinner, because he has
read in an old story-book that the first woman and man ate an
.apple countless millenniums, as science has taught him, after the
human race came into existence. He seeks happiness, not selfishly,
but unselfishly, not for one, but for all; the Heaven on earth
towards which he strives would be no Heaven to him if counter
balanced by a Hell.
XII. SECULARISM MORE BENEFICIAL THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
It has been already shown in previous articles that Secularism is
more beneficial than Christianity in two most important respects,
namely, its freedom from intellectual absurdities and from moral
sophistication. But generally, and avowedly, Christianity is not
beneficial for this life and this world. The teachings and actions
of its author were based upon the fixed delusion that the end of
the world was at hand. Thus he says : “ For the Son of Man
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
57
shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he
shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say
unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of
death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Again, having foretold wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes,
false Christs, and false prophets showing great signs and wonders,
he adds: “ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall
the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and
the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,
and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with
power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from
the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” And he
■concludes : “ Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass
till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24 : 5-34 ; compare Luke
-21 : 25-32, and 1 Thess. 4: 14-17.) These are among the most
■explicit prophecies in the Bible, and the most exact as to date of
the events foretold. Yet it would be difficult to find them quoted
by any Christian advocate in the very astonishing collections of
“Prophecies fulfilled” with which we are abundantly favoured.
This omission may be due to the facts that, although the period for
their fulfilment is long overdue, although all standing there have
tasted of death, and all that generation have passed away nearly
eighteen centuries since; although frequent alarms have been
given, and a bright look-out has been everywhere kept; the Son
of Man has not been seen coming in the glory of his Father with
his angels.
Consider the effects of this delusion upon Christ’s teachings.
Why care for this world, whose destruction was imminent ? Why
trouble about this life, so soon to be swallowed up in the life
•eternal ? This life and this world were naturally contemptible to
him ; their enjoyments and treasures were baits and snares of the
Devil. Therefore we read in the Gospel called of St. John (which
Luther tells us “is the true and pure Gospel, the chief of the
Gospels, inasmuch as it contains the greatest portion of our
Saviour’s sayings ”), “ He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal ”
(John 12 : 25) ; and again, “ I pray not for the world ; but for
�58
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
them which thou hast given me ; for they are mine. . . . 'Theyare not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17 :
9, 16). Therefore he said : “ Take no thought for your life, what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what
ye shall put on. . . . Take therefore no thought for the mor
row; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself”
(Matt. 6: 25, 34). Therefore he contemned all natural affections
(Matt. 10: 37; 12: 46-50; 19: 29). Therefore he taught, Resist
not evil (Matt. 5 : 39) ; and his great apostle taught abject sub
mission to tyranny, “the right divine of kings to govern‘wrong ”
(Rom. 13: 1, 2). Therefore he enjoined poverty and asceticism
(Matt. 19 : 21, 23, 24); not the regulation, but the destruction, of
our natural instincts, the continence of self-mutilation and castra
tion (Matt. 5 : 29, 30 ; 18 : 8, 9 ; 19 : 12). As every student of the
New Testament is aware, it would be easy to multiply texts from
the Gospels and Epistles, all in a similar strain, and all spoken or
written under the influence of the fanatical delusion that the de
struction of this world and the advent of the kingdom of Heaven
were imminent. It is clear from these maxims and precepts that
all the improvements, social and political, scientific and artistic,
commercial and mechanical, wh’ch have been made in the world
since the birth of Christianity, have been made in spite of it, not
because of it; have been wrought by the spirit of Secularism ever
struggling, and in recent centuries with ever-growing success,
against the spirit of dogmatic religion.
But Christianity puts in a predominant claim to beneficence, in
that it secures to its believers everlasting bliss after death, or, at
the worst, blesses their lives here with the hope and expectation
thereof, even should the expectation not be realised. In the first
place, we answer that it likewise assures, not only to all dis
believers, but to nearly all if not quite all professing believers,
everlasting torture after death ; or, at the best, curses their lives
here with the dread and expectation thereof, even should the ex
pectation not be realized. For Jesus said, “ Why call ye me Lord,
Lord, and keep not my commandments ?” and again, “ By their
fruits ye shall know them ;” and the truth is there is no man or
woman living in Christendom who does keep his commandments,
and scarcely any who seriously and thoroughly tries. Who takes
no thought for the morrow ? Who resists not evil? Who, being
smitten on the one cheek, turns the other also ? Who, being asked
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
59'.
for his cloak, gives also his coat ? Who sells all that he has and
gives it to the poor ? So-called Christians would have been
extinct in the first century after the crucifixion of their Jesus had
they not copiously adulterated their other-worldliness with thisworldliness, their uncommon nonsense with common-sense ; and
the result is that we can’t find a genuine Christian among the
hundreds of millions of Christendom, unless it be here and there a
fanatical monk pr hysterical nun.
As to the hope of Heaven, which the Christians claim as a bless
ing in this life, it is over-balanced by the curse of the fear of Hell.
But in truth, though the hope and the fear seem effective to some
minds as arguments in a debate, they are seldom effectual in rea^
life. A good many Christians in rare moments, a very few zealotsmore commonly, may be exalted by the foretaste of Heaven or
tormented by the foretaste of Hell. When wrought to intensity
fear certainly does more harm than the hope can do good; there
are but too many instances of persons thus terrified into incurable
lunacy, into the very worst species of. delirium tremens known.
But, as a rule, every honest and intelligent man must.be aware
that the fear of Hell in itself has scarcely any influence in keeping
Christians from what they think sin, and the hope of Heaven
scarcely any influence in attracting them to what they think holi
ness. No stronger proof of the weakness and unreality of the
general faith in Heaven could be adduced, than the fact that good
“ Christians” cling to this life as hard and as long as they can ;
that when they are sick they pray for recovery—from what ? from
the danger of going straight to eternal beatitude ; that they will
physic and doctor themselves desperately, preferring a miserable
death-in-life here to perfect life in the kingdom of glory ; that they
never resign themselves to the Saviour’s bosom until they can no
longer keep out of it. If this point had really the important bear
ing on the case that some weak-minded and low-thoughted persons
seem to fancy it has, one could further answer that Christianity, in
this respect, simply stands on a level with all other revealed re
ligions, since each of these promises future felicity to its own
faithful and threatens future punishment to unbelievers. Why, then,
should hope of Heaven’ allure us, or fear of Hell frighten us, into
Christianity rather than into Mohammedanism, Brahminism, or
Buddhism ? If intelligent belief were subject to the will, and not
the offspring of independent reason, probably most men would
«
�6o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
prefer the Heaven of Mohammed, and most men and women the
Nirvana of Buddha to that everlasting psalm singing in long white
nightgowns, amidst the howling of “ all the menagerie of the Apo
calypse,” which constitutes the Heaven of Christ.
Secularism is more beneficial than Christianity, inasmuch as it
teaches no figment of the “ end of the world,” of the existence of
a personal Devil; no submission to despots; no anxiety whether
we shall “ be with the damned cast out or numbered with the
blest.” The world is our home, and Secularism teaches us a
paramount duty to make the best of it by striving to increase its
usefulness, its purity, and its ethical greatness.
XIII.
SECULARISM PROGRESSIVE; CHRISTIANITY
STAGNANT.
Christianity, as taught in our churches, is chained fast and
riveted with iron to the immutable dogmas of an immutable God;
round its neck hangs the millstone of an infallible book, which it
worships in abject stupor as a Fetish; the multiplex windowless
walls of its dungeon are adamantine Traditions and Creeds, Articles
and Catechisms, Decrees of Councils, and Decrees of Popes. It is
thus essentially stagnant and inert; it does comparatively but
little useful work in the world; it is perishing of atrophy, brain
and heart and limbs irretrievably wasting away. In this life it has
no future; its future is in the life to come (or not to come!); its
ideal is in the past, to which its vacant eyes are ever reverted in
the dense gloom of its prison-cell. Its perfection was in the Primi
tive Apostolic Church, the Church of the immediate disciples of
its Lord and Saviour; the Lord who has almost practically ceased
to reign, the Saviour who has almost ceased to save. His example
and teachings were regarded as being perfect; those who lived
with him were thought to be blessed with these in unstinted abund
ance, in untainted purity. Flowing through the long centuries
since, the slender rill has grown a mighty river,’ pouring itself
through many branches into the sea; but how the purity of the
fountain has been adulterated in its course !—it has been impreg
nated with the most various soils, mingled with affluents from
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
61
diverse regions, polluted with all the abominations of the cities
that have arisen on its banks, and the ships that have sailed upon
its waters. Such now is the Church of many churches ; but the
genuine Christianity thereof is limited to that thin thread of “ the
pure water of life which has trickled down from the divine source,
Jesus. It is, therefore, a fallacy to speak of the development of
Christianity; if it were born full-grown and perfect, how could it
admit of development ? The great churches have swelled from it,
but how ? By unlimited dilution and adulteration. They have
taken to themselves the things of this world, which are alien from
true Christianity; they have allied themselves with the powers of
this world, which are hostile to true Christianity ; they have mixed
reason with faith, science with Providence, time with eternity,
earth with Heaven, wealth with poverty, comfort with asceticism,
self-indulgence with self-renunciation; and this unclean.composite
slush is the Holy water of Ecclesiasticism, but assuredly it is not
the “living water ” of Christ. As well talk of developing a bottle
of good wine into a barrel, by flooding it with gallons of ink, milk,
gin, beer, and blood.
And this fallacy of the development of Christianity suggests
another not less gross : the fallacy that former Freethinkers have
been refuted, because modern Freethinkers as a rule take other
grounds for attack. The shifting is always due, not to the repulse
of the assailants, but to the retreat of the assailed. Speaking
broadly, no Freethought assault on the entrenchments of Chris
tianity has ever been baffled. But as the Christian champions
were driven out of one line they withdrew to another ; and the
Freethinkers in following up their success of course had to abandon
their old parallels. Sap and mine had done their work effectually
there, and must be advanced against the next inner line. Driven
' out of this in turn, the Christians fell back on another, to be there
duly beleagured by the ever-advancing Secularists. Let us
honestly confess that the Christians have shown immense ingenuity
and industry in planning and throwing up entrenchment within
entrenchment. Let us honestly admit that they have made a most
stubborn defence, having such mighty power and enormous wealth
to fight for. But the leaguer cannot last for ever. Storming one
after another, steadily and irresistibly, these concentric lines, we
must at length girdle and constrain the inmost citadel with a ring
of fire and iron, not to be broken by sallies from within, not to be
�62
SECULAR TEACHINGS
broken by assaults from without, which, indeed, are not to be
feared, since all the open country is friendly. Then the last hold
of the Christian Church will have its choice of surrender or starva
tion ; with' the chance of some stray bombshell exploding her
magazine, blowing casemates and garrison to the—fourth person
in the Christian Godhead. If she has then any sense left, she will
abdicate the usurped powers she has abused, disgorge the vast
treasures she has stolen and obtained • under false pretences, and
come down to live human life with human kind, happier and better
than she ever has been as Priestess of Delusions and Empress of
Slaves.
The Primitive Church was the realized ideal of genuine Chris
tianity, In so far as any of the modern Churches deviate from
this archetype they are degenerate and corrupt, void of the essen
tial spirit of Christianity. The first Christians, we are told, were
filled with the Holy Ghost, had the gift of tongues, worked miracles,
were delivered by angels, had all things in common, suffered all
things for Christ’s sake, believed that the end of the world was at
hand as Jesus had assured them, cared nothing for patriotism or
political freedom, had absolute faith, were opposed to the wise and
prudent, but at one with babes, preferred celibacy to marriage; we.
are even told, though it seems incredible to our modern experi
ence, that they continued together in one accord and loved each
other. In so far as our modern professors resemble these, they are
real Christians: in so far as they differ from these, not Christians
at all. Thus the Pope and the Ultramontanes are consistent
Christians in denouncing Rationalism, Liberalism, Science; in
encouraging celibacy ; in valiantly continuing to cultivate miracles,
scornful of a sceptical world ; and the Pope is signally consistent
in enduring persecution and the horrible imprisonment of the
Vatican, for the sake of the Church, and in the unlimited dust he
shakes off his feet against those who refuse to receive him. The
Catholic Apostolic Church of Edward Irving is consistently
Christian in claiming and exercising the primitive endowments,
such as the power to work miracles and edification by unknown
tongues. The Shakers are consistent Christians in having all
things in common; and the Peculiar People in depending upon
Prayer and Providence instead of worldly Science for the cure o I
disease. On the contrary, all the Churches and Sects are incon
sistent and un-Christian in so far as they add to or take from the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
b3
revealed Word of God, in so far as they compromise with the
world and common-sense, in so far as they care for the mortal body
and neglect the immortal soul, in so far as they depend upon work
and science instead of prayer and providence, in so far as they are
concerned with this life instead of the life to come.
Christianity is essentially inert, stagnant, with its ideal perfec
tion in the past, Secularism is essentially active, progressive, with
its ideal of a loftier and nobler mundane existence in the future.
It is chained and riveted to no stark dogmas, it has no infallible
Book like a millstone round its neck, it is imprisoned in no admantine creeds and formulas. It has no decrees of Popes nor authority
of Thirty-nine Articles to retard its intellectual advancement. It
refuses to regulate its modern life by the dictums of by-gone days.
Its rftendacity is not fixed to the “ rock” of the first century. On
the contrary, Secularism is constantly growing in thought with the
constant growth of Science, it is always open to the corrections of
Experienee, it holds no theories so tenaciously that it is not ready
to fling them away directly facts contradict them. As time rolls
. on and the treasures of the universe are revealed by the activity of
the human mind, Secular philosophy is ever ready to avail itself of
this natural revelation. It assimilates gladly all it can find of good
and true in the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, as in Homer, Dante,
and Shakespeare, without burdening itself with what it deems bad
or false. It is ever increasing in action with the ever-increasing
inter-communication between the various countries of the world,
and the ever-increasing common interests of their inhabitants. Its
life of life is unintermitted activity and progress.
XIV. SECULARISM: ITS STRUGGLES IN THE PAST.
Although the name Secularism is comparatively new, the prin
ciples it embodies were recognized and influential long before the
birth of Christianity. The old classical religions were in a large
measure Secularistic, notwithstanding their myths, which, indeed,
were more fanciful than gloomily superstitious; they deified the
powers of nature, the great inventors and improvers of the useful
and beautiful arts, and the heroes who compelled into orderly
�64
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
peace the disorders of the world. They did not starve and degrade
this life in subservience to a dubious hereafter. And the old.
classical sages, who dissolved the grossness of the myths into sym
bols and allegories of natural and moral philosophy, had carried
far the cultivation of reason and science, before the blight of
Christianity fell upon them, and kept them barren for more than a
thousand years. In Alexandria, the great capital in which the
intellect and culture of the East met and commingled with those
of the West, there was immense literary and scientific activitylong before and long after the Christian era. Libraries of hun
dreds of thousands of volumes were collected in the Museum and
the Serapion ; there were zoological and botanical gardens ; experi
ments were vigorously carried on. The Alexandrians knew that
the earth is a globe; they had correct ideas of the poles, the axis,,
the equator, the arctic and antarctic circles, distribution of climafbs,
&c. They had invented a fire engine and a steam engine. The
geometry of Euclid comes from them ; the genius and achieve
ments of Archimedes in pure and applied mathematics h^ve pro
bably never been surpassed ; Ptolemy’s “ Treatise on the Mathe
matical Construction of the Heavens ” remained unequalled and
uncontroverted until the time of Copernicus. Christianity, with
its contempt for this world, and the science of this world, with its
fanatical visions of a new Jerusalem, coming in the clouds, swelled
to a delug< and overwhelmed the fruitful fields of philosophy with
ignorance and delusion. Constantine adopted it as a powerful
engine of statecraft, and it was adapted to the popular gross
Paganism in order to render it agreeable to the masses. No
historical facts can be more certainly proved than that the greater
part of the rites and symbols of Christianity came from the Pagan
idolatry, and most of the subtleties of its theology from Pagan
metaphysics. On the ground that all truth was contained in the
infallible Word of God, the early fathers and their successors for
centuries firmly held (and woe to him who overtly disagreed with
them !) that the earth was a plane, with the sky for dome, and the
sun, moon, and stars for lamps; with Heaven above the sky, and
Hell beneath the earth. Their chronology and geology, in so far
as they could be said to have any, were equally absurd, being
based on the Book of Genesis. St. Augustine got Pelagius con
demned, and the great truth established that there was no death
in the world before the Fall of Adam and Eve ! In Alexandria
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
65
itself Christianity celebrated its triumph over human reason by
destroying the Serapion and scattering its incomparable library,
and by.murdering Hypatia. The sweet Saint Cyril, who instigated
a Christian mob to this foul and brutal murder, was the same re
presentative of piety who triumphed over the Nestorians, and
foisted the worship of the Virgin into the Church ; Mary and her
son being but a Christian revival of the old Egyptian Isis and
Horus. Faith being supreme, science lay in a long catalepsy.
For fifteen hundred years Christendom did not produce a single
astronomer. Even the pure mathematics, which needed no experi
ment or apparatus, were utterly neglected ; the monks and hermits
believing that they had better things to think of! The learned
(by comparison) were, chiefly occupied with miraculous legends,
commentaries ingeniously obscuring the obscurities of the Bible,
disputes about mysteries and dogmas of which none really knew
or could know anything. The knights and nobles were always
fighting among themselves, or plundering traders and artisans.
The Church, as it grew more powerful, grew more worldly and
corrupt; Popes bribed and intrigued for election ; two, and even
three, at one time fought and cursed each other; bishops and
abbots were great luxurious lords ; monasteries and nunneries,
which at first were the dungeons of starved and mutilated
lives, grew proverbial for all voluptuousness ; Rome was the com
mon sink for the worst vices of all Europe. The peasantry and
labourers were mere serfs, crushed in hopeless misery beneath
feudal exactions and despotism. Their food was the food of hogs,,
their cabins were sties. As no laws of nature were acknowledged,,
no sanitary measures were thought of, though from the general
filth and want dreadful plagues and famines were frequent; the
Church got a rich revenue from shrine-cures, and relic-cures, and
miraculous cures of all sorts, which were so beneficial to the peo
ple that it has been reckoned that in England, to take one example,
the population scarcely doubled during the five hundred years
succeeding the Norman Conquest. As for superstition, it was
omnipotent; the air was supposed to swarm with devils and
angels ; witchcraft was thpught to be so common that “ witches”
and “ wizards ” were always being put to death ; relics commanded
a fetish worship as degraded as exists among the lowest tribes of
Africa.
Such was the beatific civilization established by Christianity (of
�66
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
whose civilizing influences we hear so much) after a thousand
years ! Whence came the re-awaking of the spirit of Secularism,
which has already brought us to a condition that, with, all its
drawbacks, is perfection itself compared with that of the holy
Middle Ages, so dear to the sentimental faithful ? Was it aroused
by some growth of Christianity within, or was it stirred from with
out ? It was stirred from without, for Christianity had no life in
itself for the development. Mohammedanism, with all its faults
and errors, kept itself pure from the base idolatry almost universal
in Christendom, and fostered to a certain extent literature, science,
and all the useful arts. Scholars tell us that the great Persian
poets rank with the greatest poets of all time. The noble works of
the Greek philosophers were translated into Arabic ; hence the
revival of learning and science in the West. The Moors in Spain
were centuries ahead of the rest of Europe in every department of
civilization. The Jews, whose treatment by Christians in the
Middle Ages was simply fiendish, were well treated by the Moslems,
tolerant of everything but image-worship, and developed trade,
and were skilful physicians. We know too well how both the
Moors and Jews of Spain were dealt with when the Christians had
re-conquered that country. The Crusaders, who went out in half
millions about twice a century, to recover the Holy Land from the
accursed Paynims, were hordes of barbarians, strong only in brute
strength and steel armour, compared with the liberal and culti
vated Saracens. When Godfrey took Jerusalem in 1099, he and
his chiefs wrote to the Pope that they had enjoyed a week’s
massacre of the Infidels, till “ our people had the blood of the
Saracens up to the knees of their horses.” From this commerce
between East and West came the revival of science, learning, and
art in Europe, which made the introduction of the basis of Secular
philosophy possible. The Greek and Latin classics were studied,
and as learning spread beyond the monkish cells heresies sprang
up, heresies which were the first faint germinations of Freethought
amidst the mental slavery of the Church, which fiercely resisted
,^-ygry step of progress—physical, moral, and intellectual. The
•only good things the Church seemed to foster were the fine arts ;
and these were really fostered, not by its Christianity, but by its
Paganism. For the Popes and Dignitaries of the Renaissance
were mere pagans, and its lovely Madonnas and babes are but
Venuses and Cupids with halos. As Mr. Ruskin candidly testifies
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
67
in the second volume of his “Stones of Venice”: “ I never met
with a Christian whose heart was thoroughly set upon the world
to come, and so far as human judgment could pronounce, perfect
and right before God, who cared about art at all.”
It is but fair to admit that the sceptical elements associated
with the Reformation of the sixteenth century ‘played an impor
tant part in preparing the way for the consolidation of Secular
principles. Doubtless the religious reformers, in fighting for free
dom, gave an impetus to Freethought. But, unfortunately, daunt
less as they were, they lacked consistency. Having reached the
pinnacle of freedom, they forgot the rugged path up which they
had climbed. Having overcome the tyranny of their oppressors,
they themselves persecuted those who desired to travel further on
the road of progress. Hence, liberty was deprived of much of
its valuable service through the influence of theology on the minds
of men who commenced fighting the battle of freedom, but who
had to yield to the dictates of a limited and exclusive faith. The
Freethought of to-day has been stimulated by men who cared little
or nothing for popular religion at a time when orthodoxy was at
its lowest ebb. The last century, the years from 1700 to 1800, was
the least religious, the least Christian century of the Christian era.
It was the era of philosophy, of science and of Freethought ; of
Voltaire, of Rousseau and of Hume; of Black, with his discovery
of the true principles of heat; of Dalton, with his discoveries in
chemistry; of Watt, with his improvement of the steam-engine;
of Hume, with his demonstrations of the absurdity of religion;
and of Thomas Paine, with his clear exposition of the great fun
damental principles of government. These are the men who have
really assisted in the progress of the world. Their principles have
sown the seeds of modern progress. To their efforts we are in
debted for much of the prosperity of the nineteenth century. As
Theodore Parker once said, the progressive philosophers of
Christendom to-day are not Christians. The leaders of science
and philanthropy in modern times are men who have the love o
•truth and the love of justice, who possess large and benevolent
hearts, but who have no practical faith in Christianity.
How the Church encouraged Freethought in the past may be
read in the lives of heretics and the histories of heresies : Abelard,
Arnold of Brescia, Bruno, Vanini, Dolet, Berquin, Huss, Servetus,
..Latimer, Ridley; the Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollards, Coven-
�*
68
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
anters. How she encouraged science may be seen in her condem
nations of the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo. First sheresisted printing, then tried to control it with her Index Expurgatoiius, her list of books forbidden to be read, being, in fact, a list
of books best worth reading. She opposed insurance, inoculation,
and vaccination ; she condemned the use of anaesthetics in ob
stetrics as impiously tending to remove from women the curse
imposed by God as recorded in Genesis. Geology, of course, she
has resisted with all the little might left her, for its immense cycles
of life make unutterably absurd her Biblical chronology of six
thousand years. She has steadfastly done her best and worst to
keep us back, and she has always been beaten in the long run ; she
could imprison, banish, and murder isolated men and women, and
even multitudes of men and women; but she could not for ever
imprison the human mind, or banish free thought, or murder our
aspirations toward liberty and light. Yet, in justice to her, to prove
how consistently and persistently she has struggled against pro
gress, two instances may be cited. It has been reckoned that be
tween 1481 and 1808 the Holy Inquisition punished 340,000 persons,
of whom nearly 32,000 were “ punished as gently as possible, and
without effusion of blood,” or, in common English, were burnt
alive; and Buckle refers to a list of 60,000 Dissenters, mentioned
by Jeremy White,, who in the 17th century were persecuted by the
Church of England, of whom no less than 5,000 died in prison.
XV.
SECULARISM : ITS DEFINITE SERVICE TO
MANKIND.
It is urged by orthodox believers, as an objection to Secularism,,
that its principles have not accomplished the same amount of good
for society that Christianity has. This comparison, however, is as
unjust as the conclusion drawn therefrom is fallacious. In order
that opposing principles shall produce equally beneficial results, it
is necessary that both shall have the same opportunities and facili
ties for manifesting their respective worth. This has not been thecase with the two systems under consideration; for while Christianity
has had nearly eighteen hundred years to exhibit its value, the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
69
public recognition of Secularism is but of comparatively recent
■date. Besides,Christianity has commanded all the advantages which
wealth, influence, and patronage could bestow, while Secularism
has had to struggle in the cold shade of opposition, against theo
logical prejudices and religious persecutions. And history and
experience testify to the fact that systems which appeal to the
fears, the weaknesses, and the credulity of a people, have a better
chance of temporary success, than those principles whose claims
are submitted to the judgment of mankind. Hence; Secularists
are less emotional, as a rule, in their advocacy than orthodox
Christians are. Secularists seek to win with the aid of argument,
not with the use of threats. They, believing in works of utility,
pursue an even course of conduct, disregarding alike the perplex
ities of a mystic faith, and the allurements of the orthodox fancied
life beyond the grave.
The question is, has Secularism achieved more useful results
during its brief existence as an organized force than Christianity
accomplished in a relative time of its primitive days ? Unques
tionably we answer in the affirmative. It is a favourite boast of
■orthodox exponents that Secularists have built no hospitals,
erected no orphan asylums, and established no homes for the poor.
It is true that in their distinctive organization Secularists have not
had an opportunity to .do this, but in their individual capacity they
have always rendered valuable support to these useful agencies,
and for hundreds of years Christians did no more. It is the height
of folly to suppose that we are indebted to the Christian faith for
the benevolence of the worid. Professor Max Muller has shown
that philanthropy and charity existed in abundance long before
Christianity dawned upon the world, that the chief characteristic
of Buddhist morality was chanty, and that Buddha himself pro
claimed, the brotherhood of man and exhorted the rich to perform
their duty by giving to the poor. That eminent and impartial
author, R. Bosworth Smith, M. A., of Trinity College, Oxford,
furnishes some valuable facts upon this subject in his work
on Mohammedanism. “ No Christian,” says he, “ need be sorry
to learn, or be backward to acknowledge, that, contrary to what is
usually supposed, two of these noble institutions [hospitals and
lunatic asylums] which flourish now most in Christian countries
. . . . owe their origin and their early spread, not to his own
religion, but to' the great heart of humanity, which beats in two
�7o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
other of the grandest religions of the world ” (“ Mohammed and
Mohammedanism,” p. 253). The writer then goes on to demon
strate that “ hospitals are the direct outcome of Buddhism,” and
that lunatic asylums are the result of “ Mohammedan influence.’
Lecky also observes that “ no lunatic asylum existed in Christian
Europe till the fifteenth century. The Mohammedans, in this form
of charity, preceded the Christians ” (“ History of European
Morals,” vol 2, p. 94).
Thus it will be seen that these institutions are not fruit from the
Christian tree. Such monuments of charity are supported by
benevolence, which is a human instinct belonging exclusively to no
one nation and to no one people. It is to be found wherever human
nature exists. It obtained long before Christianity was heard of,,
and it will doubtless continue to benefit mankind when the Chris
tian faith has shared the fate of other imperfect systems. If
benevolence is a Christian instinct only, how is it that we find it so
largely displayed by those who have no faith in Christianity ? Vol
taire was no Christian, yet his benevolent acts won words of praise
from Lord Brougham. Robert Owen, who had no sympathies
with the religions of the world, spent a life and fortune in doing
good to his fellow-creatures. During the distress in 1806, caused
by the embargo placed on the ports of America, this Freethought
philanthropist paid ^70,000 for wages while his mills were stopped,,
rather than the families of his work-people should suffer through
the lack of employment. Surely, this was disinterested benevo
lence. The history of Stephen Girard, the Philadelphia merchant,
indicates how “ infidelity” and philanthropy may be allied. Girard
was a “ total disbeliever in the Christian religion.” Notwith
standing this, during his life he gave the following proofs of his
generous nature:—“He subscribed $110,000 for purposes of
navigation, $10,000 towards the erection of a public exchange, and
$200,000 for railway enterprises. At his death he bequeathed
$30,000 to the Pennsylvania Hospital, $20,000 t® the deaf and
dumb institution, $10,000 to the public schools of Philadelphia,
and the same amount to the orphan asylum. In addition to these
bequests, Girard left large sums of money to the general poor,
and for sanitary and social improvements.”
James Lick
gave more than $1,000,000 for scientific and benevolent
purposes; James Smithson, an unbeliever, left half-a-million
to found the Smithsonian Institute at Washington; Peter
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
7r
Brigham gave $3,000,000 for the purpose of establishing
hospitals for the sick-poor of Boston ; John Redmon gave $400,000 '
to support free beds in the hospitals at Boston ; William McClure
gave half-a-million to aid the workingmen of Indiana. In Glas
gow, Scotland, the Mitchell Library, with its bequest of £70,000,
is the legacy of a Socialist and a Freethinker. Mr. George Baillie,
of the same city, left over £18,000 to establish unsectarian schools,
reading rooms, etc.; and the Haldan bequest, of Glasgow, and
the Glen Institution were gifts of those who had no faith in the
religion of the Churches. The fact is, benevolence is a human
instinct born of human sympathy and stimulated by utility, which
is pre-eminently a Secular principle.
It is alleged that the service of Secularism to the world has been
impaired in consequence of its being partly negative in its advocacy.
But its positive teachings should not be overlooked. Moreover,
if negation be an error, Christianity is certainly not free from it,
inasmuch as it negates all systems but its own, and even to that it
is not consistently positive. But why this professed alarm at
negative advocacy ? Is negation to error a crime ? Is the
destruction of wrong useless to society ? Is it no service to man
kind, while shams are regarded as realities and falsehoods wor
shipped as truth, to pursue a negative course of action ? Should
we be wise in being positive to foolish conjectures about another
world and injurious conduct in this ? £)n the contrary, it is necessary,
to prepare public opinion for the reception of advanced views by
clearing the human mind of the weeds of error, that we may have
some hope of successfully planting the flowers of truth. Instead,
therefore, of believing indiscriminately in ancient creeds, the Secular
advocate deems it wise to examine all faiths presented to him, and to
seek to destroy what is contained therein that is inimical to modern
improvement. The province of Secularism is not only to enunciate
positive principles, but also to break up old systems which have lost
their vitality, and to refute theologies which have hitherto usurped
judgment and reason. Secularism relies on no dogmas, and pays
no heed to religious theories about saving faith. It professes to
know nothing about worlds beyond the tomb, and asserts, should
there be any, their duties do not commence here. It declines
to be dictated to by any priests, or to listen to the ridiculous stories
about alleged sacred books. It recognizes no church but that of
humanity, and knows no code of morals but that which is based
�72
SECULAR TEACHINGS
upon the happiness of man. Whatever interferes with general
usefulness, Secularism regards as dangerous to the commonwealth.
Hence the Secularist opposes orthodox Christianity, because
he considers it antagonistic to the principles of utility. Secularism,
however, is not limited to “ cold negation.” While as Secularists
we are negative to the follies of theology, we are positive to the
wisdom of humanity ; while many of us reject what is said to per
tain to the supernatural, we readily accept that which belongs to
the natural, and deem it right to conform as far as possible to
nature’s laws. Experience proves that such obedience is the best
guarantee against the many “ ills that flesh is heir to.” Thus
Secularism inculcates the most positive duties of life, such as the
study of physiology, by which man can learn to know himself; a
knowledge of the chemistry of food, water, and air, whereby he may
be able to maintain a healthy organization ; an acquaintance with
the mental nature of man, which will enable us to know how cir
cumstances impel us in a certain direction, producing vice here,
virtue there, morality at one time, and immorality at another; a
consciousness of domestic obligations which will prompt men to
provide by their own industry for those dependent upon them, and
to seek to make provision by care and prudence for the evening of
life.
Secular workers have found it necessary to till and prepare the
soil of the human mind for the reception of the seed of truth
which has slowly but surely developed into flowers of mental
liberty.
True liberty is not the offshoot of a day, but
rather the growth of years. “ Our Elliots, our Hampdens, and our
Cromwells, a couple of centuries ago, hewed with their broad-swords
a rough pathway for the people. But it was reserved for the present
century to complete the triumph which the Commonwealth began.’’
And this is just the century in which Secularism has manifested
its activity. The battle of the freedom of the press and liberty of
speech has been nobly fought, and practically won, but the victory
cost Paine, Hone, Wright, Carlile, Williams, Hetherington, Wat
son, and many others their liberty, and imposed upon them priva
tions which were keen to endure. For selling the Poor Man's
Guardian only, upwards of 500 persons were thrown into prison.'
For publishing the “ Age of Reason” in 1797, Williams suffered
twelvemonths’ imprisonment in Coldbath prison. In 1812, Daniel
Isaac Eaton was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
73
the pillory, for the same grave offence ; and the following year, Mr.
Houston was sentenced to be imprisoned for two years in Newgate,
and fined /200, for publishing his book called “ Ecce Homo.” In
October, 1819, Carlile was tried for publishing Paine’s Theological
Works, and Palmer’s “ Principles of Nature,” and condemned for
the first to Dorchester Gaol, and a fine of ^1,000; and for the
second to one year’s imprisonment, and a fine of ^500, and had to
find security for good behaviour for himself in ^"i,ooo, and two
securities in ^100 each. His wife and sister were afterwards con
victed of similar acts, and suffered heavy sentences. Upwards of
thirty other persons, many of them journeymen of Mr. Carlile,
and the rest small booksellers, were also subjected to fine and
imprisonment in various degrees of severity. After this, Charles
Southwell was imprisoned and fined ^100, for publishing an article
in the Oracle of Reason.
The Christian Church has ever persecuted those who differed
from its teachings. This desire to promote free enquiry in its
early history was exemplified in the memorable proclamation of
the Christian Emperor Theodosius, in which he declared that
the whole of the writings of Porphyry, and all others who had
written against the Christian religion, should be committed
to the fire.
The writings of Celsus met with an equally
warm reception, and for a proof that the same desire has existed in
modern times, it is necessary not only to read the history of those
Freethought pioneers of the last and early part of the present cen
tury, but also to remember that now, whenever Christians have
the power, they close the halls against us, in order that we may
not have the opportunity to promulgate the . material for free in
quiry.
Thus it will be seen that Secularism in the past has of necessity
been principally destructive, having had to fight for its right of
existence; till this was won it had no opportunity of exemplifying
its constructive powers. It was reserved for a more recent date to
formulate its principles into order and practical working. This is
the pleasing task in which the Secular party is now engaged ; and
that is a work which we hope and believe will make Secularism an
important factor in the training and elevation of the present
generation.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
Z4
XVI.
SECULARISM : ITS PRESENT TRIUMPHS.
What benefits have accrued to us from the victories of our fore
fathers in the long and desperate conflict between Science and’
Religion ? The Copernican system, perfected mathematically by
Newton, in the words of Leibnitz, “ robbed the Deity of some of
his best attributes, and sapped the foundation of natural religion.’r
For people who. believed that the earth was the centre and chief of
the universe, the sun and moon and stars being merely little lamps
moving around it, and the sky a canopy above it, it was not ridi
culous to conceive that beyond the sky there was a Heaven, be
neath the flat earth a Hell; and that God was supremely interested!
in mundane affairs, and especially in the destiny of man, the
noblest creature of this royal earth. But such conceptions are
worse than ridiculous, they are idiotic, when we know that our
globe is a speck so minute in the Immensity of Space, that “ a full
stop in this print, as seen by the naked eye at a distance of twofeet, is several hundred times larger than the earth as seen from
the sun; ” while from the nearest of the fixed stars it would bequite indistinguishable with telescopes much’ more powerful than
we possess. If God gave his Only Son for us animalcules on this
microscopic spherule, what could he do for the Illimitable Uni
verse ? It is now seen that there is no above and no beneath; no
place for Heaven or Hell. And we are not less insignificant in the
boundlessness of Time than of Space. It is true that our race was
in existence myriads of years before the date of birth entered in the
family Bible, but other animals and the earth itself were in ex
istence myriads of years before us ; and as the condition of the earth
is ever changing, all probabilities point to the prospect of the earth
itself and other creatures being in existence myriads of ages after
we are extinct. A hopeful look-out tor our immortal souls!
While astronomy and geology have thus dethroned the earth
and man, dissolved Heaven and Hell, and reduced the Book of
Genesis to a jejune fable, the progress of all the sciences has im
pressed upon us the universality and immutability of law, the
invariable sequences of events, thus slaying miracle, despatching
Special Providence, and rendering prayer for celestial help a child
ish folly. Most of us look to medicin'e and sanitary measures for
health, not to supplication and shrined relics. And in most of us
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
75
are included our so-called Christians, for, in spite of their dogmas,
the greater part of their lives are conducted on the principles of
Secularism, though generally it is a Secularism deprived of many
of its better qualities. They shut down their brains on Sundays
in church, but keep them open with their shops all the week.
They are now willing to avail themselves of all the benefits of
science, but beg us not to shock their bashfulness by exposing its
principles and deductions in all their naughty nakedness.
If the question is asked, Is the present age practically Christian
or Secular ? to whom or to what shall we appeal for an answer ?
Shall we go to the Church of Rome? No; for its spirit is con
fessedly that of the past ages. Times change, governments alter,,
nations rise, civilizations come and go, but Catholicism remains
the same. Its philosophy is still that of Thomas Aquinas; its
creeds are still damnatory upon all who cannot accept them in
every jot or tittle. Shall we appeal to the Anglican Church ? No ;
for that Church refuses liberty of thought and speech to even her
own children, as when she visited with excommunication, obloquy
and reproach the endeavours of Bishop Colenso to throw the light
of reason upon the hitherto dark cells wherein the Pentateuch was
enshrouded from public inquiry. Not to either of these must we
make application,- but rather to the science, literature, philosophy
and politics of this nineteenth century of the Christian era.
First, then, let us appeal to science. “ Is the Bible scientifically
true ? ” To the geologist we say, “ Ought we to accept unques
tioningly the Bible account of the Creation ? ” The answer is dis
tinctly, “ No ! ” To the anthropologist we say, “ Is it true that all
mankind have proceeded directly from one man and one woman ? ”
The answer is distinctly, “ No!” To the astronomer we say, “ Is it
likely that sun, moon, planets and stars were made in order to
give light to the earth ? ” The answer is a decided “ No ! ” “ Is
it,” we ask, “ true that the sun and moon stood still at the com
mand of Joshua ? ” The astronomer says : “ No ; such a thing
would,in the nature of things,have wrecked and destroyed the solar
system.” To the critical scholar, the man whose life has been de
voted to the study of the age and the authenticity of the, different
portions of the Bible, we next apply to know whether these por
tions of the book were written by the men whose names they bear,
and in the age wherein their alleged occurrences transpired. He,
too, says: “ No ; these books are wholly human in their origin ;
•
�76
SECULAR TEACHINGS
they have been antedated, interpolated, added to and taken from j
you must not accept them as being the very word of the very God.”
So much for the characteristic of the age as represented by
science. If we turn to literature, what does that tell us ? That it
is wholly emancipated from the trammels of theology, that the
priest and the Index Expurgatorius no longer control it. There
was a time when the literature of Europe was confined to works
of theology and devotion. The first book, we believe, printed by
Caxton was a Bible, then a Missal, and so on. Lives of the saints
were abundant, telling of martyrs who, like St. Denis, walked
about with their heads in their hands after they had been decapi
tated, of ten thousand virgins murdered at once, and other fictions
even more incredible. All this, however, has been changed ; our
literature now pays little or no heed to theology. True it is that
Bibles are multiplied by the million ; that goody-goody tracts and
pious story-books are circulated in all directions ; but these do not
form the literature of the age. No ; that is the production of the
leading spirits of the time—of its doctors, its political writers, its
scientists, its lawyers, and its philosophers. Monthly, weekly—
aye, and even daily, the Press teems with productions many of
which are utterly at variance with the theological dogmas of the
past,
It is admitted even by eminent divines that the phase of unbelief
known as Agnosticism is a prominent characteristic of the age.
Agnosticism declares that we have no knowledge of God ; that we
cannot pretend to say that such a Supreme Intelligence exists ;
and that we are absolutely precluded from affirming that the uni
verse is really destitute of such a central Nous, or Highest Intelli
gence: “ Canst thou,” asked the writer of the grand old Semitic
drama—“ Canst thou by searching find out God ? ” This inter
rogation the honest Agnostic has put to himself, and after long and
earnest exercitation of mind, after the intensest study of the world
external and of the inner consciousness, he arrives at the conclu■ sion that the question cannot be satisfactorily answered, either
affirmatively or negatively.
The Philosophy of the age is far different to what it was when
men made their ignorance the standard of belief. There was a
time when even leeks, onions, and salt were worshipped as emblems
of power and of the preserving influence. We have outgrown such
idle Fetichism, and we believe that priestcraft has in the past
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
77
imposed these and all other theologies upon the world. It is not true
that there is something in the heart of man which beats responsive
to the figments of theologians. Fancy yourselves in a desolate "
island left to shift for yourselves from childhood, without either
priests or Bibles, or any means of becoming acquainted with the
thoughts and imaginings of other men in other regions. In such a
situation is it to be supposed that people’s hearts would prompt to
the education of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the necessity of
baptism, of regeneration, of the Apostle’s Creed, or the ThirtyNine Articles ? Where would be natural religion in such a case ?
The probability is that, except people were strong-minded, if they
were barbaric and ignorant, they would do as their distant pre
decessors in human history did—that is, fall down before and wor
ship the thunder, the tornado, the sun, or the starry host. Each
of these phenomena, then, would be endowed with a latent spirit,
and, in process of time, have added to them one supreme Unknown
Being, for whom would be invented a designation equivalent to
our word God.
Orthodox Christians misrepresent the philosophy of the age,
because they have been trained from infancy to attribute all things
whatever to a being external to themselves. But the present age
is more practical than any other by which it has been preceded : its
energies are directed towards its own improvement.
c
The political world is conducted on Secular principles ; scientific
research is unfettered by theology, and is, therefore, Secular ; and
the practical ethics of modern society are utilitarian, and are,
therefore, Secular. Happy, indeed, is it for the world that its
politics are now finally severed from religion. The stronghold of
the successful statesman to-day is the standard of utility. In his
reasoning, his whole argument is made to rest upon this, the
foundation of permanent progress. The career of Mr. Cobden in
England, and Mr. Lincoln in America, were illustrations of the
secularization of our modern public life.” They reveal to us the
path by which those must tread, whose ambition it is to benefit
their age. Had they lived a few hundred years ago, they might
have built churches, or founded monasteries,' or endowed colleges,
—been the Wyckhams or St. Bernards of their time. Their lot
was rather to legislate and agitate—to give food to the hungry,
to undo heavy burdens, and to set the oppres sed free ; to remove
impediments from the path of national progress, that human de-
�78
SECULAR TEACHINGS
velopment might be left to its own laws, to seek its welfare in its
own way. Life thus became to them mundane, secular, rational,
non-theological, spent amid the hard practical conflicts of politics,
and aiming at nothing higher than the advancement of justice,
righteousness, and liberty in the world.”
Indeed, this ignoring Christian principles as a guide is not con
fined to public men. Christians themselves have long since ceased
to be influenced in their every-day actions by the teachings of
their Master. In his work upon “ Liberty,” John Stuart Mill says,
that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individ
ual conduct by reference to those (New Testament) laws.” The
reason why those laws cannot be obeyed in the nineteenth century
is given in the words of Mill, that “ the morality of Christ is in
many important points incomplete and onesided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings not sanctioned by it, had contributed to the
formation of European life and character, human affairs would
have been in a worse condition than they now are.” The same
writer tells us that, “ other ethics than any which can
be evolved from exclusively Christian sources, must exist
side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral
regeneration of mankind.” Buckle also in his “ History of
Civilization,” after showing that until doubt began, civilization
was impossible, and that the religious tolerance we now have has
been forced from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that
the act of doubting is the originator, or at all events, the necessary
antecedent of all progress. Here we have that scepticism, the
very name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it
disturbs their lazy and complacent minds ; because it troubles
their cherished superstitions ; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry ;' and because it rouses even sluggish under
standings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed, and
if all is really true which they from their childhood have been
taught to believe. The more we examine this great principle of
scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense part it
has played in the progress of European civilization. To state in
general terms what in this introduction will be fully proved, it may
be said, that to scepticism we owe that spirit of inquiry which,
during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on every
possible subject; has reformed every department of practical and
speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority of the privi-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
t
79
leged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer foundation ; has
chastised the despotism of princes ; has restrained the arrogance
of the nobles, and has even diminished the prejudices of the clergy.
In a word, it is this which has remedied the three fundamental
errors of the olden time : errors which made the people, in politics
too confiding; in science too credulous ; in religion too intolerant.”
Thus, as the result of persistent Secular advocacy, we can con
gratulate ourselves upon having achieved many important
triumphs. We have a freedom of speech unknown in Christian
times. The press is more liberal than it ever was. Education is
becoming more secular every year, and orthodox persecution dare
not manifest itself as it di$l in the past. Hell is shut up, and the
•devil is practically dead, while the churches have left their old
moorings and are seeking to adapt their teachings to the Secular
requirements of the age.
We are told that the ethics of Jesus Christ are contained in the
four Gospels, and to the four Gospels they have ever been confined. Like
the old-fashioned silk dress of the old-fashioned cottager, they have
always been kept locked up, as being excellent to look at but too
fine for daily use. No man has ever succeeded, despite his protes
tations, in loving his enemy as himself; no man has ever turned the
second cheek to the ready blow of the smiter ; no man has syste
matically neglected himself out of a regard for the prosperity of his
•enemies. Indeed, the very heroes of the Bible never did this.
David cursed his persecutors ; the Apostles called down vengeance
from heaven upon Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon Magus; Paul
delivered over one of his enemies to Satan, “ that he might learn
not to blaspheme ; ” and generally throughout Christian history we
look in vain for the charity which beareth and endureth all things,
In our own age the real test of goodness of conduct is its useful
ness to the world. Though we do not make loud pretensions of
loving those who hate us, the whole gist and scope, of our morality
is directed towards promoting the welfare- of society by means
which will also secure the welfare of its component elements. This
is utilitarianism, not theology ; it is the recognition of the fact that
the thing called Duty is a something between man and man, not
man and God. In our mutual relationship we find the natural en
couragement and motive-power for the display of every virtue.
The theory of immortality has nothing whatever to do with our
prudence, our courage, our honesty, or our purity of character.
�So
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
The stringent, adamantine necessities of our existence imperatively
require the exercise of these virtues. Would we live secure from
peril of death by starvation, of penury the most abject, we must
prudently provide against the danger. Would we preserve our
national independence and individual freedom, we must be pre
pared to defend these against every adversary. Would we wish
to be ensured against false dealing and breach of faith, we must
ourselves deal honestly with all men. Would we keep a “ sound
mind in a sound body,” would we preserve our wives and daughters
from insult, we must keep our passions under restraint, and show
by our own example the wisdom of so living. Upon prudence
truth, courage, honesty, and. temperance is based the whole
edifice of modern civilization. Without them we could not exist
except as barbarians; they must always be the very corner-stones
of societarian morality.
XVII. SECULARISM IN THE FUTURE.
If ever since the Renaissance Science, Art and Freethought have •
steadily advanced in spite of all opposition, and the power of the
Church has steadily decreased ; if Naturalism, in the weak infancy
of its birth, has not only defeated all the attempts of Supernatural
ism to crush it, but has wrested more and more its rightful domains
from the usurper ; we cannot doubt the issue of the conflict be
tween Secularism and its foes now that the former is grown to
vigorous youth and the latter are falling into senile and anile de
crepitude. If Hercules even in his cradle could strangle venomous
serpents, he would have small fear of the brood when he was in
his prime, and they were fangless with age. With the impetus of
our long advance, with the growing momentum of our enlarging
mass and accelerating speed, our progress as Secularists in the
future, so far as human foresight can extend, must be yet more
rapid and irresistible. We have plenty of work before us, and
work abounding with difficulties ; but if the past is the prophet of
the to-come, we have every encouragement and augury of success
in undertaking it. If we and our immediate successors do not
signally triumph, it will be through our lack of courage, or energy,
or wisdom, or of all three ; for the triumph of our principles is sureas soon as they are worthily championed.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
81-
In the first place, we must continue our effort to educate the’
masses of the people, kept ignorant all these centuries back by the:
mental tyranny of Ecclesiasticism. The education on which we
should insist must be free, compulsory, universal, and Secular.
Those who want their children taught some religion can arrange
for this at home, or elsewhere, out of school hours ; the teaching
for which the nation provides must be of subjects which all the
nation recognizes as useful, and these subjects are strictly secular..
We have to remove all legal and other disabilities founded on sex.. *
Although the Christians are fond of boasting that their religion ha&
elevated woman, we know that the New Testament, as well as the
Old, distinctly proclaims her inferiority and subservience to man.
With our belief that all human beings have an equal right to the
full development and the free exercise of their faculties, we are
bound to open to women as to men all spheres of activity. Women,
will succeed in those for which they are fit, they will fail in thosefor which they are not fit; it is waste of time to discuss before
hand their fitness or unfitness for this or that; it is absurd as it is
unjust to hinder them from trying at what they will.
We have to promote sanitation in every direction, the provision
of pure air, pure water, pure food, sufficient house-room for even
the poorest classes. We have to do our utmost to extend and im
prove the cultivation of Science in general, and all the useful arts
which are nurtured by Science; and especially we have to further
both in theory and practice, the doctrines of Sociology, in order
that the just relations of man to man and society may be deter
mined and established in fact, and the present anarchy and hosti
lity between the classes of the privileged and unprivileged may be'
destroyed, and merged into a free and fraternal harmony. We'
have to endeavour to convince our fellow creatures that the real object of existence should be to learn how to live well; and that-’
this can only be accomplished by developing our physical organiza
tion, cultivating our moral sense, and training our intellectual
faculties. We have to enforce the truth that all the real wants of
human nature are comprised under the heads of the physical,
moral, intellectual, social, political, domestic, and emotional re
quirements of mankind ; and that all these requisites are supplied
by Secularism without the aid of any theology.
A few special words may be addressed to our own party, to thosewho are consciously and avowedly Secularists, and profess them-
�82
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
selves anxious to extend the principles and practice of Secularism.
We are stronger than we ever were, not only in ourselves, and in
the comparative freedom with which we can advocate our doc
trines, but also in the increased and ever-increasing amount of
powerful and intelligent opinion in favour of our leading principles,
though not yet consciously or avowedly Secularistic, and in the
diminished and ever-diminishing power of the Supernaturalism
and despotism to which we are opposed. It rests with ourselves
to make the most of our advantages. In the first place, we must
combine more generally, organize more thoroughly, work together
more cordially, than we have ever yet done. We cannot exercise
our due influence, we cannot as we ought hearten ourselves and
dishearten our adversaries without union and co-operation. The
very essence of practical Secularism is social, not isolated, effort;
as our end is freedom, education, health, and happiness in com
mon, we must strive in common for this end. In many towns
there are scattered Secularists who do little or nothing for the
cause, while, if they formed societies, they could do much. Of
course it is not required that any man should surrender or sup
press his convictions on essential points for the sake of conformity
with his brethren. But all genuine Secularists have so much that
is essential in common, that they can honestly act together, and so
multiply their strength, both for attack or resistance. Our devotion
to mental, moral, social, and political freedom should surely enable
us to live together in a brotherhood and sisterhood more cordial
and intimate than can be dreamed of by those whose main object
is selfish prosperity in this life, or selfish beatitude in a life to come,
or the dual selfishness of the one and the other.
Again, even where we have Societies, they are usually much too
restricted in their scope. Lectures, discussions, and reading are
very valuable, and indeed necessary, but it should ever be remem
bered that if a man simply hears Freethought lectures, or reads
.Freethought books himself, leaving his family to gratify their
social instincts in ordinary society, his children will probably grow
up saturated with the prejudices and superstitions from which he
has been freed. We want the wives, children, and other relatives
of our members to be interested and delighted in our work. To
.this end our Societies must be not only schools of instruction, but
also resorts for innocent recreation. We need tender hearts no
less than hard heads, and must cultivate warm feeling as well as
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
83
-cool reasoning. Secularism is little or nothing worth unless it be
-carried out in practice, unless it pervade the whole private and
public life of those who profess it. There are men—we all know
such—who, because they have been delivered from the fetters of
Supernaturalism ; because they have been enabled to learn that
the Bible is, like any other book of ancient times, a mixture of
truth and error, of good and bad; because they see clearly the
injustice of certain laws which bear heavily on themselves; flatter
themselves that they are very wise and distinguished men, far
superior to the vulgar folk about them, that they are shining para
gons of Secularism; while remaining as selfish and immoral as
before they were thus partially enlightened. Such men are not
Secularists at all, they are the opprobrium of Secularism. The
genuine Secularist, ever working toward the greatest good of
. the greatest number, in the light of the clearest wisdom he can
acquire, must be a brave, kindly, sincere and just man. His
Secularism will be felt as a radiating blessing, first and most
warmly and brightly in his own home, and farther off, in propor
tion to their distance, by all his neighbours. If a man neglects and
ill-treats his wife and children, if he is idle and intemperate, if he
cheats in trade or scamps his work, if he is tyrannical to those
beneath him and obsequious to those above him, if he is jealous
and envious, given to slander and falsehood, if he seeks only or
mainly self-gratification, whether of appetite or vanity or pride, we
must distinctly disavow him as a Secularist, however cleverly he
may write, however fluently he may speak, against the doctrines
adverse to our own. Secularism must no longer be charged, with
out protest, with the vices and lack of self-respect of persons v;ho
are really Nothingarians—men who are sceptical to the tenets of
-Christianity, but who never essay to regulate their every-day con
duct in accordance with the moral teachings of practical Secular
ism. We can only achieve a real and enduring triumph, and can
•only deserve to achieve it, by approving ourselves not simply more
intelligent, but also more virtuous, than our opponents, mote
courageous, honest, humane, zealous, and loving.
There is a large class of passive as distinguished from active
Secularists ; persons so circumstanced that they dare not, or think
they dare not, avow themselves publicly, fearing to wound and
estrange friends, or bring injury upon themselves. The cases of
such persons vary so extremely and indefinitely that no peremptory
�84
SECULAR TEACHINGS
counsel can be given applicable to the majority, or even to a large
number, save such as would be founded on the lofty but impracti
cable supposition, that all men ajike must be and can be heroes,,
and, if the occasion calls, martyrs. One consideration, however, can/
safely be urged upon all such persons. They are much more num
erous than they themselves suppose ; so numerous that, if they all
took courage to declare their principles, they would find them
selves far too powerful to suffer from the social obloquy and os
tracism from which they shrink severally in their isolation. EverySecularist is certainly required to show more vigour and couragethan the vulgar bondsmen of creeds and conventionalities. Weare already reaping rich harvests from the fields sown in the tears
and blood of the heroes and martyrs who went before ; it surely
behoves us, to whom by their efforts the task has been rendered somuch easier and less dangerous, to plant and sow more abundantly,
for the reaping and gathering of those who shall come after. Thisis our just debt to our ancestry, which can only be paid to our
posterity. If our forefathers dared undaunted the prison and the
scaffold and the stake, when the ultimate triumph of the Good Old<
Cause was so remote and dubious, we must be degenerate indeed
if we cannot dare some annoyance of ignorant contumely, some
injury to our business or social prospects, when its final victory is,
so much nearer and so assured.
XVIII. SECULARISM: SUMMING UP.
In concluding an exposition of the teachings of Secularism, it may
be of service to the reader to briefly summarize the leading featuresof Secular philosophy. Unfortunately it is too evident that through
out society there exist exceedingly imperfect ideas regarding man,,
his duties and requirements. The search for truth and the acquire
ment of a practical acquaintance with the obligations of life are
too frequently confined to the few, while the many neglect to real
ize the real advantages of existence. Why is this ? What hasproduced such misconception of the object of human effort ? The/
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
85
cause perhaps is not difficult to discover. It is apparent in’the
radical evil underlying the whole of the theological creeds of
Christendom—namely, a lack of the desire to concentrate atten
tion on the present. The term “ present ” is here used as having
reference to the life we now experience, entirely apart from con
siderations of any existence “ hereafter.” Accepted in this Secular
sense, it is of course a duty to take thought for the morrow. Such
a prospective aspiration is demanded by prudence, and justified
by experience. But the mistake of the theological world is that
ns members regulate their conduct and control their actions
almost exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology,' and
their modes of thought, are too much a reflex of an imperfect an
tiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient inspiration from this
source, fly into the fancied boundaries of another world—a future
which is enveloped in obscurity, and upon which experience can
throw no light. History has been subverted by this theological
error from its proper purpose. Instead of being the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations; instead of being a
guide of the future, it is really the master of the present. The
proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard of appeal
in this ; the wisdom of the first century is regarded as the infal
lible rule of the nineteenth. The watchword of the Church is “as
you were,” rather than “ as you are.” Christian theology hesi
tates to recognize active progressive principles, but holds that faith
was stereotyped eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subse
quent actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Observing
this defect, Secularism asserts that immediate positive work is
more valuable than either retrospective or prospective faith. And
rather than worship mysteries, and venerate the unknown, a
Secularist strives to avail himself of the utility and value of the
realities which lie around hiip.
Secularism is a term selected to represent principles having
reference to the existence and necessities of mankind on earth,
neither affirming nor denying an existence “ beyond the grave.”
Secularists recognize this life as an indubitable fact; should
there be another awaiting mankind in the future, all notions of
such a state must, we think, be mere conjectures. Therefore,
we deem it more useful to concentrate our efforts upon the
known life—that which really is—seeking to realize its value,
�86
SECULAR TEACHINGS
physically, morally, and intellectually, as fully as possible,,
thereby making the best of existence, and also preparing for
the highest enjoyment of any supposed life hereafter, if future ex
perience should demonstrate its reality. In reference to certain
theological views professed by the Christian world, the statement
of the “ Founder of Secularism” is here appropriate. “ Many of
us,” he observes, “ are not able to believe in the existence of a
Supreme Being, distinct from nature ; but we do not exact from
members of Secular Societies an agreement in opinion on thistheological question. We associate for practical purposes on the
wide field of Secularism, outside the abstract question of the ex
istence of Deity. Many of us do not hold the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul; but neither do we exact agreement on
this point, from our friends. We seek the co-operation of all who
can agree to promote present human improvement by present
human means. The existence of God, the future condition of
man, are questions which five thousand years of controversy
have not settled ; we, therefore, leave them open to the solution,
of intelligence and time ; they shall not be with us barriers which
shall divide us from our brethren ; we will not embarrass human
affairs with them. Morality, that system of human duties com
mencing from man, we will keep distinct from religion, that system
of human duties assumed to commence from God ” (Mr. Holyoake’s debate with Rev. B. Grant in 1853, page 7).
The teachings of Secularism are :—(1) That, as this life is the
only one of which we have any knowledge, we should seek to pro
mote, by material means alone, the physical, moral, and intellectual
condition of society. By material means we understand that which
is calculable in its operations, being the very antithesis of what is
called spiritual agencies. This, of course, includes the proper use
of every intellectual faculty. (2) That personal excellence and
general usefulness in human affairs ought to be regarded as being
of greater importance than the consideration of theological specu
lations and the adherence to alleged supernatural teachings, and.
should be the chief objects of human solicitude and labour. (3) That
the basis of all conduct is the temporal well-being of the people, and.
the object of all action is the acquirement and practice of wisdom,
truth, temperance, fortitude, and justice. (4) That reliance upon thediscoveries of science, and sharing in the benefits arising from rheir
application to the needs of mankind, are preferable to reposing trust
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
.
,
>
87
in theological faiths and the teachings of the Bible. (5) That the
motive prompting to action should be the attainment of the highest
possible individual and general happiness on earth, not the desire
for personal enjoyment in the alleged heaven of Christianity.
(6) That, if a just God exist, and if a judgment day ever arrives,
honest inquiry,earnest conviction, integrity of character, and fidelity
to principle should secure as warm an approval and as good a re
ward for the Secularist who rejects the faith of Christendom as
could be obtained by the Christian who is able to believe in the
teachings of the New Testament. (7) That to select the good and
reject the bad in any or all religions is a right that any and every
person should be allowed honestly and conscientiously to exercise,
without incurring any disadvantages here, or any punishment in any
possible hereafter.
As to the “theory of the universe,” Secularism allows its ad
herents to form what opinion upon this matter the individual deems
in harmony with the evidence before him or her. Experience proves
that uniformity of opinions upon speculative topics cannot obtain.
All persons are left, therefore, to decide for themselves according
to the “light before them.” We impose no ancient conclusion as
the limit and boundary upon modern thought. If men and women
will work, irrespective of theological dogmas, for the good of society
in this life, they are practical Secularists. Secularism is not neces
sarily Atheism or Theism ; its principles are broad enough to admit
either Theists, Atheists, or Pantheists within its ranks.
The Secular code of morals is based upon the principle of utility;
it enjoins self-discipline, the love of truth, fidelity to conviction, ac
quirement and application of knowledge, fortitude in good conduct,
temperance, magnanimity, justice, and considerateness for the
rights, comfort, and welfare of others.
It is-frequently asked : From a Secular standpoint, (a) What is
the source of moral obligation ? (b) What is the nature of a moral
action ? (c) What are the sanctions of morality ? (d) What are
the incentives to moral conduct ? The answer is clear and decisive ;Human nature is the source of m<*ral obligation. The
more that nature is improved by experience and cultivation the
better and stronger will be the moral source, (ft) Those actions
only are moral which are beneficial to mankind, and which add to
the welfare of society, both individually and collectively, (c) The
sanctions of morality are the protection of the individual and the
�88
SitCULAR TEACHINGS
debt he owes to the community for its protective service, (d) The
incentives to moral conduct are personal excellence and the general
haippiness and well-being of the community.
Secularists are often invited to indicate what Secularism has to
-offer to mankind for their good that Christianity cannot consis
tently proffer ? To which we reply : (i) The right to reject, with
out peril or condemnation, whatever appears to us to be erroneous
in any or all of the religions of the world. Secularism defends this
right; Christianity condemns it. “ He that believeth and is
baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”
(Mark 16: 16.) (2) The full liberty to regard Christianity as
being merely the outgrowth of the human mind. Secularism
grants this. The Church denies it in contending that Christianity is
2. Divine system, and that its founder was a part of the Godhead.
To those who do not obey Christ’s Gospel he will come “ in flam
ing fire, taking vengeance on them” (2 Thess. 1:8). (3) The ad-^
vantage of .believing the Bible to be of human origin in estimating
its contents by its intrinsic value and not by its supposed “ Divine’’
authority. Orthodox Christianity does not concede this. If it
did, its “ court of appeal ” would be at once gone as an infallible
“ authority.” (4) The absence of any fear of being punished
et hereafter ” for the legitimate exercise of reason in its true sphere
of Secular Freethought. Christianity does not permit this, inas
much as it enforces uniformity of belief, demanding all mankind
.to accept Christ as their Saviour. In the case of rejecting this
demand, Christianity says : “For whosoever will deny me before
men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven”
(Matt. 10: 33). (5) The acting upon the opinion that the princi
pal attention of man should be given to “time,” and not to
“ eternity.” The world practically acts upon this principle. If
this is denied let it be shown (a) that national progress is the
result of aught else but the devotion of man’s principal attention
to the things of “ timeand (6) that such attention renders a
person less fit for any possible “ eternity.” (6) That science is of
more value to man than faith in the alleged supernatural. This is
the very opposite to the following New Testament teachings :—
“ Take no thought for your life
“ Labour not for the meat
which perisheth
“ For what is a man profited if he shall gain the
whole world and lose his own soul ?” “Man is saved by faith with
out works
“ Set your affections on things above, not on things
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
89
on the earth;” “For the wisdom of the world is foolishness with
God;” “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of
/the Church.......... and the prayer of faith shall save the sick;’
“ Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplica
tion let your requests be made known unto God;” “But seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these
things [material wants of man] shall be added unto you.”
It is necessary to correct the erroneous orthodox allegation that
the positive teachings of Secularism have been purloined from
Christianity. We claim that the present life is the only one of
which we have any knowledge ; that well-being in this world is
our highest duty; that the only means we can rely upon to secure
this object are knowledge, wise action, and experience ; that con
duct should be judged by its issues on earth, and that science is
of more practical value than belief in any supernatural being
Surely these teachings are positive enough; but where are they to
be found in the New Testament ? Again, the Secular motive for
good conduct is the happiness of the individual and the welfare of
the human race in this life, while the motive power of Chris
tianity is supposed to pertain to some future life. Moreover,
Secularism teaches positively that no apprehension should be en
tertained of punishment after death for disbelief during life.
Christianity alleges the very opposite of this in its threatenings of
eternal punishment in hell. For New Testament proof of this
the reader is referred to Matthew 13 : 42 ; 25 : 30 and 46 ; Mark
9: 44; Revelation 14: 10, 11; 21: 8. The orthodox believer
replies to this by saying, “You can reject any truth without suffer
ing the consequences of such rejection.” Just so; but mark the
difference in the two cases. If you reject a Secular truth, the con
sequences are confined to this life, and they follow in time to make
reformation possible. Not so with Christianity; in it there are
not mere consequences, but punishment, to be inflicted for “ ever
and ever,” when all opportunity for improvement has passed.
Equally desirable is it to correct the fallacy of our opponents in
reference to Secular responsibility, and what they term the “ free
dom of the will.” Secularism does recognize man’s responsibility,
but by that term it means that we should deem it our duty to con
sider the effect of our conduct upon society, and that it is incumbent
. upon us to act with a view of promoting, not to injure, the welfare
of society. Such responsibility, however, is confined to this life.
�9°
SECULAR TEACHINGS
and its extent depends upon the conditions and position of theindividual, and his relation to the general community. Of course,
where there is no power to choose, there can be no responsibility.
Hence we fail to harmonize the doctrine of predestination and
those passages in the New Testament which speak of the “ elect,”
and that man of himself can do no good thing, with the theological
notion of responsibility.
Secularism does not accept the “ free-will ” doctrine as taught
by the churches. The “ will ” is, like all things else, an effect as
well as a cause. It certainly counts for something, indeed for
much, in human actions ; but then it has itself sprung from, and.
is conditioned by, organization, environment, and other causes
which it is powerless to control. Man’s motives do not arise from
his volition ; on the contrary, they govern the will. Man is free,,
of course, in a sense—that is, he is free to act in accordance with
his desires ; but these desires act independently of volition. And
this is all the freedom that is possible, and it is all that any rational
person should demand. No man wants freedom to do that which
he has no inclination to do, or to act contrary to his desires. His.
freedom lies in his capacity to obey his impulses; but these im
pulses the will has no power to create. The will is not an
originating cause, but itself an effect, the result of a complication
of circumstances, such as external surroundings, the condition of
the brain, temperament, age, sex, and 'heredity. To say that the
will is free in the sense that Arminians hold it to be, is to state
that which is paradoxical. For, if a person has the power to call
up a desire by the will, it is certain that some prior desire induced
him to do so. What, therefore, caused that desire ? Suppose one
individual says he wills to do a thing, and he does it: he must
have had an inclination, or he would not have thus willed and
acted. Some inclination must, therefore, precede the will, and,
clearly, the will cannot be the cause of that which precedes itself
in point of time, and to which, in fact, it owes its existence.
In our Secular advocacy we are being constantly met with the
statement that there is a “ religious instinct in human nature,” and
we are asked, How does Secularism propose to satisfy this ? Simply,
by allowing every individual to worship according to his or her
own desire, providing their action does not interfere with the rights
of others. Religion, in its truest sense, is not the monopoly of the
orthodox party. The Christian churches have robbed religion of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
91
its legitimate etymological meaning and invested it with ecclesias
tical creeds and dogmas, thus limiting its proper signification and
also depriving it of its best and loftiest influence. With the
thoughtless masses religion is accepted as the teacher of fear, de
pendence and blind faith, instead of being regarded as the inspirer
of love, self-reliance and active service. The cross of Calvary is
erected as an emblem of redemption, making its devotees blind to
the lesson of history and experience, that the only redeemer of man
kind is man. Accepting religion apart altogether from theological
associations, it is quite possible to harmonize it with Secularism.
Of course, Secularism is thoroughly antagonistic to orthodox
Christianity; but, then, there are ample means, separate altogether
from this faith, of satisfying every instinct of human nature. Pro
bably, if this alleged “religious instinct” were thoroughly ex
amined, it would be found to consist principally of veneration,
fear, wonder, hope, and gratitude. These, however, are purely
natural faculties, and the mode of their manifestation depends
upon birth, education and locality. What would satisfy a Turk’s
“ religious instinct ” would not suit a devotee of the Greek Church,
and there is a marked difference between the religious gratification
of a Hindoo and that of a European. The Catholic would regard
the Quaker’s religious satisfaction as very inadequate, while the
Primitive Methodist would view that of the Unitarian with equal
disfavour. It is the misapplication of these human faculties,
through ignorance of natural laws and the power of the priesthood
that has perverted them from their legitimate functions. Secular
ists do not aim to destroy any human instinct; they wish rather
that it should be properly understood, and that in its development
it should be directed by wisdom and controlled by reason and
science.
»
It is frequently charged against Secularism that it destroys the
principle of the brotherhood of man. Such, however, is not the
case. The foundation of the brotherhood of man, from a Secular
point, is the recognition and application of the just principle that
individuals should not work merely for their own good, but also for
the well-being of general society, and that all mankind should have
an opportunity of sharing in whatever conduces to their highest
welfare. We do not accept the term “ brotherhood of man ” 'in its
societarian application, in the sense that all mankind came from
one parent, but rather as manifesting, in a general manner, that
�•92
SECULAR TEACHINGS
feeling of love that exists in the domestic circle, and which is, or
should be, mutual between brothers. If we adopt the theological
application, what can be said of the conduct of an assumed Father
of all, who could purposely arrange one race to be superior to and
above all others on the face of the earth ? who could decree that
some of his children should be born and kept as slaves to others of
his children ? of a Father who could love one child and hate
another before either of them was born ? of one who gave to mil
lions of his children such organizations that up to the present
moment they have been wholly unable to understand and to
appreciate the advantages enjoyed by a favoured few ? and, finally,
of a Father who should so order his family arrangements that the
vast majority of his children should be lost forever ?
“ Secularism,” as Mr. George Jacob Holyoake has said in his
admirable work, “ The Trial of Theism,” “ is a recognition of
causation in nature, in science, in mind, morals, and manners. In
electing its own sphere, however, it will combat without contemn
ing others. It may also omitmuch that it respects, as well as that
which it rejects—but to omit is not to ignore. The solution of the
problem of union can only be effected by narrowing the ground of
profession, and widening that of action—it requires to collect
sympathies without dictating modes of manifestation.
“ Secularism teaches the good of this Life to be a rightful object
of primary pursuit, inculcates the practical sufficiency of Natural
Morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or the Bible, and selects as
its method of procedure the promotion of human improvement by
material means.
“ Secularism holds that the Protestant right of private judgment
includes the moral innocency of that judgment, whethei’ for or
against received opinion ; provided il be conscientiously arrived
at—that the honest conclusion is without guilt—that though all
sincere opinion is not equally true, nor equally useful, it is yet
equally without sin—that it is not sameness of belief but sincerity
of belief which justifies conduct, whether regard be had to the
esteem of men or the approval of God.
“ With respect to the service of humanity, deliverance from
sorrow or injustice is before consolation—doing well is higher than
meaning well—work is worship to those who accept Theism, and
duty to those who do not.
“As security that the principles of Nature and the habit of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
93
Reason may prevail, Secularism uses itself and maintains for
others these rights of reason. The Free Search for Truth, with
out which it is impossible. The Free Utterance of the result,.""
without which the increase of Truth is limited. The Free Criti
cism of alleged Truth, without which conscience will be impotent
on practice.
“ A Secularist sees clearly upon what he relies as a Secularist.
To him the teaching of Nature is as clear as the teaching of the
Bible, and since, if God exists, Nature is certainly His work, while
it is not so clear that the Bible is—the teaching of Nature will be
preferred and followed where the feaching of the Bible appears to
conflict with it.
“ All pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in
the best sense in which this term appears to be used, The dis
tinctive peculiarity of the Secularist is, that he seeks that good
which is dictated by Nature, which is attainable by material
means, and which is of immediate service to humanity, a religious
ness to which the idea of God is not essential, nor the denial of the
idea necessary.
“ Going to a distant town to mitigate some calamity there will
illustrate the principle of action prescribed by Secularism. One
man will goon this errand from pure sympathy with the unfortu
nate ; this is goodness. Another goes because his priest bids
him ; this is obedience. Another goes because the twenty-fifth
chapter of Matthew tells him that all such persons will pass to
the right hand of the Father; this is calculation. Another goes
because he believes God commands him ; this is piety. Another
goes because he perceives that the neglect of suffering will not
answer; this is utilitarianism. But another goes on the errand of
mercy, because it is an errand of mercy, because it is an immediate
service to humanity ; and he goes with a view to attempt material
amelioration rather than spiritual consolation; this is Secularism,
which teaches that goodness is sanctity, that Nature is guidance,
that reason is authority, that service is duty, that Materialism is
help.
“ Speaking mainly on the part of Secularists, it is sufficient to
observe—Man does not live by egotisms, hopes, and comforts—
but rather by self-renunciation, by service and endurance. It is
asked, will Secularism” meet all the wants of human nature ? To
this we reply, every system meets the wants of those who believe
�94
SECULAR TEACHINGS
it, else it would never exist. We desire to know and not to hope.
We have no wants, and wish to have none, which truth will not
satisfy. We would realize this life—we would also deserve an
other—but without the selfishness which craves it—or the pre
sumption which expects it—or the discontent which demands it.”
(pp. 222-3-4.)
In this age of hollow pretensions and lack of mental honesty,
Secularism has a great work to perform in the inculcation of sin
cerity and fidelity to profession. With the old faiths, which to a
large extent it ignores, it should leave behind the old customs,
many of which are not simply absurd, but positively injurious. In
striking out a new path in the field of thought, it should open up
new principles in the domain of action. If our conduct be no bet
ter than that of our fellow-men who have not the advantages of
our light, nor the aid of our principles, it is a poor recommenda
tion of our system to mankind in general. Fidelity to principle,
or to that which takes the place of principle, and for the time acts
as its substitute, is necessary in -all conditions in life, and under
all circumstances. Not only is truthfulness essential to the well
being of society, but it really forms the basis of morality. Ear
nestness is greater than genius, and more powerful than any
amount of ambition, while sincerity is the test of true heroism.
The great men of the past, who have influenced the destinies of
the world, may be judged by this standard. We cannot help ad
miring the sincere man, even when he is in error; true fidelity to
principles is sometimes most difficult. Heavy penalties have
frequently to be paid for the practice of integrity. Still they must
be paid, and in all ages they are paid by the few, which few are
indeed the salt of the earth. Winged falsehoods, foul persecutions,
vile slanders, may attack them, but they remain firm in the con
sciousness of having done their duty, and in the end their character
is vindicated by the power of fidelity.
Fidelity to principle necessarily involves the making our opin
ions known to those with whom we come into contact. That
which a man holds to be true it is his duty to teach, at proper
times and under proper circumstances. The right to think in
cludes the right to speak. No man is infallible; therefore, honest,
conscientious conviction is deserving of the highest respect. Tol
eration is a very objectionable term, because it professes to grant
as a privilege that which should be claimed as a right. My opinions
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
95
upon theological questions are as valuable to me as are those of
■other men to them. And, if I believe that society would be made
better by accepting my speculative views, I ask no man’s permis
sion to be allowed to publish them. I may have to brave scorn
and calumny, perhaps persecution, but my right remains, and my
duty is clear. He who tolerates me arrogates to himself, or to his
opinions, a superiority which he does not possess, and which I do
not recognize. Great advance has been made in this respect dur
ing the last half century. But there is still much obloquy to be
endured by those who hold unpopular views. Bigotry is a char
acteristic of humanity which all the religions in the world have
failed to eradicate. A Secularist should not only avoid bigotry
himself, but should also point out its error at every favourable
opportunity.
The mode of advocacy adopted is also of very great importance.
While we claim for ourselves the right to think and speak freely,
we must concede the same ungrudgingly to others. We may deem
their views erroneous, but we should never forget that they prob
ably look upon ours in the same light. Injudicious advocacy has
often done more harm to a good cause than open antagonism.
Gentleness is one of the greatest of virtues, and to advocate our
views in what is conventionally, but very appropriately, termed a
gentlemanly manner is to give them the stamp of amiability. Rash
and reckless speaking is a most objectionable feature in the pro
mulgation of principles. To make extreme statements and wild
assertions is to play into an opponent’s hands. It avails nothing
to say that our antagonists do the same. Doubtless they do; and
it injures their cause as the same conduct on our part would injure
ours. Destructive work must, of course, be done; but a man need
not put himself into a passion to do it, and, especially, he should not
do it in that wild manner which, whilst being deficient of method
and tact, strikes at random, and wastes his forces. We want to
make Secularism a great power, and this is only to be done by
placing our views in an attractive light, and showing ourselves
superior to our opponents, by avoiding the errors into which they
have fallen.
[The End]
���Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union.
A Journal of Liberal Thought.
Published Weekly.
CHARLES WATTS, Editor.
. SECULAR THOUGHT does not assail the Truth found in any religion •
it aims only at destroying the influence of errors born of priestcraft, dogmatism
and perpetuated prejudice.
Terms—$2 per year. Single copies 5 cts, Office 31 Adelaide St. East, Toronto
I am greatly pleased with Secular Thought-—with its form, arrangement
and contents-above all, with its spirit. It is splendid. I don’t see how it
could be better. I read it with the greatest of pleasure.”—Robt. G. Ingersoll.
I heartily congratulate our Canadian friends upon the fact that they are
represented by Secular Thought, a paper of which they can be justly proud,
and which they need never hesitate to hand to their most delicate-minded
friends, however religious they maybe.”—Helen H. Gardener.
“ Mr. Watts publishes a solid paper ; it is the best liberal paper that now
comes to me,”—JB. F. Underwood.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifijiiifiiinii
Pamphlets by Charles Watts, 24 pages in Cover. Price
Ten Cents each.
That judicial oaths should
Secularism; Destructive and affirmation established in be abolished, and
their stead. All
Constructive. 22 pages in cover.
Contents—What i s Secularism ? Biblical
Idolatry—The Secularist’s Bible. Natural
Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The
alleged Fall of Man and his supposed re
demption through Christ. Beason and ex
perience the true guide in human ac ions.
Why supreme attention should be given to
the duties of this life. Science more trust
worthy than reliance upon any suppose 1
supernatural power. Morality is of natural
growth, having no necessary connection with
theology. The consistent carrying out of
Secular teaching in every-day life the best
preparation for any future existence.
The American Secular Union;
its Necessity, and the Justice of its Nine
Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover.
Contents.—The necessity of the Union.
The twofold nature of its advocacy. The
Catholicity of its Nine Demands. An expo
sition and defencs of thope Dem inds. The
inj nstice of Churches, etc., being exempt from
taxation. Why chaplains in Congress, in the
navy and militia and in prisonsand asylums
should not be supported by puolic money.
That the Bible should not be used in public
schools. That the official appoin+ment of
religious festivals and fasts should cease.
laws enforcing the observance of Sunday and
the Sabbath should be repealed; reasons
given why this should be done. A plea for
mental liberty; and the necessity of Secular
organization demonstrated.
“ The Glory of Unbelief.”
Contents —Wherein does the Glory of Un
beliefconsist? Unbelief wide-spread amongst
all classes. What is uDbelief ? Its true na
ture defined. Can it be dispensed with ? The
Advantages of Unbelief. What it has done
for the World.
Saints and Sinners—Which ?
Contents.—The orthodox division of man
kind into only two classes an error. Who are
the Saints ? Catholic and Protestant Saints.
Pre-ordained and Free-will Saints. The
Melancholy and Zealous Saints. The Oily
and Half-and-Half Saints. Who are the Sin
ners, and What is Sin ? The relative value
of the service rendered to the world by Saints
and Sinners.
Bible Morality: its Teachings
shown to be contradictory and defective
as an Ethical Guide.
Contents—Bible Morality. Bible Teachmgs. The Christian’s Theory of the Bible
The Bible as a Guide.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The teachings of secularism compared with orthodox Christianity
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 95 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The teachings of secularism compared with orthodox Christianity), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA825
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5bc4fb14f898b9ba921ebddca2e59406.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mDjvrTgcHWqP-dRsknMwLIGLkEM6aPzVnVcNpmBtnTytjqsY5WLBv18yXa3GJv92uVx0uJaBxgxLTydEwR-fxGk0DUgoSy0NIAnsi6%7ElUhWTyEkMwGdpZbwSdTdfjRfHlsxkeATzXfO4AJJsb6SGuFMwX7hnjV2kpSiOET9aFZ%7ENbpqWUFD02ymFEKLurymkMd5bdR3pl8EwMpw70RLXYsZCjGE-VEyedN0L7lzShuuRMib%7EhbdiNtXhMhyeTaG2cgWFKJBSg0W3Apa70CnSAsYCWbEj8fozTK4JKRHd9vs9PI4%7EYRWmVcCWFGkHG692eSSKjOBd9fq0f%7EjFxAJJng__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
564d1b26f2fe17ec4ebc97f3a624fd9c
PDF Text
Text
&A708Z
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged
THE
GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
---- BY----
CHARLES WATTS,
Editor of “ Secular Thought
Author of ‘‘ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,’’
Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” Glory of Unbelief,” li Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ‘‘ Christianity : Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,” li Agnosticism and Christian Theism:
Which is the More Reasonable? ” “Reply to
Father Lambert,” Etc., Etc.
CONTENTS:
Wherein does the Glory of Unbelief Consist ? Unbelief Wide-spread
amongst all Classes. What is Unbelief ? Its True Nature Defined.
Can it be Dispensed With ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What
It has Done for the World.
TORONTO:
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide 'tr. Eait
PRICE
TEN
CENTS.
��THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF
•
The Glory of Unbelief is a phrase the relevancy of which many
persons will at first fail to recognize. It may be thought that
but little glory can surround that which has too frequently been
associated with obloquy and persecution. Yet a little reflection
will bring to view the fact that, allied with unbelief, there have
been a fidelity of conviction, a grandeur of conduct, and a bril
liancy of action that add a splendour and a lasting honour to the
fame of Unbelievers in all ages and in every clime. These are
the reformers of the world who have aspired to the true glory
spoken of by Pliny, which consists in having done something
worth the writing, having written something worth the reading,
and having made the world better and happier through having
lived in it. The Glory of Unbelief consists in its being the em
ancipator of the human mind, the liberator of human thought,
and the precursor of all advanced civilization.
Physical slavery, from its very nature, has been a curse to hu
manity, an injustice to the poor slave, and a disgrace to the up
holders of the inhuman traffic. For centuries this crying evil was
perpetuated through a devout belief that slavery was sanctioned
by a divine providence. When the period of practical unbelief
dawned emancipation followed, men condemned serfdom and re
fused to believe in its theological justification. A similar pro
cess has been observed in reference to intellectual bondage, which
for ages proved a nightmare to the human mind, depriving soci
ety of the advantages of freedom of thought and liberty of speech.
For generations the claims of ecclesiastical supremacy and priest
ly domination enslaved the intellect of the race, but with the
advent of unbelief these chains were snapped asunder and pro
portionately mental freedom was the result.
�2
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief is the basis of all Secular philosophy. So long as
people maintain a blind belief in the teachings of the past, so
long as their minds are fettered by the decrees of Councils and
the dogmas and creeds of the Church, so long will the develop
ment of Secular philosophy be retarded. Let, however, disbelief
in ancient errors be supplanted by the belief in modern truth and
Secular progress will thereby be promoted.
The fact that Unbelief extensively exists among all classes of
society is beyond reasonable doubt. It is prominent in our poli
tics, in our poesy, in our philosophy, and in the various scientific
expositions of the present day. It dominates the press, it agi
tates the pulpit, and it permeates our national seats of learning.
As the Rev. Daniel Moore in “ The Age and the Gospels ” admits
(pp. 10-14): “The tendencies to scepticism at the present day
show themselves more or less in every direction.” And the Rev.
Dr. Herbert Vaughan, in his pamphlet on “ Popular Education
in England,” written in 1868, observes (p. 53):—
“ The most thorough, the most logical, and the most distinct school
opposed to us is that of the Secularists. It would be vain to close our
eyes to the fact that their numbers are large and rapidly increasing.”
Referring to the progress of Unbelief in the English Universi
ties, the Westminster Review for October, 1860, remarks:—
“ Few, perhaps, are aware how far the decay of belief extends be
neath those walls. . . ‘ Smouldering scepticism,’ indeed ! When they
are honeycombed with disbelief, running through every phase, from
mystical interpretation to utter atheism. Professors, tutors, fellows,
and pupils are conscious of this widespread doubt.” “ It must be a
profound evil,” continues the writer, “ that all thinking men should
reject the national religion.” . . . “ The newspaper, the review, the
tale by every fireside, is written almost exclusively by men who have
long ceased to believe. So also the school-book, the text-book, the
manuals for study of youth and manhood, the whole mental food of
the day; science, history, morals, and politics, poetry, fiction and
essay ; the very lesson of the school, the very sermon from the pulpit.”
This testimony, recorded some years since, has been more than
ever confirmed within the last two decades. Go into what soci
ety we may ; move in what circle of life we will; Unbelief, either
active or dormant, confronts us on every side. The clergy con
template this sceptical progress, while they acknowledge their
inability to “ stem the tide of modern scepticism.”
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
3
While there can be no reasonable doubt as to the rapid increase
of unbelief in all phases of modern life, differences of opinion
may obtain as to the nature and authority of this unbelief.
For instance, it may be asked, Can unbelief have a philosophy ?
According to the majority of men who have been trained in what
is termed, orthodoxy, and who profess to accept the popular
teachings of the Christian faith, the answer would be a most
emphatic negative. But the impartial observer of the develop
ment of modern thought will doubtless think otherwise, and con
sider that he has ample reasons for the conclusion at which he
has arrived. If there is a philosophy of belief, why should there
not be a philosophy of unbelief ? The one may be true and the
other false, still both may be formulated in philosophic terms.
Unbelief has been so long branded as a crime, and so persistently
looked upon as a sin against God and as an enemy to all human
society, that the world has come largely to argue that it
has no philosophic basis. Ever and anon it is being declared
from the thousands of pulpits in the land that unbelief is the
great bane of the age, and that what mankind needs is more
faith in dogmas, at which an orthodox preacher himself declared,
“ Reason stands aghast and Faith herself is half confounded.”
Unbelief is not only condemned as being a crime, but it is pro
nounced as the worst of crimes. The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, who.
is deemed by most persons as being no mean authority on ortho
dox questions, exclaims in pious fervour : “ Talk of decrees, I will
tell you of a decree, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned?
That is a decree and statute that can never change. Be as good
as you'please, be as moral as you can, be as honest as you will,
walk as uprightly as you may ; there stands the unchangeable
threatening, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned.’ ” This is
a sample of orthodox teaching in Christian England in this glori
ous nineteenth century—this age of progress, of civilization and
culture. The unbeliever is viewed as a man who voluntarily or
wilfully rejects the light of truth, who clings to error knowing
it to be evil, and who consequently deserves no mercy of any
God, and no consideration on the part of his fellow man. The
very name Unbeliever or Sceptic is looked upon as a byword or
.
�4
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
reproach; and the term Infidel, with many people, has a more
horrible meaning than that of thief or murderer. To quote
again from Mr. Spurgeon : “ Could you take murder and blas
phemy and lust and adultery and fornication, and everything that
is vile, and unite them into one vast globe of black corruption,
they would not equal the sin of unbelief. This is the monarch
sin, the quintessence of guilt, the mixture of the venom of all
crimes, the dregs of the mine of Gomorrah; it is the A 1 sin, the
masterpiece of Satan, the chief work of the Devil.” Unbelief is
a sort of intellectual bugbear by which the simple-minded are
held in the worst kind of slavery—that of intellectual bondage.
Whenever a man begins to think differently from the Church a
hue-and-cry of “ Infidelity” is raised against him, and many are
compelled, if they would preserve their positions in business and
retain the good opinion of their fellow men, to retrace their foot
steps and enter again the fold of believers, where doubt comes
not and where enquiry has no place. For let a man be guided
by the dogmas of antiquity, declare that reason is a blind guide
and logic a weapon of the Devil; let him denounce with all the
power he can command the great and illustrious men of the earth
who have doubted the various theologies of the world, and such
a man’s respectability is safe in this world, and his salvation is
regarded as being secured in the next. “ Only believe,” says the
poet of Methodism—
‘ ‘ Only belie re, your sins forgiven ;
Only believe, and yours is heaven.”
No one can believe everything, and some must consequently
be unbelievers in all that which does not fall within the range
of his or her thought. Want of faith, therefore, so far from
being criminal, is a necessary condition of the human mind. No
one can escape it, do what he may. The Christian is an unbe
liever to the Mohammedan, the Buddhist, the Parsee, and other re
ligious devotees, as they are all unbelievers to him and to each
other. The question here is not which of these systems, or whether
any of them, is true; but the point to be observed is that the
advocate of each disbelieves in the dogma of the other, showing
that unbelief is a necessity, since the various faiths are all in
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
5
some respects antagonistic. The Agnostic is, of course, an unbe
liever ; but is any Christian minister in the world less so ? As
the great Lord Shaftesbury once remarked: “ The best Christian
in the world, who, being destitute of the means of certainty, de
pends only on history and traditions for his belief in these par
ticulars, is at best but a Sceptic Christian.” The fact is, both the
Agnostic and the Christian disbelieve in what the other teaches.
Why, then, does the Christian consider himself justified in apply
ing to the Agnostic an epithet which is used in an offensive
sense, and resent the same epithet when applied to himself ?
The Christian, no doubt, will reply that his opinions are true,
and those of the Agnostic false. But that is just the point in dis
pute and has no right to be assumed; and besides, might not the
Agnostic justify the use of the word in the same way ?
Before unbelief, even in religion, can be dispensed with advan
tageously—and even then, perhaps, it could not rationally be
discarded—three qualifications must be shown to be possessed
by the believer who talks in the language of ordinary Christian
men. First, he must be infallible; secondly, he must be strictly
honest, for infallibility does not necessarily imply honesty, and
thirdly, his system must be perfect. In the absence of any one of
these, he may mislead those who listen to and follow his teaching.
And no man can possibly have a right to proclaim a system,
which he demands to have accepted under pain of penalties in
this world, and worse penalties in some world to come, unless he
is prepared with demonstrative proof that he and his system are
possessed of these three qualifications. With regard to the first
no man can profess seriously to claim infallibility but the Pope of
Rome; and his claim is not only not attempted to be made good, but
we are told that it must be accepted without any proof whatever.
Besides, half the Christians themselves not only dispute this
claim, but denounce it in language as strong as that which they
apply to unbelievers. In fact, infallibility can only exist in
connection with Omniscience, because to be certain that one could
have made no mistake it is essential that he should have a perfect
knowledge of everything that is in any and every part of the
universe. If there be any one fact or circumstance with which
�6
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
he is unacquainted, this very fact or circumstance may contain
an additional truth not present to his mind, which, if known,
would considerably modify existing views.
The Protestant, however, does not even pretend to claim infalli
bility, and, therefore, quite unconsciously, although very ra
tionally, foregoes a great part of his authority. With him the
certainty of being right is transferred to some extent from the
individual to the system, and hence, although personally he lays
no claim to being infallible, he still demands implicit faith in his
teachings. Infallibility in his case is not in his own mind, nor
in the head of the Church, but in his text-book. The Bible, he
declares, cannot err, although he can. But, even if this claim
were established, it would not be sufficient, since it is not required
as a substitute for personal infallibility, but in addition to it.
An infallible book would be of little value without an infallible
interpreter, because a million different infallible minds will deduce
a million different conclusions, nine hundred and ninety-nine thou
sand nine hundred and ninety-nine of them being erroneous—and,
perhaps, the other one also—which multiplies the chances of
error so extensively that the alleged infallibility disappears.
But to claim infallibility for the Bible is really to claim it for
the writers of the various books which make up that volume,
and the same arguments hold good against its possession by
them as by the Pope of Rome or any other human being. Even
supposing that the infallibility of the original version of the
Bible were conceded, nothing would thereby be gained, since such
an infallible original is no longer in existence. The volume that we
have is simply a translation from the Greek executed by fallible,
erring men. Thus the first qualification necessary to the disposal
of unbelief we find to be absent. The second is that such
teachers must be honest. It is only stating a well-known truism
to say that all men are not honest, particularly in theological
matters. Insincerity is the great curse of the Church, too many
of its members endeavouring to make people think they believe
creeds and doctrines in which, in reality, they have no practical
faith whatever. Unless, therefore, we could be quite certain,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, as to the conscientious honesty
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
7
of the infallible teacher, even his infallibility would prove of
no avail. In business matters men always endeavour to act
upon the principle that honesty is the most important element
in life. They will not, as a rule, trust a dollar in the hands of
another person, unless thoroughly convinced both of his honesty
and of his capability to comply with the terms of the agreement
made. Yet these same men will stake their all in what they term
hereafter—the supposed eternal welfare of their souls—on the
ipse dixit of a priest or minister, without any guarantee of his
honesty or competence to perform his brilliant promises. Truly
man is a remarkable being, and, under the influence of theology,
his ways are marvellously strange and past finding out. The
very course which he applauds in secular transactions he not
only ignores in religious proceedings, but adopts the very opposite.
And yet we are told that the two lines of conduct—secular and
religious—are harmonious. In spite of all reckless condemnation
to the contrary, unbelief is a necessity of the human mind, to
escape which is altogether impossible.
There is but one state of mind in which it may be said un
belief can have but little or no place, and that is in a condition
of total ignorance. Perfect knowledge would, of course, remove
all unbelief of truth; but even with it there would be unbelief
as regards error. But, as this condition is unattainable, it need
not be discussed. Total ignorance does not disbelieve, because
.there is, in that case, nothing present to the mind in reference
to which unbelief can be exercised. This will go a long way to
explain the fact that, in times of supreme ignorance, unbelief
was comparatively unknown. Priestcraft held its sway, mental
stagnation obtained, and men and women were blind believers
O
in, and followers of, the then prevailing errors. But the moment
progress, from the condition of ignorance, commenced, new
forms of thought became present to the mind, new opinions weref
perceived, new theories sprang up, investigation took place, and
unbelief became a necessary consequent. And this belief will be
sure to increase with increasing knowledge. In childhood the
first impressions we receive we naturally enough imagine to be
indisputably correct, whether in religion, in philosophy, or in the
�8
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
ordinary commonplace affairs of life. The first impressions asto religion and to philosophy we receive from our parents or
teachers, and hence tradition frequently deceives us. As Dryden
says:—
“ By education most have been misled,
So we believe because we so were bred ;
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the boy imposes on the man.”
In the morning of existence theories in abundance crowd in.
upon the mind, the major part of them only to be subsequently
dismissed as untenable, and we become, perforce of necessity,
unbelievers to much that is presented to the mind. Each indi
vidual will probably accept some different theory to the others
but all will be unbelievers in those notions which have been
rejected. Much that comes before us has to be rejected as
utterly untenable, and we are unbelievers, whether we will or no.
We shall, of course, not all arrive at the same views; but that
will make no difference to the fact of our unbelief, since each
will disbelieve that which does not accord with his own deduc
tions ; and hence he becomes an unbeliever in all that is opposed
to the conclusions at which he has arrived. This unbelief will
deepen with increasing knowledge, because, the more we know,,
the greater the variety of the theories that will present them
selves to the mind, and the larger,, therefore, the number of these
that will have to be rejected. It will follow, as a necessary
consequence, that the unbelief will be commensurate with the
knowledge possessed. It is quite possible that some truth may
be rejected by a man as error; but that does not affect the question,
•under discussion. The real position is that unbelief in the
abstract is a necessity of the constitution of the human mind,
and the more the mind is instructed and cultivated, the more
extensive will be the unbelief. Thus Scepticism arises from the
very nature of things, and has its foundation in the universal
mentality of the race; and instead of deploring this fact, it is
one that should be rejoiced at, because it is a safeguard against
error; it stimulates and enriches human thought, and ennobles
the intellectual character of mankind. As Tennyson writes:—
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
9
“ There is more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds. ”
Seeing that there is so much that must come before the
human mind to be at once dismissed, and that so many various
and conflicting theories will present themselves before the intel
lect of every person who thinks upon ever so limited a scale,
the greater portion of which will doubtless have to be rejected,
our duty in regard to the matter is as evident as the sun at
noonday. Truth is a gem of which all men are professedly in
search, and all are obligated to discover and take hold of as
much of it as possible; and the only way in which this can be
done is by rejecting the error,—or that which appears to the
searcher to be such—for his own intellectual powers are the only
tests which he can apply to ascertain what is truth and what is
falsehood. Hence he must reject that which appears to him to
be irrational, and thus so far he becomes an unbeliever. If it is
said that this unbelief refers only to error, the question will arise,
What is error ? For is it not clear that, as no two minds are
constituted alike, and as no two persons can possibly follow out,
in every particular and in precisely the same manner, the same
line of thought and investigation, the conclusions reached can
not be the same always in the case of different individuals ? It
is possible that all will discover some truth; but truth, like man,
is many-sided; and, hence, some things which seem phases of
truth to one man will be classed with error by another. Free»
thought teaches the great fundamental truth—namely, that man
has an absolute right to think freely, unfettered by tradition and
uncontrolled by creeds and dogmas. This is the essence of all
true thinking ; for no one can think successfully in shackles,
and truth can never be properly reached while thought is in
chains. Protestantism boasts that it not only allows the right
■of private judgment, but that such right is its cardinal principle
and watchword. Now, true private judgment means the right
to arrive at any opinion which can be legitimately reached by
the laws of thought and the canons of logic, or the term is a mis
leading misnomer. It was the violation of this principle that
�10
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
made the conduct of the Protestant reformers so thoroughly
inconsistent. They robbed private judgment of its real essence
by compelling its conclusions to harmonize with their own, and
thus limiting that freedom which is absolutely necessary toprivate judgment.
The Rev. George Armstrong once said of the Church of Eng
land, and the same statement is equally applicable to some other
Protestant sects :—“ I am allowed the right of pi'ivate judgment
on condition that I arrived at the opinions settled beforehand
for me by the Church.” And he remarks: “ If I deny the right
of private judgment, the Church calls me a Romanistif I
acknowledge it and act upon it, she brands me as a heretic.”
Such inconsistency as this is foreign to the genius of Freethought. Unless a person’s right to think at all is denied, he
must be permitted the full right to arrive at any conclusion
which may seem to him rational. Every man has a right to his
views, even though he stand alone in their advocacy. Infalli
bility alone can possess the right to suppress any opinion, be
cause only infallibility can declare for certain that an opinion is
necessarily an error; and as, of course, infallibility does not
exist, such right is not to be found. A strong presumption that
the opinion sought to be suppressed is an erroneous one will not
be sufficient; because, in the first place, strong presumption is
not a proof, and, in the second place, very strong presumptions
have existed in the past in favour of the falsity of certain
opinions, which only a small minority held, but which afterwards
turned out to be true. The Roman Catholic denies the right of
private judgment altogether, and yet, strangely enough, he
always makes an appeal to it when seeking to make converts.
If a man says, I believe in the Roman Catholic Church, and
therefore I deny that you have any such right as that of private
judgment, I ask at once, “ Why are you a Roman Catholic ?” He
will, no doubt, proceed forthwith to give his reasons, thereby
admitting that he has exercised his own private judgment in the
matter—the very thing which he refuses me the right to do.
There is, and can be, no fixed standard of belief for all men,
unless the right of private judgment be entirely given up ; nor
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
11
scarcely then, as a matter of fact, for the standard itself will
have to be accepted or rejected according to evidence.
*’he Nonconformists who were persecuted even unto death, were,
like all other believers in creeds and dogmas, unable to resist the
temptation of oppressing others, when, by a turn of the wheel of
fortune, fate gave them an opportunity of so doing. The love of
rule and of lording it tyrannically over conscience is common to
all theologies and all theologians alike—to those of eld Paganism,
mediaeval Christianity, and that of Mohammedanism. The
doctrine that a wrong belief, the holding of an erroneous creed,
will lead to the consignment of the soul to eternal fire, “ where
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” prompts men
(and seems to justify them in so doing) to exert all their powers
towards preserving their fellow men from becoming a prey to
Satan and from being irretrievably lost to God. Thus the bigot
has been always found prepared to plead, in extenuation of his
intolerance, his zeal on behalf of souls. Hence he has always
been ready to—
“ Deal damnation round the land
On each I deem thy foe.”
All persecution for unbelief is a crime and should be condemned
as such. No man, or society of men, can have the right to im
pose any restriction upon the liberty of thought or speech. Who
ever persecutes “ for conscience’ sake ” invades the dearest rights
and privileges of the human race, and really endangers and im
perils its highest and most cherished interests.
The Nonconformity of the present day appears to be ashamed
of its opinions. Instead of boldly adhering to- the true principle
Df private judgment, no matter whither it may lead, it adopts a
/policy of reservation. The modern Dissenter scarcely deems it
worth his while to combat the errors of ecclesiasticismand sacerdot
alism ; he himself is half a Churchman; and henow comes forwardas
the antagonist and opponent of what he terms the “ Unbelief of
the age.” But what is this Unbelief of which we hear so much ?
Is it not a logical carrying out and application of those principles
which gave the early reformers an excuse—a legitimate and
valid reason—for endeavouring to subvert and overthrow
�12
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Romanism and its man-destroying superstitions and prostrations
of the intellect to dogma and faith. The principle of free inquiry
once given to the world, and once admitted by mankind, it is
absurd and illogical for any new “ minister ” to attempt to forge
new intellectual shackles, or to say to the human mind, “ Thus
far shalt thou come, but no farther ! ” Whoever is opposed to
this right is an enemy to human freedom. As Milton has writ
ten :—
“ This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free ;
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise;
Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace :
What can be juster in a State than this ? ”
But to disbelieve is not only a right, it is also a duty ; for every
man is under an obligation to deny and to do his best to destroy
that which, after careful and deliberate examination, appears to
him to be false. No doubt the orthodox believers fear the legi
timate exercise of Freethought, simply because they are alarmed
that their own views will not stand the test; but this really
ought to be evidence to them that there is something unsound
somewhere in their connections. There is a fashion in these
matters, as in the cut of a coat, and the great masses of society
do not like to be out of the fashion. But fashion will seldom
stand criticism. “ There is more power,” said an old writer,
“in an ounce of custom than in a ton of argument.” Now, this
is just the state of things that requires to be changed. Moreover,
few will admit that they are guided by it, which is a tacit
admission that even they hold that it cannot be defended. They
profess to exercise their private judgments, to think and to
investigate even when they are bound hard and fast in the chain of
a despotic custom—which proves that they, too, recognize the
right to differ, which is really the right of unbelief.
There can be no progress without unbelief, for disbelief in an
old system must ever precede the introduction of a new one.
Progress always implies change and change is the outcome of
unbelief in that which is old and no longer able to serve the
world, added, of course, to what is considered to be a new truth.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
13
’Thus we find that those who oppose Scepticism are usually
adverse to change of any kind; their motto is, “The same yester
day, to-day, and forever.” Among such persons there exists a
deep-rooted prejudice against everything that is new, and this
stubborn clinging to the teachings of the past has sapped the
very vitals of progress and perpetuated errors and hypocrisy to
an unknown extent. The man who changes his views and
embraces a conviction contrary to that which he was known
previously to hold is usually stigmatised by all sorts of offensive
epithets among his fellow men, and often he is regarded as being
a very dangerous character. Now, change—assuming that it is
in the right direction—is always desirable, and such change must
of necessity arise out of unbelief. No man can trace the progress
■of human thought and opinion from the crude and unformed
ideas of the ancients up to the brilliant discoveries and marvel
lous inventions of the present day, without feeling a thrill of joy
run through his frame that his lot has been cast in these later
times. First one erroneous notion and then another has been
got rid of, until, although the old tree of error still stands, its
branches are shrivelled, its trunk is decaying, and its root is
loosening i-n the soil in which it stood so firmly rooted a few
centuries ago. And every step in the world’s advancement has
been brought about by unbelief. This fact is fully demonstrated
by Buckle in his “ History of Civilization.” This eminent writer,
after showing that until doubt began civilization was impossible,
-and that the religious tolerance we now have has been forced
from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that the act of
doubting is the originator, or at all events the necessary ante
cedent, 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 prin
ciple of Scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense
�14
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
part it has played in the progress of European civilization. . . ..
It may be said that to Scepticism we owe the 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 privileged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer
'foundation; has chastised the despotism of princes; has re
strained 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.”
Lecky, in his “ History of European Morals,” tells us that
“nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . The splendid discoveries of physical science
would have been impossible but for the scientific scepticisms of
the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of Europe
passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till Moham
medan science and classical Freethought and industrial indepen
dence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the intellectual
revival of Europe begin.” Thus the lesson of all history is that'
unbelief in the old has ever preceded the introduction of the new.
Christianity itself came based upon the disbelief in Paganism,,
and the Pagans, feeling outraged at the proposed change, called
the first Christians not only unbelievers, but even Atheists.
Martin Luther disbelieved in the mysteries and mummeries of
Boman Catholicism, and the result was what is called the Protest
ant Reformation. Copernicus and Galileo disbelieved in the Bible
cosmogony, with its theory of the heavens; and this Scepticism
gave birth to correct views upon the great science of astronomy.
Modern geologists reject the Bible story of Creation, and the
consequence is more faith in Nature’s records than in the absurdi
ties of the Christian Bible. In philosophy the same thing has
occurred over and over again, as also in the political world. Thus,
unbelief has ever been the herald of change and improvement,
while its enemy has always been that superstitious conservatism
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
15.
that eschews all advancement, frowns down every new discovery*,
taboos all change, and keeps its anchor firmly fixed in the errors
of the past. With such persons mildew is more sacred than sun
shine, and decay preferable to the opening violet shedding its
fragrance in the morning air.
Unbelief is always spoken of as though it were a mere
negation, whose only mission could be to doubt and destroy.
The consequence of this misconception is, that the Freethought
party is denounced as being composed of members whose aim
is to pull down, without having any desire to reconstruct. The
pious orthodox believer looks upon the Sceptic as a sort of
modern Goth or Vandal, dangerous to the well-being of society,,
and to be avoided by all who care for the public good. These
are the wild fanatical notions, born of the theological delusion,,
which are held in reference to unbelievers. But such views are
most erroneous, to say nothing of their injustice. Some of the
greatest benefactors of the race who ever lived have been
unbelievers, that is, they have rejected those creeds and dogmas
which are clung to so tenaciously by the Church. “ It is his
torically true,” remarks J. S. Mill, “ that a large proportion of
Infidels, in all ages, have been persons of distinguished integrity
a,nd honour. . . . Persons in greatest repute with the world
both by virtues and attainments, are well-known, at least to
their intimates, to be unbelievers. ... It can do truth no
good to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary
acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the
noblest and most valuable moral teachings has been the work,
not only of men who’ did not know, but of men who knew and.
rejected, the Christian faith” (“On Liberty ”). And Mill was
quite right, for some of the noblest men and women who have
adorned the history of their times, and given to the world a.
record of the most useful deeds, have been unbelievers. Lucretius,
Spinoza, Goethe, Humboldt, Dr. Priestley, Newton, Voltaire,
Paine, Robert Owen, Lyell, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, and Harriet
Martineau are prominent in the Pantheon of the world’s bene
factors ; and these were all unbelievers from the orthodox stand
point. In France, nearly all the scientific men are heretics
�16
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
and Germany—the most Philosophic land of modern days—is
notoriously sceptical.
Unbelief is, of course, negative on the one side ; but there is
always another aspect of it to be seen, if one will only take the
trouble to look fairly for it. Unbelief in one thing means
belief in the opposite, and it is quite possible that such opposite
may be the more worthy of the two. This is another instance
how the word unbelief is used in a sense that is most certainly
not justifiable, because it conveys an idea of reproach, and
-almost of crime; and those to whom it is applied are thereby
singled out for ignominious attack and violent denunciation. It
may probably be replied here that the word is only employed in
this sense when it refers to disbelief in things which are infallibly
true, and too sacred to be tampered with, and far too well
established to admit of the possibility of doubt in regard to them.
But the position here assumed is absurd, since things which can
be demonstrated to be true beyond the possibility of doubt
cannot be disbelieved. No sane man can disbelieve in a proposi
tion of Euclid, or even the simple statement that two and two
make four. The fact, therefore, of the very existence of unbelief
in regard to any matter proves that it has not been demonstrated
to be true. As to infallibility, that idea has already been dis
posed of. Now, to say that anything is too sacred to be tampered
with, simply means that it is sacred in the eyes of those who
accept it; for it cannot be sacred to him who disbelieves it. To
assert that I am not at liberty to disbelieve in any dogma or
principle because some one else holds it to be sacred is to say that
he is infallible, and that I must, therefore, defer to his judgment,
surrender my own right to think at all, and take my opinions
ready-made from any one who is arrogant enough to claim the
right to dictate. Moreover, this view is self-destructive, because
a half-dozen different bodies may each be claiming the same
allegiance, and, as their views will probably be conflicting and
irreconcilable, to believe the pretensions of the one would be to
-disbelieve the claims of the others. But, if a person disbelieves
he also believes ; his disbelief is the negative side of his faith‘
-and his belief is the positive side.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
17
Disbelief in an error, or in that which is held to be an error,,
by any man involves belief in the opposite of the error, which is
truth, or at all events that which is recognized as such by him
who receives it. To describe a man as an unbeliever without
having regard to what it is that he disbelieves, and consequently
what he believes as the opposite of his unbelief, is not fair to
him, and is equally unfair to those who from this description
learn to estimate his views. Unbelief and belief must run hand
in hand, and cannot be separated. The most devout believer is
equally an unbeliever with him whom the world calls “ Infidel ”
and stigmatises with reproachful terms and epithets in conse
quence of his Scepticism. They differ, of course, as to the sphere
of their faith and doubt; but the one has no more right to be
called a believer par excellence than has the other. All of us
claim to have some truth on our side, and in that truth we are
firm believers. Our faith in it is the basis of our disbelief in
error, and the mainspring of our actions in the advocacy of our
views and the efforts which we make to bring others to our own
way of thinking. We are only negationists so far as a pulling
down and a clearing of the ground may be necessary to prepare
the way for the new building that is to be erected. Just as Luther
disbelieved in Romanism and sought to destroy it, in order tomake way for Protestantism, so Secularists to-day disbelieve in
the errors of the Church, and are thereby inspired to work for the
establishment of greater and grander truths than theology ever
rocognized or the Church ever possessed. The old Church called
Luther an unbeliever, and it was right so far; but a large por
tion of society came to recognize him as a true believer. His
positive work was the outcome of his unbelief, and but for that
it could have had no existence. Christianity owes its existence
to unbelief. If Christ and St. Paul had not rejected many of the
teachings of paganism and Judaism the religious change which
it is alleged occurred two thousand years ago, would in all prob
ability never have taken place. Thus unbelief has ever been
the precursor of a newer and truer faith; it is the herald of
progress, the forerunner of improvement, and the harbinger of.
coming good.
�.18
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelievers are supposed to have no right to the term sacred,
whereas it belongs to them in a much higher sense than it does
to the Church. What is truly sacred ? The beautiful in art
the true in philosophy, the noble and pure in human conduct—
these are all sacred, because they are in harmony with the higher
instincts of man, and tend to elevate and regenerate the race.
True sacredness does not consist in supernatural power, priestly
arrogance, or assumption of authority to our fellow-man. Things
are made holy by the temper and conduct of him who uses them.
Man is his own consecrator, whether in his home, at church, or
in the temple of science. Where mind speaks to mind, either
orally or in writing, and thus impresses for good : where intellect
• diffuses its choicest blessings abroad among mankind; where
learning and thought rise into higher regions of light and truth ;
where poetry illumines and art charms; where liberty goes forth
breaking asunder the chains of the captive; where knowledge
•dwells and love manifests its power ; where virtue reigns
supreme and justice bears the sway—there, and there alone, is
true sanctification to be found, encircled in the temple of Reality
and enthroned upon the pinnacle of Humanity.
Instead of regarding the term sacred as representing these
great enobling qualities and mental activities, the popular believ
ers associate it with certain places, buildings, and theological
ceremonies. For instance, Palestine is called the Holy Land, and
is looked upon as sacred in consequence of the notion that it
was the birthplace of Christianity. It is a most significant
fact that if Palestine were sufficiently prolific to produce a
religion, it has been comparatively barren in science, philosophy,
and general education. A church is termed a sacred building,
and is thought to be made so through some bishop or other
•ecclesiastical official performing a ceremony called consecration,
in which prayers are offered and forms complied with of a
strictly religious character, and thus the building becomes trans
formed into a holy temple totally unlike what it was before.
The very stones are sacred now, and cannot be used for another
.purpose without profanation. Can anything in the world be more
absurd ? Is it not derogatory to man and an insult to human
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
19
.genius ? What possible effect upon bricks and stones and
mortar and cement can the words of a bishop or any official
have ? And yet modern professors of theology stand aghast at the
folly displayed by Pagan worshippers. It would be exceedingly
interesting to have the modus operandi of this process of making
such things sacred explained to us—to be told what is the nature
of the conversion they undergo, and in what sense they differ
after consecration from their condition before.
Worse still, the same piece of theological legerdemain is
practised in our burial grounds. These, too, must be conse
crated—that is, made sacred, or sacred bones, it is feared, could
not rest in them. In cemeteries part of the ground is generally
^consecrated, and part left in its usual state. The physical
difference—and there can be no spiritual, for it will not be main
tained that mould is capable of spiritual impressions—that has
been effected by this process is more puzzling than the Athanasian Creed. How deep down does the consecration extend? And
does it cover any clods of earth that might afterwards be
brought to the spot, but which were not there at the time the
•ceremony was performed ? Is the grass that will hereafter
grow also consecrated ? And, if so, what will be the effect of the
•eating of the said grass upon the bodies of unconsecrated cattle ?
Shall we get, as a result, consecrated beef and mutton ?
But, in all seriousness, what is consecrated ground ? And
what power has priest or bishop or pope, by the reciting of any
form of words, to accomplish anything of the kind ? One of
•our poets has well written, as a rebuke to these miserable
superstitions :—
“ What’s hallowed ground ? ’Tis what gives birth
To sacred thoughts in souls of worth.
Peace ! Independence ! Truth ! Go forth
Earth’s compass round,
And your high priesthood shall make earth
All hallowed ground.”
'This is the true consecration, the real making holy; for not by
ridiculous ceremony, but by noble thoughts, is everything hal
lowed and made sacred on earth.
�20
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief leaves the mind free to receive new truths. The
greatest opponent that truth has ever had to contend with is dog
matism. A black cloud hangs over the mind of the dogmatist,
shutting out every ray of the bright and gladdening beams of
the sun of truth, and encircling all his mental powers in the
deepest darkness. To such an one improvement is nearly
impossible, and advancement in intellectual growth is never tobe dreamed of. His motto is always, “ As you were,” and his
watchword, if he has any, is like that of which Mackay preaches,
“ Backward, ye deluded nations ; man to misery is born.” When
a man dogmatically asserts that he has found all the truth which,
is capable to be found, and that his system contains perfect
verity without any mixture of error, his views become stereo
typed, and it is quite impossible that any change can take place
in his opinions. His mind is not open to receive new light from
any source whatever, and thought with him is a useless and
vain operation and investigation the quintessence of folly. For
him to receive any new truth would be to admit that what hepossessed before was in some way defective and imperfect, and
this his creed protests against with the authority of an infallible
mandate. His position is necessarily stationary ; he stands just
where his grandsires stood ages past, and where he would wish
his descendants to remain for ages to come. Now, surely un
belief is far in advance of such a condition as this, for it leaves
its possessor, without bias and prejudice, waiting the new know
ledge that is continually to be had for the seeking. It allows his
mind full scope to grow and advance in wisdom, because he does
not for one moment believe that he has reached aperfection beyond
which it is impossible to proceed. In connection with unbelief
there i-s always a certain amount of suspension of judgment—
that is to say, there is such an absence of dogmatism that any new
discovery of science, any fresh thought in philosophy, or better
and clearer ideas in religion, are always welcomed as an addition
to the stores of knowledge already in possession. A calm repose
rests on his mental powers : there is, to use the words of Harriet
Martineau, a “ clearness of moral purpose,” which “ naturally
ensues”—a “healthy activity of the moral faculties.” The un-
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
21
believer, not being biassed by any settled views which he thinks
■came from heaven, is ever ready to learn and be taught. There
is about him a lofty liberty which he alone can enjoy. From
whatever source the truth may come he is willing—nay, desirous
—to receive it. He is ever ready, as Dr. Watts observes, to—
.
“ Seize on truth where’er ’tis found,
On heathen or on Christian ground.”
The principal argument against unbelief is based upon the
supposition that we have an infallible guide, whereas the fact is
that we neither have nor can have anything of the kind ; and,
what is more, if we had such a guide, we could not understand
it, and therefore it would be no guide to us. All that man
requires is a reasonable probability, and his nature is so con
stituted that he is not capable of more. Besides, unbelief is not
voluntary, and the power of belief is not under the control of
the will.
Belief is the result of conviction, conviction of
evidence; and no man can believe either without or against
■evidence, or disbelieve in the face of evidence sufficiently strong
to carry conviction. Opinions change, theories pass away; old
faiths decay, and new ones appear in their places.
In connection with the Christian profession at the present time
we have an illustration of such inconsistency as is not to be
found in any other of the great religions of the world. History
fails to record in association with those faiths such a marked
difference between profession and action as we discover in the
Christian Church. In Confucianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism,
there is a persistent and earnest effort to regulate personal con
duct in accordance with the alleged sayings and injunctions of
their respective founders. But it is not so with Christianity.
Where are the professing Christians to-day who even make the
attempt to adopt the advice, practice, and precepts ascribed to
Jesus of Nazareth ?' He was in every sense opposed to this
world, and, in most emphatic terms, he denounces its enjoyments,
iijs pride, its requirements, and particularly its riches. With
him, heaven was of greater importance than earth, submission a
ihigher duty than resistance, and poverty a greater virtue than
�22
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
wealth. Christ urged that practice was more valuable than pro
fession, and that the grace of God was more efficacious than the
ethics of man. Where, in the present day, do we find these
views practically endorsed even by Christians ? They are really
disbelievers to what they proclaim as being essential both for
life and for death. Consistency, where indeed is thy blush ? Before
professing Christians condemn us for our unbelief, let them show
us their genuine belief. Before they denounce us for rejecting
what we regard to be error, let them prove that they practice
that which they avow to be true. In the one case there is
honesty of purpose and sincerity of conviction; in the other
there is hypocrisy of profession and cant of fashion. Therefore
in the words of Polonius, we say to the Christian ;—
•
“ This above all, to thine own self be true ;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. ”
Wherein then consists the advantage of Unbelief ? It is the
symbol of mental freedom, the mark of intellectual dignity, the
genius of cultivated reason, the wisdom of being guided by pro
gressive thought, of replacing old fancies with new realities, of
proving all things and holding fast that which reason and
experience, not tradition and theology, decide to be true ; of
resisting to the very utmost all despotic sway over the intellect,
and of vindicating to the fullest extent the right of personal
independence. The advantage of unbelief is shown in its inspiring
mankind, not, in the words of Tyndall, “ to purchase intellectual
peace at the price of intellectual death. The world is not with
out refugees of this description, nor is it wanting in persons who
seek their shelter and try to persuade others to do the same. I
would exhort you to refuse such shelter, and to scorn such base
repose—to accept, if the choice be forced upon you. commotion
before stagnation, the leap of the torrent before the stillness of
the swamp. In the one there is, at all events, life, and therefore
hope ; in the other, none.” This, then, is the essence of unbelief
—not blind adherence to the past, but a loyal allegiance to the
ever-present. If it is asked what should a person disbelieve ? the
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
23
■answer is, everything that he cannot believe after honest investi
gation. Secularism condemns no one for not believing that
which fails to commend itself to his or her reason and judgment.
Hence, we do not believe in the necessity of priestcraft, the
wisdom of allowing the church to control the education of the
young, the necessary inferiority of women, the utility of death
bed repentance, and finality in thought, morality, or religion.
But we do believe in the right of individual opinion, unfettered
reason, moral excellence and intellectual discipline.
Unbelief asserts that every man and woman should be allowed
absolute freedom to test every religion by the light of reason,
and then either to accept one or reject all in accordance with the
dictates of his or her understanding ! By the revival of learning
at the Renaissance a great impetus and new momentum were
imparted to the human mind. The limits beyond which the
Roman Church had for centuries prohibited any advance, on
pain of the axe, the rack, the dungeon, and the stake, were now
overstepped by the aspiring, emancipated intellect. Those old
landmarks of the limits of former inquiry were now justly
despised, as the memorials of barbarian ignorance; and an appeal
was made from the dogmas of sacerdotal authority to human
nature, human science, and human thought. This latter, the
intellect, again asserted its supremacy, as it had of old time in
Greece and Rome. A bright and radiant future was before it;
it stood, as it were, upon an elevation from which it could take
a wide and enlightened survey of the complicated interests of
life. The master-spirits of the age soon proclaimed their deliver
ance from an irrational and degrading bondage, and demanded
that the nations of the European world should come out of the
darkness, the Egyptian bondage, of old Rome’s superstitions, to
emancipate themselves, to assert the dignity of their nature, and
to maintain the potency of their reason.
Mental freedom being secured, Unbelief refuses to be again
fettered; it has gone on from discovery to discovery; it has
tested the value of the cardinal doctrines of orthodox Christi
anity—tested them and found them worthless. What has now
�24
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
become of the Genesaic theory of the creation of the world ?
what of the age of the earth ? what of the origin of sin and evil ?
what of the doctrine of human depravity ? what of the belief in the
vicarious sufferings of Christ ? what of the old notion of eternal
punishment ? what of the destruction of the world by the deluge ?
what of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt ? what of the miracles
of Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha? what of the age of the Pentateuch?
what of the contention for the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures ?
whatof the testimony respecting the Jesus Christ of the four Gospels ?
It is well known what science says to all these old-world doc
trines. It simply discredits them ; treats them as figments of
the undisciplined imagination, and passes them by as unworthy
of serious notice. This has been the noble work of Unbelief.
Being unbelievers in orthodoxy we prefer fact to fiction, reality
to imagination, and good conduct to mere profession 1 In the
words of Mazzini: “We propose progressive improvement, the
transformation of the corrupted medium in which we are now
living, the overthrow of all idolatries, shams, lies and conven
tionalities. We want man to be not the poor, passive, cowardly
phantasmagoric unreality of the actual time, thinking in one
way and acting in another, bending to a power which he hates
or despises, carrying empty Popish or Thirty-nine Article formu
laries on his breast and none within. We would make man a
fragment of the living truth—a real individual, being linked to
collective humanity, the bold seeker of things to come, the gentle,
mild, loving, yet firm uncompromising apostle of all that is great,
heroic and good.” Herein lies the Glory of Unbelief.
�
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 glory of unbelief
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Happiness in hell and misery in heaven), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1088
RA1850
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
Atheism
Secularism